After yet another historic LDS General Conference, I’m here today with my take on Conference, high/low style.
Saturday Morning:
High – I’m shocked to report that Andersen’s talk was probably a high – not usually a fan at all. But it was a weak session overall, and I appreciated his shout-out to the Church working on LGBTQ legislation in Arizona (even though I’m well aware that it wasn’t all it was cracked up to be, was never going to pass, and that the Church gets involved in this so that it can ensure it has a religious exemption … Anderson just saying that in Conference is still nice), and his focus on being peacemakers and reaching out to people no matter their religious background: “Jesus taught us in the parable of the good Samaritan that those of different beliefs should sincerely reach out to help everyone in need, being peacemakers, pursuing good and noble causes.”
Honorable mention – I am glad that Nelson opened the conference by talking about the war and the pandemic; this seems an improvement over previous conferences that seemed ignorant of global problems. I thought Aburto did a good job trying to be inclusive, but this is not her best talk by a long shot IMO.
Low – Eyring’s talk was based on the idea that the world is getting worse and worse, and more and more wicked (a sentiment that was echoed in many talks, including Nelson’s Sunday talks). Ditto Bednar, which is not surprising. This idea bothers me. First of all, if you are a woman, the world is actually better than it ever has been. We only got the vote in the U.S. 100 years ago! The same could probably be said for other marginalized groups, but I’ll let them speak for themselves. Second, it seems overly pessimistic and self-defeating – like, the world is getting so bad, can’t wait till Jesus comes and burns it (which doesn’t give us a lot of motivation to try to improve things). Anyway, I could do a whole post on why I don’t like this attitude (which I hear a lot at Church). The rest of Eyring’s message might have been fine, but his Debbie Downer start and framing wrecked it for me. Also, I want someone to acknowledge that for many people, the Church is their biggest storm in life, not their refuge. Wishful thinking.
Dishonorable mention – I did not appreciate Nelson’s injunction that every man needs to serve a mission (I haven’t really heard that lately, I thought we were coming around to maybe missions aren’t the best thing for everyone, especially kids with mental health problems), nor did I appreciate the continued “but it’s optional for girls!” distinction as it continues to suggest that women are more suited to marry and have babies than to preach the gospel. Ditto the same sentiment in Ballard’s talk. Missionary work was a heavy theme; missionary numbers are down about 20k from pre-Covid numbers (and I have also heard more women are serving than men). I wish they would just own and acknowledge that problem instead of pretending like everything is great.
Saturday Afternoon:
High – Kearon’s talk on abuse was the best of all of Conference (Wright was a close second). And it was probably the best talk on abuse I’ve heard in General Conference ever. He gave hope and talked of healing from abuse, but without the spiritual bypassing that we see in a lot of these kinds of talks. Some favorite quotes:
“You can survive. You have, in fact, already been rescued. You have already been saved — by the One who has suffered the very torment you are suffering and endured the very agony you are enduring. Jesus has overcome the abuses of this world to give you power to not only survive, but one day, through Him, to overcome and even conquer.”
“God does not now, nor has He ever, seen you as someone to be despised. Whatever has happened to you, He is NOT ashamed of you or disappointed in you. He loves you in a way you have yet to discover.”
“Jesus specializes in the seemingly impossible. He came here to make the impossible possible, the irredeemable redeemable, to heal the unhealable, to right the unrightable and to promise the unpromisable. And He’s really good at it. In fact, He’s perfect at it.”
Honorable mentions – the new General Relief Society and Primary Presidencies are pretty awesome. They include a black woman and several career women, a widow and a cancer survivor, single women and married women, younger women and older women. Great diversity of background and experience. I also appreciated that Gong’s talk on family history was more than just temples but actually learning the stories of and connecting with ancestors, which is a refreshing approach.
Low – Hamilton’s talk, which jumped on Nelson’s “conditional love” bandwagon. He analogized God to a “computer program” that, like software, operates with conditional statements. Umm, did that characteristic of God-as-computer come by way or reason or revelation? “Even God’s love, though infinite and perfect, is also subject to conditions.” Yuck. He also told a story about his wife’s grandfather who strayed from the covenant path only to get back on it and totally turn his life around in his old age. While perhaps privacy concerns prevented Hamilton from sharing more, it seems like a lot of these stories suggest that simply not attending Church makes someone a bad person and then attending again makes them good again. It’s not like he was a wife-beater as far as one could tell.
Dishonorable mention – not a single woman prayed or spoke; Holland’s talk addressing suicide missed the mark for me. I am glad someone addressed suicide and agree it is a problem worth addressing, but just telling people “don’t commit suicide” without addressing underlying issues like mental health and–in our Church–homophobia rang a little hollow, especially since Holland heaped abuse onto our most vulnerable population (with no apology) just a few months ago. He also said that problems not resolved by Church leadership might be “our cross to bear,” which again smacked me as incredibly insensitive to all the LGBTQ folks bearing a cross that Holland himself made heavier in August. (The CDC recently came out with a report stating that nearly 1 in 4 LGBTQ teens attempted suicide in the first half of 2021.)
Saturday Evening:
High – Porter’s talk was focused on Jesus’s New Testament teachings, and I liked her analogy of salt, light, and leaven: “Even in very small amounts, each affects everything around them. The Savior invites us to use His power to be as salt, leaven and light.”
Honorable mention – A woman “conducted” the meeting (I believe that is a first) and there were (just barely) more women speakers than men, which hasn’t happened since Nelson became prophet and the First Presidency commandeered women’s session. [4/7/22 correction: someone let me know women have conducted this meeting before; I think what was new was a female voiceover announcing the conference.]
Low – Renlund repeating fallacious and harmful talking points about how our teachings on Heavenly Mother are unique (not really, the feminine divine has been around for ages, this just seems an attempt to claim ownership of Her), how we “don’t know” anything about Heavenly Mother” (if all he knows is what’s the in the essay, then he’s a pretty bad theologist because there’s a lot more out there than that …), how “speculation” is harmful (women’s theological work and experiences aren’t speculation, sir), and how it’s “arrogant” to demand revelation (I was under the impression Jesus told us to knock, seek, and ask). More here if you’re interested (written before Conference but based on talking points that pre-date Conference–Renlund has already given a nearly-identical response on Heavenly Mother, at least twice, so still relevant).
Dishonorable mention – I’m trying to keep to one generally but there are too many: Oaks making it bizarrely clear that the men are in charge of the women’s meeting; Craven demonstrating total cluelessness about what we and our kids are struggling with (trotting out modesty examples as her best examples of “temptations” and “righteousness”) and emphasizing the same toxic perfectionism she’s emphasized before; the opening song being “We Listen to a Prophet’s Voice” (not a good sign of things to come); and repeated, emphatic references to “Heavenly Father” instead of “Heavenly Parents” (which many noted was a theme during conference and a departure from recent trends towards the use of Heavenly Parents—text is not available yet but when it is I imagine there will be an analysis of the decline of the use of “Heavenly Parents” this session.)
Sunday Morning:
High – Wright gave the other best talk of the weekend – a beautiful talk about healing and reconciliation in relationships: “He is the source of healing all that is broken in our lives. As the great Mediator and Advocate with the Father, Christ sanctifies and restores broken relationships.” Her talk was totally based in scriptures and the word of Jesus instead of just quoting of general authorities as way too many other talks do. She talked about forgiveness, but also recognized that forgiveness can take time, and told beautiful stories about her cancer ordeal. “There is nothing in your life that is broken that is beyond the curative, redeeming and enabling power of Jesus Christ.”
Honorable mention – I liked Nelson’s call for us to end personal conflicts: “I plead with you to do all you can to end personal conflicts that are currently raging in your hearts and in your lives.” I know I personally have felt the need to move on from some hurt feelings and conflicts over my ward’s handling of Covid and all the Trump flags flying in the neighborhood, so this was a good reminder.
Low – Rasband’s talk on religious freedom. A wealthy, white, privileged, powerful man whining about persecution is not a good look. While there are certainly religious freedom issues in the world – like the Uyghers in China, for example – and it is entirely possible there are pockets of the world where LDS folks can’t worship the way they want to, for the most part the persecution talk is overblown and really means “stop getting after us for being sexist and homophobic.”
Dishonorable mention – I’m really tired of the “covenant path” catchphrase. I’m not totally sure what it even means – is that just shorthand for “obey every single commandment ever”? Seems like a poor way to prioritize. I don’t like that it suggests that going to Church and attending the temple is the sum total of what it means to be a disciple of Christ, and has little to do with being a kind or loving person. Come to think of it, I don’t like that it fundamentally ties people to the Church (since the Church is where we obtain covenants) instead of Jesus. Would way prefer we talk about being a disciple of Christ. Also, as some have noted, studying the Old Testament this year has shown that the Abrahamic Covenant literally did not obligate Abraham to do anything. God fulfilled both ends of the bargain! Try that on for size Nelson.
Sunday Afternoon:
High – This was not a great session. While I didn’t love most of the talk, I did like the concept of being “in awe” of Jesus from Soares. I wish there were more awe-inspiring moments in Conference but I find plenty in other places.
Honorable mention – Uchtdorf’s talk was fine, but I feel he’s gone downhill the last couple of years.
Low – Oaks was the worst talk all weekend – and that’s saying a lot, when you had a talk like Renlund’s. It may also have been Oaks worst talk ever. Also saying a lot. Kind of like a “worst of” highlight reel. Since 2017, he has been operating like a judge trying to lay a line of precedent that will make it hard to undo anything in the Proclamation on the Family. In 2017 and 2018, he gave a talk that elevated the proclamation as doctrine even though it isn’t. In this weekend’s talk, he characterized the Proclamation as “unchangeable doctrine.” In 2019, he started on his “two great commandments” train to explain that we can’t love LGBT folks too much and let us know not to worry – that our LGBTQ siblings will be super happy in the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms (a theme he repeated this weekend, and worthy of its own post, so more to come there). And now, he’s not only elevated the Family Proclamation to doctrine but claimed multiple times in his talk that Church policy comes from God. That’s right folks. Time to add the Church Handbook of Instructions to our Come Follow Me curriculum. We don’t know a darn thing about Heavenly Mother, yet God has chosen to reveal hundreds of pages of instructions to us about how to run a Church and what God thinks of vasectomies and surrogacy.
Dishonorable mention – no women spoke or prayed, and Klebingat’s talk was total D*zN@t fodder. If I summed it up, it would be “it’s ok if we have to be jerks to live the gospel – that’s just part of the path of discipleship. If you’re not offending people right and left, you’re not following Jesus.”
“Today it is almost impossible to courageously live faithfully without opposition and scorn. But faith in Christ means one need not fear the reproach of men.
We can accept and respect others without endorsing their beliefs or actions that do not align with the Lord’s will. There is no need to sacrifice truth on the altar of agreeableness and social desirability.”
A real missed opportunity, too, because Klebingat was a mission president in Kyiv and could have talked about relief efforts or something uplifting instead.
And that’s a wrap, folks.
- What were your Conference high/lows? Anything I should give another shot at listening to (for better or for worse)?
- Any topics or talks that you’d like to see a whole post on?
- Any trends you’ve noticed this Conference (or the last few)?
Wheat & Tares 
Excellent summary. No conference is complete without the standard Oaks LGBTQ hate speech. Does the man not realize that 70% of the U.S. now supports legal same-sex marriage (source: Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs poll conducted May 3-18, 2021)? DHO alienates the 84% of U.S. young adults (ibid) who favor same-sex marriage.
In other words, the very demographic the Church needs to convert/grow disagrees with Mormon LGBTQ “Doctrine”. Inserting this message during the last session negates any earlier positivity generated by Kearon’s remarks. It is beyond disappointing the Church elects to die on this hill.
I agree that Rasband’s and Oaks’s talks were really bad. Radband blamed secularism for limiting religious freedom, while history and current trends clearly show that religious freedom is most often suppressed by majority religions empowered by government. Myanmar, the Mideast and Russia are current examples of this. Only a strict and robust separation of church and state guarantees religious freedom for all.
My impression with the doubling down on the Proc is that it is actually a doubling down on Mormon polygamy. The brethren are simply unable to conceive a spiritual cosmology that doesn’t include a man god presiding over multiple wives. As more and more members reject this concept of heaven, I see more and more members willing to “settle” for a lesser kingdom and losing the incentive to keep checking the boxes.
Holland’s talk was OK. I think he has a good heart, but is also under pressure to toe the current Oaks/Nelson line. I suspect he feels conflicted and is doing his best.
Kearon was the best, no question.
As for the woman’s conference, I agree that the talks didn’t address the actual concerns out there, but as the recent Willcox affair highlighted, the brethren think the members are “asking the wrong questions”
Elisa, thanks for watching conference (so I don’t have to) and giving us the skinny. I didn’t watch conference. But I did hear of the sort of “interfaith” emphasis in Anderson’s talk. Anderson is normally someone I associate with being a hardliner, so that is a breath of fresh air. The rest of conference, as you describe, went about as I had anticipated. More covenant path chest thumping, acting like fake victims to a some religious freedom-suppressing boogeyman (and then turning around in the same breath talking about how they don’t get offended and how the real offended ones are those LGBTQ+s and their crybaby supporters), passive-aggressive and direct shaming of LGBTQ+s and allies, and masculinity and mansplaining on full display. And that is why I didn’t watch conference. Also, I didn’t want to have to get a new TV as I inevitably would have assaulted my TV upon hearing something like Oaks’s or Rasband’s talks.
For me as an abuse survivor, Kearon’s talk on abuse was, yes, the best talk on abuse I have heard in conference or from a male church leader, but still fell short. During the abuse, someone telling me that in fact, I had already been rescued, would have been horrendous. It was enough to be triggering, but not enough to be comforting. Talk about how Jesus has already save you is not what a child being violently raped by her father needs to hear.
I need to think more on this, so I will try to come back to it I am still trying to sort out what all triggered me as a woman who couldn’t pray to any kind of father figure and got told I am evil for praying to my mother.
@anna, thanks for your insight. I would love to hear from more abuse victims about Kearon’s talk.
Some I’ve heard from were glad that he stayed over and over that this is not their fault, they aren’t to blame, and that there is NEVER an excuse for abuse in any culture or with any group of people. But I totally get how the bits about being rescued could ring hollow.
We are great at spiritual bypassing … Kearon did better than most at sitting in the discomfort instead, but I agree that saying “Jesus fixed this” is a form of bypassing.
Interesting analysis. I consider myself an advocate for LGBTQ members. In fact, I spent all Saturday at a same-sex marriage of one of our members. That doesn’t make me any kind of authority–it’s just my experience. And I took President Oaks’ talk much differently. He declared doctrine, but also expounded on the Lord’s eternal grace and mercy for ALL of His children. I’m not sure what certain people expect of a prophet–to declare something that isn’t true just to appease the most recent polling? I also believe that many people are reacting to a few sentences of that talk without giving the entire talk its due. As an aside, my experience–though admittedly limited–is that our members do a remarkable job of showing love to all–even in the context of true doctrine. I am ill-equipped to speak to the fundamental issues here, but I do think President Oaks deserves some more grace than he receives. Each of his words should be scrutinized rather than picking those that upset us so much and throwing mud at a man that I imagine agonizes over the welfare of those he serves.
I find it very strange that Oaks pushed a theme that I’ve seen him push before in GC: that the other kingdoms are pretty neat too…that we should realize that Father loves us because even if we don’t make it to the Celestial Kingdom we are going to discover that the Telestial and Terrestial Kingdoms are more glorious than anything we’ve ever experienced. I find this theme very strange for two reasons:
1. While he’s trying to give us hope and emphasize that God loves all of his children (i.e., even the ones who don’t make it to the top), he seems to be conceding that the majority of earth’s inhabitants (you know, like 99.9%) are not on the covenant path but are still going to attain a degree of glory anyway. You could argue that this line of reasoning might demotivate some of us to try so hard. I doubt that was his intention but that could be the unintended effect.
2. He did not mention a key point of LDS doctrine related to the theme above, which is that the Celestial Kingdom is reserved for those who are married/sealed in an LDS temple. In other words, the 99.9% who are not on the covenant path are NOT going to be together as families in the next life. You know, SAD HEAVEN. Now I understand the escape valve on this, which is that people may accept the Gospel in the next life if they did not get the chance in this life. But it still sounds pretty exclusive to me. Not exactly a hopeful message.
Let’s say you and your spouse are TBMs trying to go all the way (you know, the top 1/3 of the Celestial Kingdom). And let’s say they love their kids dearly and want to be together with them forever. But these kids, who were baptized, left the Church as adults. What happens? I’m pretty sure the doctrine supports the idea that they go to the Telestial K and the parents (if faithful TBMs) go to the Celestial K. NOT TOGETHER. Funny, Oaks didn’t mention that.
So I have a simple question for all of you: would you rather go to the Celestial Kingdom without your kids, or would you rather go to the Telestial with your kids? I think it’s a very valid question that many LDS couples are facing right now. And please don’t talk to me about “eternal progression” because that was shot down by Bruce R McConkey. What am I missing?
Last point: Oaks has stated previously in GC that women should not worry about sharing a celestial home with another woman should their husband take on a second sealed wife, like Oaks and RMN. And now he seems to be saying “don’t worry about the Celestial Kingdom because hey the other two are cool too”.
@sw, I do plan to do a full post on Oaks’ talk. I will do my best to give credit where credit is due.
The worst part of Rasband’s talk for me was how he gave credit for everything good in society to religions. I hate this notion of exclusivity where the church lays claim to the Gospel (as in the Gospel of Jesus Christ only means the LDS church), where apparently good things like charitable service and improving the lives of others is only done through churches. By doing this he insinuated that without weaving religion into all aspects of public life and discourse, society will devolve into anarchy.
Second worst part – any discussion around religious freedom also needs to incorporate freedom from religion. Unfortunately this tack is always one dimensional when church leaders talk about it (it’s about OUR rights as religious people) which eliminates the notion of respecting the rights of people who choose not to participate in the church. We’ll insist upon our rights and duty to minister to them even if they don’t want to be contacted, which violates their religious freedoms.
@Elisa, at your request to hear from more abuse victims; I was impressed to hear a blunt talk about abuse and would also rate it highly. My severe disappointment was that there was not equal time (or more time) spent talking about abusers.
We need the same bluntness about all sorts of abuse, sexual being grievous but not the only form. We need to be blunt about all sorts of sexual abuse, not just taking advantage of children. Speak out clearly about what is meant. It is a particularly cruel abuse of power differential.
We need the same bluntness about verbal abuse, from belittling, shunning, and bullying to name-calling.
Etc. etc. Not every error we make is abuse, but power differential can move those errors to abuse if we don’t carefully think about our actions, their effects, and the need for continual repentance and seeking forgiveness from the victims. NOTE: this does NOT in any way excuse victim blaming!!
@anon agree. Ecclesiastical abuse should also have been addressed.
“So I have a simple question for all of you: would you rather go to the Celestial Kingdom without your kids, or would you rather go to the Telestial with your kids? ”
My wife would rather go to the TK without her parents and sibling than the CK with them. She wants nothing to do with them in the eternities.
The way I see it, the only mortal to eternal covenant relationship that can have any meaning is one that was done voluntarily and equally, i.e. the marriage sealing covenant. I see parent/child sealings as purely symbolic of our divine potential.
Ethan,
When most American jurists acknowledge and reverence the First Amendment and they (and Oaks)have been quite clear over the years that “freedom of religion” constitutionally protects human conscience and belief (including atheism) what exactly would freedom FROM religion look like for you?
@Old Man that’s a great question. I think your comment describes how freedom of religion should work. However, in my experience Mormons don’t recognize both sides of it. Freedom of religion to many means that they have the right to push their religion to anyone anywhere. I’ve had missionaries explain to me that their MP said freedom of religion trumps No Soliciting signs at a person’s door or at the entrance to an apartment complex. I’ve had a stake presidency member rudely chastise me in a priesthood meeting for suggesting that we respect the wishes of members who had explicitly asked to not be contacted. He said that once stewardship is assigned to someone by a priesthood leader, the individual member has no say in how that stewardship is exercised. He said there’s no such thing as a Do Not Contact once they’ve been baptized.
In summary, freedom from religion (to me) is being able to decide for yourself that you don’t want to participate or be contacted, and to have that decision honored by others. Unfortunately in this church’s it’s a one way street where members get too wrapped up in their own viewpoint to pause and consider what the other person (the inactive member, the part member family, the current project person(s) for the ward council) might actually want.
@Elisa no insightful comments from me other than to say thank you for the recaps. Now I can choose which talks to read after the fact. I typically read the deseret news real-time summaries and even reading those I picked up on the near continual reminders that the First Presidency is in charge of women’s meetings.
One inconsequential but positive / fun note I thought was Holland’s self deprecation of boring conference talks.
Freedom of religion must include protections for non-religious people also. To me, what this means is that even though I grew up where there were no Mormons, I didn’t have to pretend to be the predominant religion that was in that area of the country to have rights. Not forcing students to pray in school is another way to protect the non-religious. In one of my elementary schools (in Texas), there was class prayer, not following a “Mormon” model, and it made me REALLY uncomfortable. Another religious freedom protection would be not outright prohibiting abortion with no exceptions allowed when Jews are religiously obligated to put the life of the mother ahead of the unborn child.
Oaks’ statements that the “lesser kingdoms” are wonderful is great, but not exactly a selling point for the Church. Be honest, friends, would any of us rather be in a Celestial Kingdom full of *exactly obedient* uptight, judgmental Mormons who were careful not to love their LGBTQ kids more than they loved the Church, or would we prefer to be in the Terrestrial Kingdom with amazing people like Mr. Rogers? On my mission, some elders did a very funny skit in which they were teaching an investigator what he had to do to be baptized that went something like this:
ELDERS: All you have to do to get that Celestial Kingdom salvation we’ve been talking about is to be baptized, so let’s get you in that jumpsuit.
INVESTIGATOR: Well, I’m not so sure about this Word of Wisdom thing. I like to take a drink once in a while, and I don’t think I can give up my smokes.
ELDERS: That’s totally OK! We have a slightly different model that ALSO comes with baptism. It’s our Terrestrial Kingdom package. It’s just the same, but you don’t have to give up those things. What do you say? Can we get you in a font today?
INVESTIGATOR: Wait a minute, though. I enjoy sleeping with my girlfriend. Can I still do that?
ELDERS: We can work with that. We have another package that might be a better fit, and that one ALSO comes with baptism. It’s our Telestial Kingdom package. What do you say?
It was a funny skit, but you can see that given all that, what exactly is the point of baptism and the Church in these scenarios? Why not just wear comfortable underwear and hang out at honky-tonks eating hot dogs and Dairy Queen with Russian princesses wearing crocs?
Honestly, I have no desire to go to the CK, if it exists. TK is where it’s at.
I think this notion that the TK would be more fun is part of the reason JFS thought up the TK smoothie idea; there has to be some difference that makes it less desirable to be in the TK.
Everyone has focused on messages, but for me the low was the choir music. I appreciate all the choir members individually (well, I don’t know any of them, but I am sure I would like most of them if I did), but the choir product didn’t work for me. But that’s probably just me.
I also appreciate the speakers, even though I don’t know any of them, either.
For me, Conference weekend was Great!!! That’s because I didn’t watch or listen … I went hiking instead!
I didn’t listen to Elder Oak’s talk (couldn’t bear to), but I’m honestly confused now about what he’s been potentially teaching about the different kingdoms of glory. I thought that temple marriage was considered the qualification for the highest of the three categories *within* the Celestial Kingdom, and that’s the category of eternal increase – although I don’t personally subscribe to polygamy in the eternities or eternal pregnancy. (I’ll sit over here with Eugene England in the “nope” category.)
Personally, I think it’s wise to show more humility than certainty about the afterlife and I’m not convinced we have all the answers, but it was my understanding that scriptures, including the D&C, say that the qualifications for the Celestial Kingdom are baptism, repentance, and being a disciple of the Savior. That’s it. Since when have we, or our leaders, decided that being married in the temple is a qualification to get to any part of the Celestial Kingdom? So we’re now preaching that if you’re gay, regardless of your relationship with the Savior, you’re not eligible? That’s horrifying.
Ethan,
Thanks for your response. You had me worried, what you are proposing is a change in church policy, not a legal or constitutional change. FYI, your experience does not coincide with my own, thank heavens. My current Stake President called a bunch of us up to help with the remodel of an evangelical chapel. Most fun I’ve had hanging drywall and painting in years. Some sisters, including my wife, crashed this EQ assignment. We need more of such things in this church.
Margot, there was some teaching back in the 80s/90s that the CK is divided into three separate parts, and those in the top part are temple married (one presumes polygamists given time frame), and the singles are in the lowest part of the CK and function as servants to the top people for the eternities.
Since the Terrestrial Kingdom is gardening next to Mr. Rogers, I really don’t see why servant to Mormon polygamists is supposed to be the highly sought reward such preachers intended.
I didn’t listen to conference, so I appreciate this post and discussion. With that disclaimer, I have a couple of thoughts on the discussion points here.
@OldMan – on the question of what freedom from religion looks like. I agree with the comments above and I would take it a bit further. I would prohibit laws based mostly/entirely on religious beliefs. There is no scientific/secular/universally accepted standard of when a spirit enters a fetus. The pro-life lobby is based on religion. I want religion to back out of all laws affecting women’s bodily autonomy and let the pregnant woman and her doctor evaluate the options. Elder Anderson’s opinions shouldn’t have any say in whether an atheist woman can have an abortion.
In addition, it’s religious values (mostly made-up ones that Jesus never said) that complicate the lives of LGBT people. Secular values about sex, bodies and gender presentation are a lot more merciful than religious values nowadays. Get religion out of bodily autonomy.
Regarding Kearon’s talk – I agree with anon above that we need more talk about the abuser and what abuse actually is. My father believed that he had high standards and he only hit kids or threatened to beat us to death when he was moved upon by the Holy Ghost to reprove with sharpness. Another topic that needs to be addressed is the enablers. The enabler who smoothed everything over is a liar and must also repent. This gets tricky when the enabler meant well, or is also an abuse victim. My mother was subjected to my father’s emotional and verbal abuse. She excused, enabled, smoothed over, did whatever it took to ‘keep her family together’ and make sure we had a father in the home. She was wrong to do that. The Church can be an enabler – the pressure on my mom to smooth things over partly came from Church teachings. There is SO MUCH MORE to addressing the abuse than just talking to the victim about healing. It’s an entire relationship dynamic, not just an event. I’m glad there was progress, but there’s a ways to go.
Eyring’s and Bednar’s talks about the world getting worse would have been interesting if they’d talked about how fascism, authoritarianism and racial bigotry are the reason the world is getting worse. Instead, though I didn’t hear the talks, I’d guess that they were more concerned about sexual values changing.
Abuse survivor here’. Out of my marriage for a little over a year.
I appreciated that Kearon’s talk did not admonish victims to figure out their responsibility and repent, as have previous points.
I agree about the triggering nature of “already rescued” for those still experiencing abuse. Had I heard these words two years ago, it may have demotivated my exit from the abusive relationship. (which was hard enough as it was). Someone who had already healed might find the words comforting.
Still, I appreciated the talk, and when combined with his talk on refugees a few years back, I kind of wish he could jump ahead of the pack to be the next president of the church.
However, I don’t expect the talk to change anything on the ground. What I mean by that is that I don’t expect any leaders to hear this talk and actually be more helpful to abused congregants who come to them for help. Over the years, when I sought help I was told that all marriages are hard. I was asked “So what?” when I described the verbal abuse and gaslighting. I was doubted because “He always speaks so highly of you.” Finally, I was told that he believed that I was abused, but he couldn’t “take sides.” (I had not asked him to “take sides.” He called me in expressly to let me know this was his position.) These were all responses from different LDS leaders, not the same guy. That last one made me finally realize that church was not a safe place for me right now. The only reason I was able to reach that personal insight was because I was out of the abusive marriage and beginning to recover. If I’d still been being actively abused, I’m sure I would have blamed myself.
*previous talks on abuse, not previous points
D&C 131 says there are three heavens of degrees within “the celestial glory” and a man has to be sealed to attain the highest. I remember learning that single people are helper angels in primary (which seems kind of bonkers for a primary lesson?), but I don’t remember the scriptural basis for it.
Also, based on pretty much nothing except that I’m pretty sure the purpose of the Family Proclamation was to give the church’s lawyers a textual basis to argue that gay marriage violates our beliefs and that Oaks’s legal/judicial background makes him the most likely person to have pointed out that the church needed one, I believe that President Oaks wrote the Family Proclamation. Or at least was heavily involved in drafting it. Like, deep in my soul I believe this. It might be heretical. But with that lens, all of his talks on it seem to be about shoring up his legacy. Elisa’s comparison to a judge setting precedent seems very apt to me. I hate it. The proclamation has never sat well with me, and I was 11 when they put it out. It has never ever felt true to me, and I zone out any time a lesson or talk is based on it. I am sorry it is so hurtful to so many.
@sw, sorry to cherry-pick a single statement from President Oaks’ talk, but I have some sincere questions about it.
President Oaks: “[T]he Lord has required His restored Church to oppose social and legal pressures to retreat from His doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman …”
I’m honestly not sure what he’s talking about here, but he seems to be referring to the Church’s campaigns against the legalization of same-sex marriage. If so, then here are my questions:
1. How is the legalization of SSM tantamount to “legal pressures to retreat from His doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman”?
2. How does denying gays the freedom to marry square with Oaks’ statement earlier in the talk: “We seek to help all of His children—not just our own members—enjoy the precious freedom to choose.”?
3. If the Lord is requiring this opposition from His Church, why does He not require it from the Church’s members? (According to Elder Christofferson, we can support SSM and remain in good standing.)
4. President Benson reminded us that the BoM authors “saw our day and chose those things which would be of greatest worth to us”. The BoM contains nary a word about SSM, but it does denounce infant baptism in very strong terms. On what basis does the Church infer a requirement to oppose the legalization of SSM, but not of infant baptism?
I don’t comment very much, but I learn a lot from reading posts and comments. I am amazed that Church leaders are courageous and continue to preach about the family and what leads to true happiness and yes Christ himself. It would be wonderful if we could move on, and learn other important things, but judging from the comments here, we still don’t understand the basics of the family or what it means to follow Christ.
I appreciated Elder Christofferson’s talk. He helped the church step away from teaching a prosperity gospel. — “We ought not to think of God’s plan as a cosmic vending machine where we (i) select a desired blessing, (ii) insert the required sum of good works, and (iii) the order is promptly delivered.” – I have literally been taught the opposite thing at church (keep the commandments and you’ll receive blessings) including many lessons this year. I also liked including specific examples, such as paying tithing does not come with a promise of financial blessings.
I liked this quote “In the end, it is the blessing of a close and abiding relationship with the Father and the Son that we seek.” Great message. Overall, I give the talk an A, and hope that it gets revisited.
Big disappointment: Klebingat was a MP in Ukraine and didn’t express something about the country and refugees? Major league opportunity lost.
Big disappointment: Uchtdorf seems to be muzzled. That is deeply troubling and frustrating. Please bring back the old Uchtdorf.
Big disappointment: Sharon Eubanks needs to talk at every GC. She should be made special advisor to the President of the Church.
Great idea: Several people have suggested that the leadership report homeless shelters and mental health facilities constructed, instead of proposed new temples. Shelters sounds good, but the Church would screw up mental health facilities.
On Monday a co-worked announced he was pushing back on returning to the (Salt Lake) office for religious reasons and that (his quote) “the nurture and care of our children is a covenant responsibility….”
I’m sure HR in New York (for our global company) is wondering what the hell he is talking about.
post-covid he likes remote work
Thanks everyone for some great comments.
Re: Oaks, as mentioned, I think his talk warrants a fuller treatment. I too am intrigued by his strategy of “don’t worry the TK is a great place.” We seem to be witnessing a shift from homosexuality as a perversion that will send you to hell –> homosexuality can be cured by conversion therapy and marrying someone of the opposite sex –> homosexuality is a trial be endured in this life and you can remain single and celibate and be cured after death –> don’t worry about queer folks not fitting into the plan of salvation cause there actually IS a place for them! And while I agree with commenters that I would way rather be in the TK with a nice crowd than the CK with Nelson and Oaks and Bednar, certainly the message we got growing up is that it’s CK or bust.
Oaks seems to be trying very hard to make theological sense of things but it is getting pretty absurd. I’m planning to take a look at Oaks’ talks on gay marriage and homosexuality over time to trace the development before landing where we are today, but that’s going to take me a while.
I agree that it is absurd that we apparently know where gay people are going in the afterlife to a great level of granularity, yet we do not know (a) about eternal polygamy (according to Oaks himself) and (b) Heavenly Mother? Hmm, it is sounding more like they will give us answers about the afterlife that suit their purposes but not answers that don’t …
Re: freedom from religion, I’d agree that it should include religious groups not imposing their rules on the general population (i.e., gay marriage and abortion). The infant baptism comment from @Robert had me laughing!
@Mark I, your view is aligned with Oaks who feels that people just don’t understand Church doctrine on the family and that if we did, we’d fall into line. Unfortunately, it seems most of us understand the doctrine quite well – but for many of us our life experiences and the fruits we’ve seen from that doctrine have shown us that it’s not true. Literally no amount of Conference talks on the subject are going to change someone’s mind on that.
@aporetic1, I should give Christofferson another chance. He nearly made my honorable mentions list because I agree that teaching against the prosperity gospel is welcome. I still had a mixed reaction to it because of how he presented some of his message and other things he said. If he’d been in another session (like Saturday Morning) I think he’d have been the winner. Certainly he was better than Anderson, but Saturday Morning was a weak bench and Christofferson’s session was stronger.
@Roger Hansen, yep.
@Chet, facepalm. Mormons can be so weird.
Thanks, Elisa, for your excellent summary. RMN continues to underwhelm me and also trouble me. Seriously, do we really need 17 more temples right now when those funds could be used to address human suffering that’s so prevalent throughout the world? Yes, the church has sent money and goods to address some short term needs in the world, but that’s a pittance compared to what they could do to permanently improve lives and communities.
Renewing pressure on the young people to serve missions seemed short-sighted and self-serving to me for two reasons: (1) the current program is broken and ineffective. Here’s one example: last summer I found a hand-written flyer taped to my front door which said, “Free Dog Walking & Weed Pulling/Yard Work Service from the Sister Missionaries. Contact us by Text or Phone Call at XXX-XXX-XXXX ” Not only does this seem unsafe, but it also suggests that individual companionships are doing anything to keep busy. (2) Church leaders refuse to address the issues many of our young people have about the church, but they still want them to serve a mission at their own expense. If one of my kids expressed interest in serving a mission now, I’d discourage them from doing so and encourage them to start college or some other post high school education.
Elder Holland’s talk was OK until the end when he addressed suicide among our young people. Tears welled up in me when he layered more pressure on our young people (e.g., if you take your own life, you’ll carry the pain you felt in this life with you into the next), but he didn’t acknowledge that some of their pain has been imposed by uninformed church leaders who insist they’re prophets, but they can’t even exercise basic kindness or acknowledge their own terrible mistakes. For me, the church as an institution has become too arrogant, unkind, stubborn, unempathetic, rich, outdated, untruthful. It an investment company that’s hiding behind the tax-exempt structure of a church, while exploiting members.
Thank you Elisa for listening so that I could instead take my kids on a conference-free spring break trip. It sounds like I literally missed nothing.
The missionary shaming is just dumb. No kid that isn’t interested in serving a mission will be swayed by anything these gentlemen had to offer in their speeches (because they gave no good reasons to serve a mission) but I’m sure that some of their parents will use this latest focus to attempt to guilt them into submission. On second thought, that seems to model the Church’s MO so perhaps that’s as intended.
I’m now fully aware that I will have to prepare myself for Oaks talk, only because I need to be aware of the state of affairs. Good times in my future.
My sincere apologies for anyone who was hurt by the special women’s session. The rumors held true unfortunately. I think after the Sept 6 event of 1993 people who wanted a connection to the feminine divine sort of retreated. This go-round feels different, and I sincerely hope those searching for Her realize they can continue to do so on their own and they don’t need the Church’s permission or mediation to do so.
ji, you are so right. The choir has reached a new low. Low energy. Low brow. Low expectations.
@ji and vajra, I mostly just cannot STAND it when they do we thank thee o god for a prophet / we listen to a prophet’s voice during conference. That’s so yuck.
Maybe Oaks is a secret fan of Billy Joel, after all: now it’s okay to laugh with the sinners (in TK) and cry with the saints (in CK)?
Missed opportunity: Holland discussed treating the symptoms of suicide but not the causes. But he and Oaks can’t really unemotionally discuss the causes of suicide among Mormon youth.
Questionable Emphasis: proselytizing missions were encouraged in several talks. But missions need to be restructured. More service, less of a high-pressure sell. How about more Christian lessons? If people aren’t interested in our Church, encourage them to attend their church. Unsure teens shouldn’t be harangued into going on a proselytizing mission. Put service missions on an equal footing with proselytizing missions.
Observation: RMN and Oaks are convinced that progressive members can (should?) be culled from the herd. That the Church needs to continue to align itself with conservative Christians.
Complete outsider here. Do you guys feel like Kremlin-watchers? It sounds like people take all the talk about Mormon heavens with a grain of salt.
Roger:
Bit of a thread jack but I agree about missions. My nephew was among the first to serve a service mission based in his home area of Houston. They had to scramble so hard to keep him busy, eventually ended up with him in the Houston temple laundry room (a daily commute of over an hour each way for my SIL as my nephew doesn’t have a driver’s license). A few months before his release they finally partnered him with a Catholic charities group but then COVID hit so he ended his mission early and never really got to participate. I hope the Church was able to figure that out.
In my area, a couple recently returned from serving as mission presidents overseas. They are now serving a mission in charge of the service missionaries locally. The sister spoke in our ward about how service missions are for anyone and everyone and it was an inclusive, lovely speech. Then the brother got up and talked about how wonderful services missions are because without them all these kids with “disabilities” couldn’t serve. He managed to not only undo all the goodwill his wife created, but take the conversation into a goodwill deficit. It was like he didn’t even listen to her talk. It was a shame.
@zla’od, great observation. Yes, there is a lot of that.
I did try hard this time around to take what people said at face value. That doesn’t mean I *believe* them, but I am trying to neither read sinister implications and motives nor signs of progress and change into what’s said. Neither of those is mentally healthy.
This blog isn’t an ordinary crowd though. A lot of mainstream Mormons believe in Mormon heaven.
The mission bit is pretty pathetic. Missions have only ever attracted 1/4 to 1/3 of those eligible. And, many who go need to come back early. Even among the active, some are just not suited for missions (particularly those who are introverted). Yet, overall, missionaries are attracting fewer and fewer converts and driving many missionaries out fo the Church. The net result of the renewed emphasis is even more guilt tripping. Sigh . . .
“So I have a simple question for all of you: would you rather go to the Celestial Kingdom without your kids, or would you rather go to the Telestial with your kids?” Josh h, Brigham Young actually addressed this question with a curious answer. It makes you wonder if the current presiding leaders are tightening up the requirements for exaltation:
“Let the father and mother, who are members of this Church and Kingdom, take a righteous course, and strive with all their might never to do a wrong, but to do good all their lives; if they have one child or one hundred children, if they conduct themselves towards them as they should, binding them to the Lord by their faith and prayers, I care not where those children go, they are bound up to their parents by an everlasting tie, and no power of earth or hell can separate them from their parents in eternity; they will return again to the fountain from whence they sprang”
It’s a very hopeful and comforting statement, but it does raise more questions than it answers.
@rickpowers, Mormons like to turn ourselves into saviors.
We save our ancestors by doing temple work for them. We save our children by being righteous.
I know that’s been a comforting sentiment for people I know who have struggled with their kids but ultimately it just makes you doubly responsible for your kids’ salvation, which is both a lot of pressure and kinda presumptuous.
Elisa, another great post and I think you tease out the most salient moments of GC. I’ll add a few thoughts.
1 – Was it just me, or did much of GC feel like a hype meeting given in the spring to a bunch of summer sales reps? The church’s desperation re the number of young men NOT serving missions and the ongoing flatlining of church membership was more palpable in this conference than in any I can recall.
2 – Elisa, thank you, thank you, thank you for calling out Holland. I’ll go a step further and simply say his talk was hypocritical. I’m tired of his emotional pleadings. It’s starting to ring hollow to me and I look at a man who I used to admire and now all I see is someone who has lost his moral authority. You can’t plead against suicide just months after you called out an innocent, gay student for giving a dean approved valedictorian speech, calling him selfish for identifying as being gay, and then signal to gay and queer members that you are not to talk about or call attention to your marginalized community, AND then get all pious about suicide. It’s a level of compartmentalization I find to be stunning and offensive. Are you serious about stemming suicide Elder Holland? Start by apologizing to Matt Easton, and then rescind the recent protest policies at BYU.
3 – Oaks actually said doctrine never changes. I believe this is the exact quote, “Gospel doctrine does not change.” Is there any other doctrine besides gospel doctrine that I’m missing? Because there are dozens of doctrines that have changed since our church’s founding. This comment made me do a hard doubletake. I’m trying to decide if 40 years from now members will speak of Oaks like we do Mark E. Peterson, Ezra Taft Benson, Henry D. Moyle and J. Ruben Clark. Am I wrong not to be flabbergasted by his remark?
4 – Uchtdorf was curb kicked after Monson died and has been effectively silenced. So very unfortunate. Heartbreaking, actually. He doesn’t carry or project the confidence he once did. The church needs his voice so badly. I am deeply afraid he will melt into church history as the next Hugh B. Brown.
5 – LDS eschatology regarding end-of-days is depressing and discouraging. Hinkley is the only president who seemed to counter the history of Mormon belief that the world will simply become worse and worse until it is ruled in wickedness and the second coming will burn everything to the ground and consume nearly everyone. I couldn’t agree with you more Elisa. The world is a better place today than it ever has been. Fewer die in war, more sickness is cured, infant mortality is at its lowest, women are better protected and enjoy more rights, and people live longer than at any time in world history. Eyring’s talk made me yawn.
6 – Kearon was THE highlight, and it was nice to hear what he had to say. Richard G. Scott’s horrible talk on abuse rang in my ears as Kearon spoke. Mentally I couldn’t help but juxtapose the two, and it made me so grateful we have Kearon. And as for Rasband…remember during COVID when the Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments via Zoom and you could hear one of the justices flushing a toilet in the background? Well, that’s what happened at my house while Rasband was speaking.
7 – Lastly, Oaks’ opening of the Women’s Session was just so cringe. It’s discouraging to see so many of these incredible women yoked under their male, priesthood holding church bosses. I was raised by a strong mother who was a career woman AND served in every women’s leadership position there is at the ward and stake level. I witnessed her hold her tongue and turn away several times when her male church boss was little more than a pompous moron imposing his male authority. I saw too many zone leaders on my mission speak in condescending ways to sister missionaries who were simply so much more effective, mature and wise then they were–and somehow those sisters found a way to smile and move on. I marvel at the patience of women in this organization.
Thank you Elisa for what from my perspective is a perfect summary of General Conference. You succinctly wrote the exact thoughts in my own mind. Also, usually the music is a big highlight for me, but I’m with ji, not even the boring, tired music salvages the bore of 9.5 hours of the same thing every 6 months, especially when the music selections are very obviously chosen to be manipulative. I was in physical pain listening to the women’s choir sing about listening to the prophet’s voice, it felt as though they were saying that I cannot have my own thoughts and opinions and must listen to old men whose musings could not be further from my day-to-day reality. Very culty vibes with that song, especially having it be sung by only women in that way.
The most relatable moment of the entire thing was the pure and honest note from Marion Arnold that it is boring and the demand to tell us why we have to do it. Also, how ironic that Holland’s joke to tell her whose name to complain about was Elder Kearon, one of only two speakers who had anything of merit to add to the conference, the other being Sister Wright.
I also look forward to what the new women’s presidencies have to offer us, they seem to be a great group of women. I hope their voices will be elevated and not subdued, but given Oaks’s women’s session preamble and Renlund’s unhelpful remarks, I’m not letting myself get my hopes up too high on that.
Sorry, typo with Marin Arnold’s name in my previous comment. This honest and candid young lady deserves to be credited correctly. 🙂
Great summary of highs and lows, Elisa. I agree on so many points. One thing that particularly strikes me is that it would mean dramatically different things for the future of the Church if, say Kearon were called to the Q12 versus if Klebingat were. Because I 100% agree with you that Klebingat’s talk sounded like an apologia for DezNat. If we’re not angering people with our standing for truth and righteousness, we’re not doing it right!
I also so appreciate the commenters who have suffered from abuse weighing in on Kearon’s talk. It makes sense that it’s not going to change things maybe much or at all, but I’m glad it was at least better than Scott’s talks that have been what people pointed to for so long just because we had nothing else. It would be great if it could be the first step in really addressing the issue, but I understand that’s unlikely. I think the point one of the anon commenters made that abusers don’t see themselves as abusers is really crucial. I don’t know how much more good it would do, but it seems like at the level of general conference, the only thing that could be done better to address this would be to call out abusive behavior in more explicit terms. At the local level, though, it seems like bishops could be better trained so they maybe aren’t so often taken in by abusers and end up siding with them against those they abuse. But given that bishops overall get so little training, this seems unlikely to happen.
I also wrote a conference review over at ZD. It’s perhaps a little sillier than yours, but like I said, we agree on so many points.
I wanted to respond to this yesterday but ran out of time:
Sw said, “I’m not sure what certain people expect of a prophet–to declare something that isn’t true just to appease the most recent polling?”
I doubt we would agree on what the truth is. I don’t expect the leaders to say anything they think is untrue. Perhaps what I would like is for them to be more open and honest about what is actually revealed and what they are surmising, along the lines of what another poster suggested a few days ago: say what they know, what they don’t know, and what they believe.
Oaks talk didn’t leave room for uncertainty, but there is clearly a lot of uncertainty out there. Because the leaders never say what they don’t know, many members assume that they have detailed conversations with god that deal with all the complexities. I think if the leaders were open and honest, we would hear that the gender essentialist component of the family proc is not something that was revealed directly, thus-sainthood-the-lord style, but rather was something that surmised based on the scriptures and their prayers and resulting feelings.
It makes a huge difference. If they had conversations about it with god, they might know how God wants to handle intersex people, or people whose XX or XY chromosomes don’t match their physical characteristics, or people who simply feel like they were born the wrong sex. But if they are going off feelings, then I don’t know how they good say that level of detail has been revealed.
Even if the family proc were correct, that gender is an essential eternal characteristic, that really doesn’t translate into how people with imperfect bodies are going to be. What happens if a male spirit is deprived of certain necessary hormones in the womb, such that they never develop (or partially develop) a penis? I would argue that the family proc actually provides a Doctrine that explains transsexuals, rather than denying their existence. Not saying that I believe it was inspired; I believe it was an unintended side effect of claiming eternal gender.
Autocorrect makes for weird swypos.
“Thus-sainthood-the-lord style” should have been “thus-sayeth-the-lord store”, among others.
@ziff, your review was terrific! You made some good points I overlooked.
Elisa – THX. For so many good thoughts.
ZIFF – would you mind telling us what “ZD” is, so we can find your analyis? TIA
@raymond (and everyone), Ziff’s post is here: https://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2022/04/06/a-heretic-reviews-general-conference-april-2022/?fbclid=IwAR2JFmRT5ndVbjpvv0PrTUWnoacqf1aM7bK_8roSoLtypXSLANjT0ua_TXw
Raymond, sure. Sorry to be unclear. It’s Zelophehad’s Daughters, the blog where I write. It’s linked from my name in my comments.
I know that’s been a comforting sentiment for people I know who have struggled with their kids but ultimately it just makes you doubly responsible for your kids’ salvation, which is both a lot of pressure and kinda presumptuous.
The Brigham Young quote cited by rickpowers to which Elisa responded says nothing about kids being “saved” by their parents. It says they will be “bound up to their parents by an everlasting tie”. That only requires “salvation” if you believe that being “bound up” requires you to inhabit the same kingdom. Why would it require that? Celestial parents can bear a terrestrial or telestial glory and can connect with their children in those kingdoms at that level. It does not relieve the children of any responsibility for their sins.
I would let this slide, but I fear that Elisa’s followup post on Oaks’ talk will go down a misguided rabbit hole if she interprets the BY quote the way she has above.
@lastlemming that’s a fair point. However, the people I know personally who have relied on that quote have interpreted to mean that at some point their kids will be with them in the CK. There are several other quotes to similar effect, so I don’t think my criticism is off-base (some of these quotes explicitly call us saviors / refer to parents saving their children):
Orson Whitney:
“The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught a more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain. Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God” (Orson F. Whitney, in Conference Report, Apr. 1929, 110).
Lorenzo Snow:
“If you succeed in passing through these trials and afflictions and receive a resurrection, you will, by the power of the Priesthood, work and labor, as the Son of God has, until you get all your sons and daughters in the path of exaltation and glory. This is just as sure as that the sun rose this morning over yonder mountains. Therefore, mourn not because all your sons and daughters do not follow in the path that you have marked out to them, or give heed to your counsels. Inasmuch as we succeed in securing eternal glory, and stand as saviors, and as kings and priests to our God, we will save our posterity” (in Collected Discourses, comp. Brian H. Stuy, 5 vols. [1987–92], 3:364).
Boyd Packer:
“The measure of our success as parents … will not rest solely on how our children turn out. That judgment would be just only if we could raise our families in a perfectly moral environment, and that now is not possible.
“It is not uncommon for responsible parents to lose one of their children, for a time, to influences over which they have no control. They agonize over rebellious sons or daughters. They are puzzled over why they are so helpless when they have tried so hard to do what they should.
“It is my conviction that those wicked influences one day will be overruled. …
“We cannot overemphasize the value of temple marriage, the binding ties of the sealing ordinance, and the standards of worthiness required of them. When parents keep the covenants they have made at the altar of the temple, their children will be forever bound to them” (“Our Moral Environment,” Ensign, May 1992, 68).
(To be clear tho I’m not suggesting we start a big thread on this. A post for another day :-))
FYI Bednar offered his own take – see Ensign March 2014 “Faithful Parents and Wayward Children”
OK, I’ll refrain from a detailed response here, but for the record, only the Snow quote, with it’s reference to exaltation, is truly problematic.
I want to comment and revisit the topic from Kearon, which I haven’t listened to, so my perspective is based on comments here and elsewhere. Anon Abuse Survivor amazed me with her brevity while making quite a few major points about the way abuse is talked about, both from the official pulpit and in private, and the way it translates into actions by leaders and others when presented with abuse. This topic and her observations (and more) are worth further scrutiny and study IMO, because trauma — from something perpetrated at church, sometimes by the church, sometimes merely facilitated there — is why so many people leave. And also why so many “can’t leave it alone” — the departing don’t always want to leave but must somehow divorce themselves from whatever trauma they’ve experienced there.
Trauma is the result of abuse, which is violence. It can be overt or covert, sometimes only leaving unseen injury to a victim’s soul. There are as many types of abuse and trauma as there are individuals, and as many degrees of severity. It’s as common as dirt not to see or feel it, and there are more than a few abusers who turn that to their advantage. The list of responses Anon received from church leaders illustrates how much of an institutional problem we have. What Kearon said in GC barely touches on our institutional problem, but it at the very least faces us toward progress.
The remedy for any traumatic wound is to heal it — it takes time, watchful care, and sometimes help from specialists, and sometimes it’s not possible, but it is always really hard work. How I wish our prophets, seers, and revelators would give their thoughtful study and compassion to learning about the ways this afflicts their flock, so that they could be better shepherds.
@lastlemming I think that’s fair. And that no one actually knows …
Thanks for the summaries Elisa!
I had little interest in watching Conference this time. So tired of the repetitive messages about supporting and believing in the institution rather than conveying Christ’s messages. Oaks is a like broken record—stuck on the same song. And the Proclamation was a response to what was going on in Hawaii—before Prop 8 in CA. (Some members believe it a miraculous inspiration preceding Prop 8).
No religious institution in the U.S. is going to be required to perform same-sex marriages—just as they aren’t required to avoid gender or race based biases.
Personally, I think it will be a good day when Oaks, Nelson, Eyring, Ballard and Holland pass on “to the other side”. Perhaps, if we’re luckly, Oaks will be the first to make the journey. They’ve lived full lives (much of which – on the dole) and – honestly – listening to them bloviating on and on – with little to no change from 40 years ago – is so damn tiresome, boring and mind numbing. Godspeed to them….it’s time for some new ideas and narratives. The old one has grown so very, very stale…mean spirited….and quite useless; in facing the world we live in. As for me, I thought Amy Wright’s address was the best of the entire Conference! Her comments, smile and spirit were like a stiff, cool breeze blowing through the fog of the graveyard! She’d make a remarkable “Prophet”.
Neal A. Maxwell:
“But make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions (see 1 Kings 18:21).
“President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, or political life” (CR, April 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ.”
@jack, if you have particular comments about conference talks please do share.
Calling people to repentance for disagreeing with statements made at conference doesn’t make for a very fruitful discussion :-).
I’m calling people to repentance for wishing the prophets were dead.
Jack, I think the real problem is that it’s a cruel system that requires men to die in order to be released from their callings. It’s cruel to require men in their nineties to work til they drop—to shoulder the massive responsibilities of managing a huge organization like the church (including travel and public speaking) when they ought to be enjoying retirement with their families. And it’s cruel to the members of the church to deny the possibility of leadership change (and all the benefits that come with having a younger, changeable roster of leaders) without requiring deaths among the old guard.
Re: conference. I didn’t watch, but from what I’m hearing and reading online, it sounds like this one may be an inflection point for the church. From my tiny corner of the Internet, I’m hearing about a lot of shelves breaking from the one-two punch of Renlund/Oaks.
Like Roger Hansen, I too feel there is a spark missing with Elder Uchtdorf ever since he was dropped from the First Presidency. I miss him big time and often wonder just how differently things would feel if President Nelson would have kept him on as a counselor.
Just a quick observation though: when one goes to investigate “covenant path” in the general conference corpus, (see https://www.lds-general-conference.org/) in addition to finding how ridiculous it is trending, you will notice Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf has never used the phrase in general conference, ever. But then research “path of discipleship” and you will see he completely dominates in that usage on the other hand.
I could be completely off on this, but I think he’s trying to make his own statement that as we try to figure out this crazy earthly existence, a “path of discipleship” has much more depth to it compared to “covenant path.” Or at the very least, he’s trying to avoid the proverbial bandwagon and carve out his own space. I hope to see that spark come back someday and maybe it will if he becomes a future president of the church.
Thanks Elisa and everyone else for the comments btw, I always learn a ton.
P.S. Did anyone else notice that the names “Ukraine” and “Russia” were never uttered a single time except by President Nelson on Sunday? Was that coincidental or was there a subtle directive to the upcoming speakers to avoid them and let the president only handle it. It seemed to be very obvious something was a foot when Elder Stevenson used the specificity of “Poland” but stuck with the generic “refugee mothers and children” as can be noted below in his quote:
“Recently, news sources reported how a group of mothers in Poland, out of concern for desperate, fleeing families, left fully equipped strollers on a train station platform in a neat line, ready and waiting for refugee mothers and children who would need them at that border crossing as they deboarded a train.”
I promised I would come back and write more from the perspective of an abuse survivor, but it is spring break and everybody and their dog comes to southern Utah to visit, so we have had two sets of visitors, and I won’t inflict ya’ll with descriptions of all the fun we have had.
I read Kearon’s talk before I heard it, and I liked it better from him personally instead of just the ideas. He was sincere instead of flat like other mentions of abuse from church leaders that sound like they have no empathy for the victim. It really was very good coming from a church leader, but that was not a very high bar.
I have two problems with the talk, and they are related. The first I mentioned earlier. Saying that Jesus has already taken care of it, is like the Good Samaritan telling the guy left beaten at the side of the road that Jesus will heal him, in fact he already has. Then the guy formerly known as the Good Samaritan walk off. That doesn’t cut it. And it is exactly the same thing. Someone in an abuse situation or someone just dealing with an abuse situation needs real help, now. They don’t need a Jesus speech. They need a real live person to help. They need protection and they need healing, which takes time. They need to be far away from the abuser, not forced to forgive and still live with the abuser in order to be seen by the church as deserving help.
This idea that Jesus can help me heal was one of the very last things I understood in the healing process, and I understood it along with the idea that we as followers of Christ promised to do his work on earth. We are the Good Samaritans. Jesus isn’t here to help in person, so we do it for him. It is part of taking on his name and becoming one with him.
That brings me to the other part of my problem with his talk. The church needs to do something, lots of something’s to help battered women and children and battered husbands too. The church needs to step up and do more than excommunicate sexual offenders.
It needs to do more than help the sinner repent. My abusive father got more love and hours and hours of help from the church. I got told that I was accountable because I was over eight years old, even if I didn’t have a clue what it was at the time it started, then got beaten over and over for objecting. Then I got pushed away and told I was worse than he was because I had not forgiven. Oh, I had forgiven my father, but not myself for being born female, but church leaders couldn’t see that. My anger at my father was the only thing helping be believe that I didn’t deserve it, and bishops tried to stomp it out of me.
It has free programs for alcoholics and porn users and I can guarantee there are more abuse survivors than both of those problems, and the issue is more harmful. But once again, that kind of help is for the sinner and the church doesn’t think anyone but sinners needs love or help. The church has a help line to protect the church legally, but nothing where an abuse victim can call and get advice on what to do and how to get help. And the poor bishops need training, please help the poor men stuck stumbling around in the dark not knowing anything about how abuse damages a person’s heart, mind, spirit, and even long term damage to the body from the stress.
@lefthandloafer, I agree I think Wright is a strong contender for best talk of the weekend. And she perfectly demonstrates how badly we need fresh voices. People who’ve been in leadership for decades have given every talk they are going to give. They’ve shared every life experience they’ve had (and since they don’t live relatable lives anymore, they aren’t having any new experiences). Wright talking about her cancer battle was so beautiful and touching and she brings new experience to the table.
@kirkstall, it seems to have been a final straw for some (including some I know). I’m wondering a bit why. They didn’t say anything new really, although the hubris of re-instating women’s session to put us in our place was pretty confronting. I wonder if for some who developed some spiritual autonomy during Covid this was the first post-Covid conference where they heard something they were certain was wrong and they now feel comfortable saying no. Or were already on the fence about going back. Seems poor timing on leadership’s part when they could have instead tried to be more welcoming of people who are trying to decide whether to return … Oaks seems convinced that if he just keeps repeating himself the message will get through. But since his message isn’t sealed by the spirit IMO he’s not going to succeed at that.
@jack, we don’t do death wishes here so I understand why you were bothered by that. I interpreted that comment as looking forward to a future not straight up wishing people dead. YMMV. That said, every time Oaks speaks, therapists I know are flooded with suicide attempts by LGBTQ clients.
@Richard, that is an interesting observation re Uchtdorf and yes, path of discipleship is SO much better than covenant path! Path of discipleship can look different for everyone and anyone can take it, and it’s focused on Jesus. Covenant path is so prescriptive, and it’s focused on the Church. Jesus literally never asked us to be on a covenant path. He is the path.
And yes, I suspect people were asked not to mention Ukraine or Russia.
@anna, thank you so much for sharing that perspective. That makes so much sense to me. I have been thinking a lot about spiritual bypassing. We in the church are so uncomfortable sitting with discomfort – it’s like we feel like being sad is a lack of faith, even though we are literally covenanting to mourn with those that mourn. We want to skip straight to the part when we comfort people. But where we haven’t properly mourned and made space for healing, and provided resources and time for healing, we can’t get to the comfort part! I wonder if sometime you’d be willing to do a guest post on what you’d like the Church to do for abuse victims, perpetrators, training, etc. You’ve shared a lot of good comments on this and other posts and I’d love to hear more on that.
I’m super tired of hearing about religious freedom, which, to my knowledge, is not in danger in the U.S. or most other countries. Wake me up when someone takes away my privilege to go sit in boring meetings. And I also hope I never hear the term “covenant path” again as long as I live.
Richard:
Thanks for noticing that. I think that’s super important. Covenant path to me invokes feelings of being tied to the institution whereas path of discipleship is something anyone, anywhere, can pursue. Given the speakers using these terms, that adds up.
And Anna, thank you as well for your contribution. It’s very educational for me.
My 1.5 cents on Elder Oaks talk:
1. While no analogy is perfect, in my mind, his talk was kind of analogous to parents sitting down with their children and saying: We have a GREAT organization and plan for those of you who want to become medical doctors. We will support you and provide a path forward, along with teachings and resources to help you get there. The rest of you – we are sure you will end up somewhere nice – because we love you as well….. now, back to those who want to be medical doctors – here is the specific plan we have put together for you.
2. Elisa – I like the shift in positioning that you noted in your earlier post…. it feels as if the brethren are seeing this surge in new thinking as new information comes out, and after stumbling on LGBTQ policies and making adjustments/shifts for the past 7 years, are concerned with losing control, and are taking steps towards conservative orthodoxy to re-assert some boundaries ( BYU clarification on dating, Elder Holland’s BYU talk, Elder Oaks talk)… Maybe concerned with the expectations set by some of the early shifts in this policy.
3. I see wide divisions in my ward between the conservative and progressive perspectives on LGBTQ – I wonder to what degree the same is true with the general authorities
Elisa, I will think about writing a guest post. Is there a you can email me?
There is a lot of pride in the post and most all of the comments. The most universal of all sins.
@mark I, claiming that disagreement with leadership is sinful is a thought-stopping form of social control. I’ve no patience for that or for ad hominem attacks on commenters.
Chadwick you have exactly defined my thinking on the difference between covenant path and path of discipleship. I struggled to think of the right words before. Covenant path is a marketing slogan missing the mark to my mind and definitely linked to an organization. If I never heard it again…Path of discipleship is deeper and richer linking us to the Lord. Much better mental picture.
@david, I’ll have to think more on that analogy. I think there’s stuff to add like “oh and you won’t be invited to any family reunions or get any financial support …”. I get what you’re saying and I think it is a helpful way to think through how they are trying to shift here, but ultimately it is still totally rejecting. Especially because … unlike an occupation … sexual orientation isn’t a choice.
As David has already suggested — that no analogy is perfect — it becomes even more difficult to develop an analogue for something that is practically incomprehensible. What does perfect love really look like? And how will that kind of love shape our relationships in the world to come?
I like the phrase “the covenant path.” It bespeaks the rites of ascension.
@Anna: Amen and well said, with thoughtful information that needs productive scrutiny and discussion. Healing is hard work, and those seeking it never actually finish doing it. I look forward to your post.
In general, I think ‘covenant path’ is a trendy, hedge-building maneuver and not necessary to ‘discipleship,’ which term has well served followers of Christ since the Bible was first translated into English. I won’t pontificate about it further, except to say that the manipulative term doesn’t work on me.
And I never take the whining about perceived threats to religious freedom seriously. Oaks knows full well that freedom to practice religion has the strongest legal protection possible, that any practice or policy can have from our government— the First Amendment. However, sanctions may be levied at times by the caprice of the court of public opinion, but I don’t conflate the two.
“In general, I think ‘covenant path’ is a trendy, hedge-building maneuver and not necessary to ‘discipleship,’ which term has well served followers of Christ since the Bible was first translated into English.”
We must be born of water and the spirit. Covenant making and discipleship go hand in hand.
Jack, I wish you’d try to understand me because we have no conflict on this point. The idea I expressed was about the labels and their underlying coded messages. I made an effort to be clear by putting both ‘covenant path’ and ‘discipleship’ in single quotes and referring to them as “terms.” Of course discipleship includes covenant-making, and baptism and confirmation are explicitly mentioned by Christ and his apostles in scripture. I have zero issues with this.I just reject the term ‘covenant path’ in favor of ‘discipleship’ because of the rhetorical baggage coded into the first term. (‘Covenant path’)
A bit closer reading would help you understand my comment, I believe.
I went and listened to and read Sister Amy Wright’s talk “Christ Heals That Which is Broken” based on this post and a couple other places that said Wright’s talk was very well done. I did not like it for personal reasons. I understand why others would find it comforting, but I hated it.
Assuming anyone wants to know the reasons, I have to start with a personal story with all awkward details edited out. Several years ago, I was the fulcrum of some intense family drama. My SIL was not involved in the family drama directly; she lived out of state and only heard second hand what happened. However, she took the opportunity to tell me her real opinion of me. I’d actually been happy she’d called. I liked her and was hoping for a good talk. Instead, she let me know that she’s had a low opinion of me for years, and was just being nice to me to avoid making waves. She then explained for quite a while everything wrong with me. To be clear – this wasn’t about anything I had done to her that I should have apologized for. She despises my basic personality. Shaken, I simply didn’t answer her next phone call and I haven’t talked to her since then. I was crushed to find out that someone I thought was a friend really didn’t like me at all. I also found out that she’d gossiped her opinion of me to several other family members and they all agreed with her ideas about me.
That created some long-lasting hurt feelings on my end. She’s never reached out to apologize for dogpiling me during a very stressful time. Through others, I know that her attitude was that she just needed to get some things off her chest and she was only telling the truth to me and it’s too bad I chose to get offended by the truth.
Then you get talks like Wright’s. Healing the relationship is about relying on Christ and forgiveness. Well, I prayed a lot to forgive my SIL, but that didn’t heal the relationship. Still, the distance between me and my SIL is entirely my fault (per my family) because healing takes forgiveness. Not repentance. Not an apology. Just forgiveness, i.e., it’s entirely on me to heal our relationship. Wright didn’t say anything about healing relationships by apologizing. Why don’t Gen Conf talks about healing relationships talk about the healing that comes from a sincere apology? (That’s a rhetorical question; we obviously know why Church can never encourage apologies, someone might note the hypocrisy.)
At some point, I figured out that Gen Conf speakers really think that the only damage done when someone mistreats you is that you’re angry about it. I am not angry at my SIL. Anger was never my primary emotion (a little bit yes). Most of my emotion was hurt and betrayal, plus the destruction of trust. Forgiving my SIL doesn’t make the hurt or betrayal go away. It doesn’t restore any trust. But Gen Conf speakers BARELY acknowledge that something other than anger might cause distance in a relationship. Gen Conf speakers NEVER spend multiple minutes explaining what the offender should do to restore trust.
I dislike Wright’s talk because it’s yet one more Gen Conf talk my SIL can listen to and think, “yes, that’s right, Janey needs to rely on Christ more and be more forgiving, and then we can be friends again. I don’t need to do anything.”
@Janey
I agree. Even the footnote in the lds edition to Matt 5:23-24 is forgiveness.
Jesus’ words here are clearly about us apologizing when we have hurt others. They put the onus on the offender.
Sorry for the experience. Painful lesson.
@Janey, that makes sense and I can see why that talk wasn’t for you.
If anything, I think your SIL should hear that talk and think, “Wow, I’ve been really awful to Janey, I need to do better at loving her.” Of course, that may be wishful thinking :-).
Great review and comments here. Don’t forget that in order to get into Mormon Happy Heaven’s highest degree you need to be living spiritual polygamy, which will become real physical polygamy in the resurrection. Like Nelson and Oaks. The church has never rescinded that prophetic requirement. Polygamy is how you get to be in Number 1 heaven, everyone else is number 2 or worse 🙂
Late to the game but this morning I had an exchange with my brother who lives in Houston. He’s very TBM. His stake is organizing what he called a youth conference (?) but it’s this weekend so not the normal summertime affair. He mentioned that they got Brad Wilcox to come and speak!
I was floored. I asked if he was aware of Brad’s talk in Alpine thinking maybe TBM in Houston would not have a clue. He said yes the stake leaders are all aware and wanted Brad to come anyway.
Why is this relevant to this post? Firstly, Brad wasn’t released from his position as a result of his speaking circuit ills at Conference, and he’s apparently still out preaching the good word to the youth.
Ah, that’s right. I know some people were hoping he’d be released but I hadn’t been thinking about that (and was very certain he would not in fact be released …).
MDearest,
Maybe I’m still misunderstanding you–but when you say that the phrase “covenant path” is a “hedge-building maneuver” that speaks ill of the person(s) saying it–not just the phrase itself. You probably didn’t mean to convey that idea–but that’s how I read it. And if I’m the only one who read it that way–then my bad.
My jaw is on the floor reading that a former mission President from Kiev didn’t speak about the humanitarian crisis or relief efforts. How is that even possible? How? How could his heart not be exploding with the pain and urgency, the epic need for our hearts and help right now? I’m flabbergasted. No, I a ten-penny word isn’t the right one to use in this situation. I’ll use a simpler one that fits better- disgusted.
Big thumbs down to the church for not using the. words “war” or “invasion”, for acknowledging what even Switzerland acknowledged.
It’s always interesting (and unsettling) to drop in on this blog after General Conference and witness an electronic stoning of the prophets.
What’s particularly fascinating is that the stones aren’t thrown in a uniform way. The number of stones and the intensity with which they are thrown is based on how well the particular leaders sermon did or didn’t comport with the throwers political views. ie Elder Oaks receives the most violent attacks while Elder Uchtdorf is pitied and largely left alone…. and dear Sister Wright is not only spared but is praised! Fascinating stuff.
I read the GC talks a couple at a time up to six months afterwards (when the next GC rolls around). I periodically come here and to Ziff’s summaries at https://zelophehadsdaughters.com to see what other people think. I just read Eyring’s talk about surviving the wicked world. Did you know that this is a repeat of a talk he gave 16 years ago in the April 2006 GC? He actually acknowledges that he’s “revisiting” this old talk in Note #1 (one advantage of reading the talks is easily seeing the Notes at the end, although if you click on the Note # in the online version it will come up; you’re out of luck if you’re listening). I pulled 2006 up on the church website and 2022 is shorter, but otherwise extremely similar. So–has the world grown increasingly wicked in the past 16 years? Or is the wickedness level unchanged and Eyring simply can’t think of anything new or different to say? Seems reminiscent of the repetitive comment that “today’s youth are the best/brightest/most prepared/most righteous” etc. etc. that somebody important declares every ten years.
@NYAnn hah! It seems that all of the older GA’s are just recycling talks. They are out of material.
I guess this is directed @ the author, Elisa, but maybe applies to some of the commenters:
So have you left the church yet? Are you leaving soon? Or did you actually leave before you posted this rubbish?
It seems from your article that you are way off in left field and unless you turn around you’re going to wander off somewhere even more bizarre than where you already are.
Conference is not about picking the winners and losers. Nor is it determining which speakers agree with your uber liberal worldly philosophies and which come from God but are clearly wrong in your view. Do you believe we have a Prophet of God? Do you believe there are apostles and other general authorities who speak the will of the Lord? Or do you only believe that when they tell you what you want to hear?
@sam q would you like me to leave? Is there no room in your Church for differences in beliefs or opinions?
I will believe someone is a prophet when I see them prophesy, see, or reveal. I think there are prophets inside and outside the Church. I don’t think labeling someone a prophet makes it so. By their fruits ye shall know them.
“would you like me to leave? Is there no room in your Church for differences in beliefs or opinions?”
Next time someone has a Q&A wiuth Elder Bednar (or other apostle), I wonder what response they might give to these questions?
Sam Q. said: “Do you believe we have a Prophet of God? Do you believe there are apostles and other general authorities who speak the will of the Lord? Or do you only believe that when they tell you what you want to hear?”
Is it possible to believe they are prophets/apostles and believe they make doctrinal mistakes? When I reject Pres. Young et al’s racist diatribes, am I merely rejecting something because it is hard for me to hear?
We believe prophets/apostles are fallible. 21st century prophets/apostles have even officially disavowed some of the teachings of 19th century prophets and apostles without rejecting the apostolic mantle those men bore. IMO, one of the hardest issues the Church is mostly currently ignoring is how to deal with prophetic fallibility that makes the “get in or get out” dichotomy a false dichotomy. It only seems like stark black or white choice because we fail to address the “prophets might be wrong about _______” issue.
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
Attributed to Marcus Aurelius
@Sam Q
By your apparent critique of liberals, I suppose you to be conservative. Possibly far right, by your inclusion of a “Q” in your moniker. Not much strong moral ground to stand on there. It barely works unless someone limits their news sources to conservative sites.
Very glad you are reading this.
The Q. is my middle initial. No affiliation with Qanon. The funny thing about Qanon is that the only people who buy into it are liberals who obsess over it. Everyone else sees it as a fringe group no different than antifa or flat earthers. All are few in number yet seem to get a lot of attention online.
Per the question “is there room for my beliefs?” The honest answer is no. If your beliefs are against the church, against its doctrine, against its beliefs… then why should the church make room for you? Too many people sugar coat this matter.
I don’t bring my kids to church to get influenced or indoctrinated by apostates.
If you aren’t on a path to follow the prophet and follow the doctrine, then what path are you on?
The vast majority of the posts and comments on this site are reflective of stoning the prophets. Or standing in a building with no foundation mocking those on a path that are hold tight to a rod.
Either get back on the path or leave entirely. Don’t mock the church from within. You do 10x’s more damage than any anti/ex Mormon.
But.. I am glad my prior comment wasn’t deleted. Most of my comments get deleted by moderators who are afraid of someone speaking opposite the sounding board.
@samq, I don’t go to church to influence your kids with my “apostate ideas”. I go to church to show them love and acceptance, especially if they themselves happen to be different than the mold or heaven forbid LGBTQ and feeling rejected at church or at home.
That there are people like you at Church is exactly why it’s important that there are people like me at Church.