In his opening talk of the latest General Conference, President Nelson invited conference participants to prepare to hear “pure truth, the pure doctrine of Christ, and pure revelation.” He also said that “pure revelation for the questions in your heart will make this conference rewarding and unforgettable.”
Today’s guest post is from longtime friend of the blog, Brother Sky.
On the one hand, such exhortations and rhetoric are hardly surprising. The LDS Church views the world through a binary lens of good/evil and many of our leaders have used such language through the years. Such rhetoric merely reflects the LDS beliefs about absolute goodness and absolute wickedness. On the other hand, however, I wonder about the difference between the intended and actual effects of such language. I assume that President Nelson and other church leaders employ such language in an attempt to both inspire and strengthen the faith of those watching and listening.
My main issue with this approach is how potentially polarizing and demoralizing it is. Suppose we take President Nelson’s exhortations at face value: If we, for example, believe that the conference will provide “pure revelation” for the questions we have in our hearts, then what happens if we don’t receive such revelations? Or what happens if we leave the conference confused, still puzzled, still doubting? Does such rhetoric really help in that situation? Or can it lead to hearers of President Nelson’s words to actually doubt more substantially the words of leaders if the “pure revelation” of “pure truth” doesn’t occur? Or can it lead the hearers to doubt themselves and their own worthiness?
There have been several posts on this blog lately concerning faith, certainty and the hazards and costs of admitting one’s doubts and nuanced faith to a religious community that appears to value absolute knowledge of the truth of all the LDS Church teaches more than friendship, fellowship and charity. On the When Faith is Work thread (https://wheatandtares.org/2021/09/29/when-faith-is-work/), both MrShorty and Elisa mentioned the book The Sin of Certainty, by Peter Enns. In that book, Enns does not argue for an intellectual embracing of religious truth, nor does he champion the kind of faith that the LDS Church appears to; instead, Enns views skepticism not as a loss of faith, but as an opportunity to strengthen and deepen faith. Enns suggests that true believers can accept mysteries and paradoxes, in part because God himself wants it this way; only by being faced with and accepting such mysteries and paradoxes, suggests Enns, can we grow into a more mature discipleship.
Enns’ approach certainly seems at odds with President Nelson’s, which leads me to a series of questions:
- Can the quest for “pure truth” or “pure revelation” actually have the opposite of the intended effect?
- Does such language further divide the church by encouraging people to act as if they’ve accessed “pure truth” while others have not?
- In your own experience, has the uncompromising language of purity helped, harmed or been irrelevant to your faith journey?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Sky asks: “Can the quest for “pure truth” or “pure revelation” actually have the opposite of the intended effect? “
A sincere quest for truth is never harmful. As J. Reuben Clark famously stated: “ If we have truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed.”
However, Sky, an insincere search can be quite harmful. Someone who is really looking for justification for their own sinful behavior will not receive truth and will not receive justification. People who do so will find that truth is, in the famous words of Amos Oz, “elusive.”
Yes, I can think declaring that listeners will hear “pure truth” can be very problematic. Perhaps not as much as when Erying used to claim things like “I know that you have felt [x] as well,” which was arrogance presumption at its finest. I think Erying has stopped doing that as much. But I still find the entire FP utterly smug in their attitudes about themselves, which in way encourages me to take their words at face value.
Just for the sake of argument let’s take RMN’s words at face value. Correct me if I’m wrong but what he is essentially saying is that the talks in the Oct. 2021 General Conference represent the pure truth. Right? Again, am I misreading this? So let’s accept as a fact that last weekend’s talks were the pure truth. Does this mean that previous GC talks were also pure truth? Or did this phenomena begin in Oct. of 2021? It’s not very difficult to demonstrate that talks from past conferences have contained men’s simple opinions at worst and philosophies of GAs mingled with scriptures at best. Here’s a couple of problems:
1. past talks at past conferences have often contradicted each other. I’ll make it simple and use GBH’s talk on the word Mormon vs. RMN’s feelings about the word Mormon. Which talk was pure truth?
2. if this pure truth thing started in Oct., shouldn’t we be told how and why? Did RMN receive some new ability that previous LDS presidents apparently didn’t have to dictate and oversee pure truth?
RMN is truly another version of the boy who cried wolf. He is very dangerous with the English language because some people take him literally.
YIKES! My last line should read. “which, in a way, encourages me to NOT take their words at face value.” To be clear, I’m utterly put off by their hyperbolic declarations.
It’s like truth, simple truth (not half-truths or partial truths) is a 10. But “pure truth” is turning it up to 11.
Slightly off topic, but.
I think RMN is a product of his time. He (and probably every prophet) hopes they will be the prophet on the earth when Christ returns. So he’s talking up a big game, willing it to be so.
I can’t really blame him for this. I was told in the 90’s that my generation was the chosen generation. Imagine my surprise and frustration when I later discovered that my parent were taught the same thing in the 60’s. Imagine my further surprise to learn that Joseph Smith expected the second coming when he turned 80. Further, imagine my surprise when I learned that Paul admonished Christians to stop pro-creating as pregnant woman wouldn’t survive the turmoil preceding Christ’s return. This need to be chosen is systemic all the way back to Noah and Abraham.
I served a mission in Hong Kong. All my mission companions were convinced China would open during their missionary stint. When I would ask for proof they would tell me it said so in their patriarchal blessing which of course I was not allowed to read. I was kinda sad my patriarchal blessing was silent on this, but was jazzed at the prospect of being the first missionary in China nonetheless. Yet here we are, twenty years later.
Back to the question at hand, the pure language on it’s own is fine. The problem is that members weaponize it. Exhibit A: JCS. Anyone that doesn’t want pure doctrine must just be desperate for a green tea. The only way to justify not wanting pure doctrine is to demonize the billions of people on the planet. Otherwise, we would have to question whether the doctrine really is pure.
I used to think I was the exception to the above rule, since I’ve rejected most pure doctrine but still follow most Mormon creeds (you can take the boy out of Mormonism and all that). But alas, I like Dairy Queen, I’m not ashamed to go to 7-11 (but unpopular opinion, slurpees are gross), I like comfortable clothing (though I don’t own a pair of crocs per se), I like animal videos (though cats aren’t my jam; I prefer penguin and otter videos) and Irish nachos sound divine.
I’m not a fan of the types of statements / purity language you highlight – first because it sets up the all-or-nothing, true-or-false, black-or-white, saint-or-charlatan binary thinking that I think is very problematic for humanity / Mormons (ahem, members of the COJCOLDS). Honestly, I don’t know why they aren’t seeing how that kind of thinking is driving people away because it’s very easy to flip sides if you buy into the binary.
And second because it seems so crazy to hear someone speaking at conference to basically say “I am telling you pure doctrine straight from Jesus.” Isn’t that sorta self-congratulatory and arrogant? And suggests prophetic infallibility.
Last conference I was prepping to watch and trying to prepare mentally and emotionally not to get too upset about anything, but then our stake president sent everyone this huge email about how the people speaking were basically telling us exactly 100% what Jesus wanted them to say like some cosmic magical Jesus mind-readers. Guess who he was quoting telling us that? Oh, all the speakers. Anderson and Oaks in particular telling us how Jesus put all their thoughts into their heads. Honestly, that email set me off and ruined any desire I had to watch conference because the hubris was just too much and the idea that the people in my stake would be listening thinking that every word coming out of the mouths of the speakers was revelatory doctrine was really discouraging to me.
We see through a glass, darkly, and we should remember that, always.
As a rhetorical flourish, “pure truth” is harmless. But sometimes we make too much of language like that. An example is the Book of Mormon’s description of charity as “the pure love of Christ.” There should be no problem with that description. “Charity” is just an old, outdated translation of what we would simply call “love” today. The problem arises when amateur theologians start supposing that “the pure love of Christ” is something different from mere love. Then we’re off to the races. Love must not be enough! Instead we have to experience something higher and better called “the pure love of Christ.” It’s nonsense, and it’s harmful nonsense. We spend our time preaching that love—or truth—is not good enough as we chase down the phantoms of “pure love” or “pure truth.”
My testimony has sustained its greatest damage during two times in my life: serving as a counselor in a bishopric and in a stake calling that brought me into regular and close contact with others the presidency. To see just how little of what went on was governed by the spirit and how much was governed by ego or pure whim was a real eye opener. The bishop in particular treated the ward council as troops who were there to do his bidding, without independent thought or inspiration. Truth had nothing to do with it.
Thanks for the insightful comments, everyone.
JCS: I have to imagine that the most sincere search for truth involves wearing crocs and nimbly avoiding listening to Bon Jovi.
josh h: It’s a great point about language and the way that leaders contradict each other. Ironically, the greater the insistence on the pure truth of a current leader’s words, the more skeptical hearers are likely to become.
Chadwick: One of my concerns is how easily such binary language is weaponized, in part because I think such language is already so divisive.
Elisa: I think this issue goes hand in hand with the notion of prophetic infallibility. The rhetoric about purity and truth (and let’s be honest; also about “knowing” something is true) is part and parcel not only of the idea of prophetic infallibility, but also about the church’s claims on truth generally. I’ve never understood how and why it’s so important to LDS folks to absolutely and unequivocally establish the absolute truth of their church (therefore implying that every other church is, if not false, at least less true). There’s a psychology here, I think, about LDS folks not being willing to actually exercise faith and take that risk; if the church says that it’s absolutely true, a lot of the risk and discomfort of “merely” having faith goes away.
Loursat: Great point about “amateur theologians”. The rhetoric of purity often leads to the exact kinds of hyperbolic claims that you note.
I was a Mormon for fifty years and in that time there were many GAs that I strongly disliked their approach to the gospel (BRM, ETB, and BKP come to mind), but almost everyone of them had one talk somewhere in their public life as a Q15 that I found meaningful and spiritually nourishing.
RMN has been in the Q15 since I was in seminary and I have yet to hear him deliver a single meaningful talk that would make me think he is in touch with the God I believe in.
Instead, I can usually count on him to say at least one thing that seems certifiable untrue and genuinely mean-spirited. Admittedly I haven’t listened to him speak for several years now, but he gets quoted enough by people I know that I have some idea of what he is saying and honestly, it just seems like his ego has gotten bigger and bigger since he ascended to the Mormon throne.
Maybe that is inevitable in church with such a strict heiarchy, but he seems unusually touched by the toxicity of power.
So this idea that listening to conference would provide pure revelation seems like more of his delusions of grandeur.
I feel like I am being more mean-spirited about this than I want to be, but I am just so tired of the direction he took the church in terms of bashing others beliefs and worth, it makes me sick at heart. Sick enough that I finally gave it up.
@10ac – interesting (and I’m sorry, and I relate). I have a very visceral negative reaction to Nelson and a lot of people I know do. But someone I work with in my calling routinely refers to him as our “dear sweet prophet” and I am honestly like what? How are we perceiving him so differently? He is really not warm.
But it’s a bit of chicken-and-egg. I’m not sure if his ascension accelerated my faith transition or my transition colored my view of him. I dunno tho – I still get warm feelings when I hear Hinckley’s voice (even though I’ve learned some unsavory things about him in recent years). I really can’t even watch or listen to Nelson at all. I recently spoke to a fairly large audience of LDS folks and I was able to quote a lot of other church leaders and scriptures authentically even though my personal faith is in a different place, but you better believe there was no mention of Nelson. And therefore no pure truth – just the adulterated kind, filtered through my own experience, oh, like everyone else’s ;-).
10ac, try this one:
Blessed are the Peacemakers from October 2002,
We overcomplicate religion. Pure religion is loving God, and loving your neighbor, with a liberal definition of neighbor. And you love God by loving our neighbors. The rest is hubris. The 4th mission of the Church is help the poor. Let’s get on with it.
Throw in blessed are the peacemakers. And you have are wonderful summary.
My son told me yesterday that he will be removing his name from the records of the church because he can no longer trust the church as an institution. He, like many other young people, do not believe that the institution is willing to let the truth be known. I understand the feeling, but I must admit that I am struggling in coming home I terms with what this means for the future of our family. My spouse doesn’t know about our son’s decision yet, and that information will be devastating.
JCS, “insincere search [for truth]” is an oxymoron. People who hang out in Dairy Queens and 7-Elevens know this. As per usual you’re looking for love in all the wrong places. Repent!
JCS
Seems to me that Bon Jovi is a whole lot more like Christ than Nelson and his ilk.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/09/us/bon-jovi-new-jersey-meals-pandemic-cnnheroes/index.html
@Trish, I’m sorry. I have … complicated … feelings about the Church, but I still think it would be hard for me if one of my kids wanted to actually remove a name as opposed to just sort of fading out. Hope you are feeling OK.
Trish, it doesn’t mean anything for the future of your family if you continue to love and care for each other. And if you are worried about “eternal families,” how does that work exactly?
Trish, My sons left the church about twenty years ago. At the time, my husband and I were fully engaged in the church. We were heart broken. Fast forward to now, I couldn’t be prouder of those two and the men they have become. They are terrific husbands and parents, great employees, ethical, smart , talented, and wise. We couldn’t ask for better. We have always shown them unconditional love. I am saying this is to give hope to parents of children who have left the church. If we had pressured them into staying I don’t think they could have developed into the good men they are today. Control is spiritually deadly. Everyone needs the freedom to follow their own path.
Elisa – “I don’t know why they aren’t seeing how that kind of thinking is driving people away because it’s very easy to flip sides if you buy into the binary.”
I also don’t know why, at this point, several years into the internet era, they don’t see this. It’s such a simplistic approach that makes leaving pretty darn simple, too.
By setting up a framework for “pure truth,” we quietly invite its opposite, “impure truth,” as an option, if not an opposition. That truth can be pure or impure is quite a proposition.
President Nelson foreshadowed future temple changes as he spoke about the need to renovate the cracked foundation of the Salt Lake Temple.
The “cracked foundation” refers to “impure truth” needing renovation. For those who didn’t get it, President Nelson was more explicit: he explained that ordinance is supposed to instruct. So if a different expression of ordinance serves to better instruct, revelation will show it.
I don’t think anyone either in or out of the church would have difficulty with saying that a primary objective of the church is to create very active and loyal members – loyal to the brethren being a central tenant. With the recent change to the definition of apostasy in the handbook, loyalty to church *policies* has been added to the mix.
This is a trait common with other high demand organizations and is always a technique for creating unquestioning followers.
I’ve been out for a little over four years now and am still struggling with freeing myself from the many unhealthy ways in which the church seeks to insinuate loyalty for its own objectives in the name of the good of the members.
For those who choose to stay, I suggest that they become familiar with the techniques high demand groups employ. They will recognize the many of things that are baked into Mormonism
– and be in a better position to evaluate doctrines, practices, and policies as they relate to individual agency. (You WON’T find this info in approved sources) I think their experience in the church will be richer as they put the aspects of Mormonism that are meaningful to them in an independent context. Then they can choose to observe deliberately as opposed to being unknowingly directed down a prescribed path.
I struggle to find the right words here as there is much good to be had in the church – but being coerced, deceived, bullied, and made to feel unworthy and beholden to the church (always couched in terms of the brethren having Christ’s words) are unrighteous ways to achieve those ends.
This excellent post and comments caused me to reflect on how it is somewhat odd for a prophet to spend some of the airtime “promoting” for the conference. It’s as if RMN felt compelled to give a hyperbolic reason to actually watch or listen, and not lose interest or doze off (which even the most TBM often do—saw my 3x senior missionary grandparents snore through most of conference several times). I call this pure boredom.
I get that in many ways this is just a conference like many other corporate conferences, but it feels disingenuous to hype it up that way before anyone (including himself) has listened to the upcoming talks.
10ac and Elisa, thanks for expressing my own thoughts and feelings about Nelson so succinctly. When he became the prophet I let my temple recommend lapse for the first time ever, even though I hadn’t attended the temple in ages due to chronic pain. I just couldn’t honestly say that I believed that he was God’s anointed prophet on earth at this time. Thanks to people I personally know who’d worked with him in his profession and in the church I didn’t have a very high opinion of him to begin with. What really changed my mind was when a good friend of mine was married to one of his daughters and lived through hell because Nelson ruled (and probably still rules) his children with a rod of iron even though they’re all married. Allegiance to him comes first. After this friend decided to divorce his wife (who is Nelson’s daughter) because of the control issues Nelson made subtle but very snarky comments about the situation when talking about family in the following conference. Those of us who knew whereof Nelson was speaking were appalled and indignant on our friend’s behalf. It just galled me to think that an apostle could be so vindictive and petty while supposedly representing the Lord. Ever since that talk I haven’t been able to listen to his voice without cringing. Ditto for DHO, Bednar, Anderson and now Holland. Of course there’s his constant need to be fawned over and quoted endlessly by the other church leaders plus his mean spirited God who seems to enjoy making life difficult for us and enjoys catching us being far from perfect and then enjoys inflicting punishment on us. My concept of God is the 180 degree opposite of his. In reading and studying the New Testament in depth I feel that my idea of an understanding God and savior who both love us unconditionally and want the best for us is the right one while his concept of an angry and implacable God and Jesus are a combination of the OT Jehovah and the absolute very worst parts of strict Calvinism. Nelson seems to have forgotten that the New Testament superseded the OT. I wonder if he is really capable of love and empathy or if this is why the vengeful, angry God appeals so much to him.
Pure BS Is the pure that best describes Nelson’s words (to me).
Pure self-worship fits his demeanor.
Pure idolatrous defines the way the other GA’s kiss up to him
Anger is what arises in me when I hear his voice. And there’s nothing pure about it.
Pura Vida is the Costa Ricans’ motto – which to them means, the good life. I think they’ve found the best use of the word.