I caught most of the Saturday morning talks, which had plenty of interesting and troubling claims. Below I’ll highlight the New Retrenchment Gospel of temples, garments, and covenants, the major themes stressed in the Saturday morning talks. None of that faith, hope and charity stuff. Way beyond First Principles of faith, repentance, baptism, and the Holy Spirit. All that New Testament stuff — you know, the real gospel of Jesus Christ — just isn’t enough in this era of retrenchment, so it’s time to start doubling down on the weird Mormon stuff. I welcome your reaction in the comments. Let’s look at what the speakers said.
Elder Holland’s Vision
Back from death’s doorstep, Elder Holland gave a rather quiet and humble talk. He mourned the passing of his wife Pat and related something of his own six-week hospitalization that followed just a few days later. It should be noted that Elder Holland is now the Acting President of the Twelve. He made brief reference to a visionary experience he had while hospitalized, but he also related how during the initial four-week stay in and out of the ICU he was in and out of consciousness and has spotty or absent memories of those events. Let’s push back a little on the LDS habit of granting face value credibility to any claimed visionary experience (at least any claimed by an LDS leader that fits the current LDS orthodoxy).
Has anyone watched a parent go through their last week or two in hospital? Memories become spotty and confused. Patients might cycle from consciousness to semi-consciousness to unconsciousness. Dying persons have conversations with people who aren’t there and sense things (noises and objects and persons) that are definitively not there. The LDS approach somehow grants *extra* credibility to the claims of those near death, under some sort of “the veil is thin!” rationale. The objective approach is to acknowledge that dying persons see and hear and relate a lot of stuff that isn’t there and that never happened or is misremembered. There is no reason to give them a hard time about it — they are dying, after all, and need love and support — but there is also no reason to treat what they say as some sort of revelation of truth with enhanced credibility. Just the opposite! This is certainly true for what Elder Holland related. The message he received per his account of his partially revealed visionary experience was “Work harder, Elder Holland, get back to work and really put your shoulder to the apostolic wheel!” I’m summarizing but not exaggerating what he related. This is so wrong! We work these older leaders to death. Elder Holland has done fine work and given some memorable talks from the Conference pulpit. Give the man emeritus status and an award, not a binder full of new assignments.
So — God bless Elder Holland in his mourning and his recovery. I hope his apostolic peers ignore his impressions while under medical stress and instead reduce his workload. As a church or at least as individuals we need to be a little more concerned with reliability and credibility and truth. That’s one of the distressing things I saw in almost all the speakers this morning: Truthful history is increasingly taking a backseat to more useful genres such as fiction-based history and made-up stories.
J. Anette Dennis, 1C in RS General Presidency: Symbols and Garments
First she talked about how God uses symbols to teach things. Symbols are useful at times and in certain contexts, but they are malleable and open to a variety of meanings, often read into a symbol rather than out of a symbol. Waving a flag or singing a patriotic song can motivate and arouse a crowd to action, but you want a Constitution and statutes to clearly articulate the law in a fair legal regime. Rousing a crowd using emotional symbols is what you do when you want to go storm the capitol or to go lynch someone. Beware the too-frequent and unwarranted invocation of symbols.
Then she linked symbols to covenants and used baptism as an example. But let’s be clear about this, since muddled talk about covenants has become ubiquitous in LDS discourse lately. To the extent a baptism is a covenant, it is between you and God. It is based on your understanding of God when you make that covenant. If your understanding of God grows and evolves over the years, your understanding of that covenant grows and evolves. If your understanding of God dramatically changes or your belief in God evaporates, your understanding of that covenant may be that it was misguided or based on false teachings and that it is no longer relevant or in force. It may, in your understanding, become a nullity, no longer relevant and possibly never valid or relevant. You can do that: it’s your covenant.
What the Church wants to do is make personal covenants some kind of binding agreement between you and the Church, then appeal to those covenants to encourage you, manipulate you, or guilt you into doing things the Church wants you to do. What the leadership is doing with covenants right now is trying to weaponize them. What ought to be a personal thing, a positive thing to motivate members to do good and to become more holy (however that person defines it, as enlightened by scripture, etc.) is becoming a mechanism the leadership is using to manipulate the membership. It is appalling. And I haven’t even talked about having the mental capacity and the informed consent requirements necessary for a contract or covenant to be valid. If you trick someone into signing a contract or making a covenant, it is fraud, not a binding agreement.
Finally (and you probably saw this coming) she wraps LDS garments and garment-wearing in this web of symbols, covenants, and obligations. It’s the most detailed and explicit public discussion of LDS garments I recall hearing. This discussion — and it is strange Sister Dennis was selected to deliver this message — is trying to elevate garment-wearing to a covenant. Now there are covenants made in the temple, and I won’t talk about them, but they are aimed at spiritual and divine goals like keeping commandments and serving God. (Like all personal covenants, they are between God and the person and if the person’s understanding changes, their view of that covenant and its validity changes.) Wearing garments is an institutional feature of temple attendance and ritual that also extends into daily life. But it’s not the essence of what LDS temple ritual (and Sister Dennis actually used the term “temple rituals,” which is interesting) is about.
Most of the recent garment rhetoric seems to be aimed at young LDS women. Well of course they pick on the young women, a fairly powerless group in the Church. Look, even zealously orthodox LDS allow plenty of exceptions to the 24/7 idea. Like when you go swimming or when young men play basketball. Garments are oh-so-important, blah, blah, blah, but not needed if you play basketball. That’s how important garment-wearing is even for the LDS leadership: it’s not as important as basketball. Which means it’s not really that important. Have you ever seen an LDS religion prof charge to midcourt during a BYU basketball game and shout, “Sin! Impiety! There are endowed young men on this court not wearing garments!” If young men get a pass to play basketball, leave the young women going to exercise class and the grocery store alone.
So why all the recent discussion about it? They’re weaponizing garments the same way they are weaponizing covenants. Even Elder Oaks acknowledged in his Sunday morning talk that LDS garments are about regulating the membership, both self-regulation and regulation by others. It’s about social control. I don’t know what actual effect all this garment talk is going to have on LDS behavior, probably very little, but it is chipping another layer of credibility off the LDS leadership foundation.
Jack N. Gerard, a Seventy: Integrity
Seeing an LDS leader talk about honesty and integrity lately makes me want to throw things at the screen. They play fast and loose with LDS history and official accounts while carefully limiting the access of LDS and non-LDS scholars to documents in the LDS archives and other vaults. They hid alternate accounts of the First Vision for a century. They play fast and loose with financial reporting, not just refusing to disclose any details of LDS finances and assets to the membership WHO CONTRIBUTE ALL THE MONEY but also misreporting financial information to the SEC, resulting in a recent massive fine as part of the leadership acknowledgement that they filed misleading financial reports (largely designed to hide the extent of LDS assets). And they lecture us about honesty and integrity?
This guy made a comment about those who publicly criticize the Church or LDS leadership. That is, people who publicly talk about issues the leadership doesn’t want members to talk about. That is, people like you and me. And people who make accurate and truthful statements about things the leadership wants you to either stay silent about or to repeat misleading and inaccurate (sometimes simply false) official claims. It’s clear what the Church wants is institutional loyalty — regardless of integrity or truth. What you should do is to follow your conscience. They want you to do what you’re told.
In the course of criticizing people who speak truthfully about the Church and LDS leadership, this guy talked about Korihor. You know, Korhior who criticized religious beliefs and who was lynched by offended believers in a Book of Mormon story. [A lynching is an extrajudicial killing.] So this guy, from the General Conference pulpit, is signaling to Church members that (1) like Korihor, people who speak unwanted truths about the Church in our day are in league with Satan and are knowingly telling falsehoods; and (2) if you get upset and decide to kill them, well I guess they deserve it, don’t they? Sounds a lot like the way Trump signals his followers that political violence, if done to further Trump’s wishes, is okay, even commendable. So this is how low leadership rhetoric is sinking: They are endorsing religious violence against people who criticize the Church or LDS leadership, that is, people who tell the truth about topics and issues the leadership does not want discussed. This tactic is utterly appalling. Maybe it’s time to take another look at LDS religious violence in the 19th century and see whether there are any similar plans or activities under way today.
Bottom line: LDS leadership is in full retrenchment mode. Their tactics are shifting. Weaponizing covenants and legitimizing religious violence are part of the new toolkit. Give serious consideration to how you can protect you and your family from these new leadership initiatives.
You said this: ”And I haven’t even talked about having the mental capacity and the informed consent requirements necessary for a contract or covenant to be valid. If you trick someone into signing a contract or making a covenant, it is fraud, not a binding agreement.”
AMEN Bro. If you can’t trust the party on the other side of the agreement (covenant), you can’t in good conscience sign the agreement. I just don’t trust the leaders past and present. I don’t see how anyone does honestly.
It’s interesting which church members get a pass on garment wearing while on the job. Actors and performers in air conditioned auditoriums and on air conditioned sets. Football and basketball players. But not laborers in central American countries where the temperature is 100 degrees and humidity is 90%. It’s also notable that garments “mark” LDS women more than they “mark” LDS men. This is similar to other religious traditions that seem to identify their women moreso than their men. I’m not sure what conclusions to draw from this. I’m not loving this period of retrenchment. Thanks for this post.
I agree the church seems to be in retrenchment mode and that they are changing tactics (message), and maybe even weaponizing covenants but I don’t see how they are legitimizing religious violence. Of course I didn’t watch or listen to conference. I’m going to read about it the paper and here at W&T. But, if they aren’t calling out the garbage that Trump is doing and how members seem to be clinging on the the BS he espouses, then they aren’t acting as a religion that would be a just God’s religion. No, I couldn’t listen because I’ve done so for so many years and never really heard any answers to today’s problems.
I tried to listen to it all. I pretty much agree with the OP comments.
Best session was Saturday evening.
I’ve never even heard the leaders mention temple garments in talks before. And during this conference, they were mentioned twice. Once by Annette Dennis who recently said that women have all this power and authority in the church. Also the typical emphasis on covenants. Code for “you’re trapped now, if you leave it criticize the church we get to shame you.”
Thanks for writing the post, I always look forward to hearing others reactions to conference.
My reaction to this post is: “Sincere question, are you okay Dave B?” I could totally be adding in emotions and intent that you didn’t put in this post, but to me you sound really angry, and it seems like this post was written with a motive of railing against the church. That’s perfectly fine with me, and valid if that is your intent or motive, I was just surprised to see a post on here that I perceived as “just someone railing against the church.”
That’s the thing about communication though, I may have misunderstood your intent and motives. What I hear and take away from a communication is impacted a lot by what I bring to the communication. I think this also happens when we listen to conference talks. I don’t actually know the intent and motives of the speakers at conference. Perhap’s Dave B is correct, and the speakers’ motives were to “weaponize covenants and garments in order to… manipulate you, or guilt you into doing things the Church wants you to do”. Or perhaps they had different motives and intent.
I really value Brian McLaren’s model of the stages of faith. Especially his idea that each of the stages serve a different purpose, and all the stages are good. Stage 3 is valuable in recognizing potential harms or exploitation that may be occurring in an institution, advocating for change, and warning others of potential harm. ”Give serious consideration to how you can protect you and your family from these new leadership initiatives” would be a great example of a Stage 3 statement, (and it’s actually really good advice).
I just want to point out that there are other ways of viewing the messages that were given at General Conference besides viewing them through a stage 3 lens. Yes, they can be viewed with suspicion and seen as people intentionally weaponizing principles, or…. perhaps they can be seen as messages from people who sincerely believe what they are saying, and they are sharing something that has brought them great joy with the hopes that it will bring others great joy. I don’t know what the speakers’ intent was, and I don’t know what the correct way of looking at it is. But I do know that there is more than one way to look at and interpret their messages.
aporetic, I can let the author of the post and others answer for themselves, but some of us are *not* okay. I agree with you that leaders are likely entirely sincere in their views. But church members have begged to be heard about issues that *do* matter and leaders have essentially said that they do not hear these members and will not listen to these members as the leaders dig their heels in in ways that result in deepening wedges within families. I just can’t see Jesus leading his church this way.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Instereo, it’s not that the speaker was openly advocating for religious violence, but he was signaling in that direction. Anytime an LDS speaker or teacher uses the Korihor story in the Book of Mormon to teach this or that principle and they don’t, at the same time, make an explicit statement repudiating lynching and religious violence, that speaker is being reckless as well as misguided. And LDS speakers don’t make that disclaimer! The only time I hear it is when I am teaching the lesson or in the class and I personally make that point. That an LDS speaker at General Conference has just done this (referred to the story in a favorable way without denouncing religious violence) is a disturbing development.
Another clue that most LDS and most leadership at some level support religious violence (directed at others who they think deserve it, not at Mormons) is references to Porter Rockwell. He’s our guy! Sure, he killed people, but they deserved it. Sure, he probably took a few shots at the Gov. Boggs, but Boggs deserved it. Rockwell is an LDS folk hero.
Another example is the endless retelling of the Haun’s Mill episode. Enshrining atrocity stories in one’s own history is a way to stoke persecution complex and rile people up so they will support extreme or violent responses against real or perceived enemies. It’s a staple of how governments manipulate the populace during wartime, telling atrocity stories, real or imagined, to encourage support for the government’s war and to justify the government’s own military atrocities.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
aporetic1, I could give a very long response, but I’ll try to keep it short. No, I’m not angry, just frustrated. The way a football fan seeing his team do dumb things and lose games it should win gets frustrated. I’m a fan of the Church, so I’m frustrated. They are making avoidable errors, and not harmless ones. The Church could use good leadership right now. They need better decision-making. Obviously, giving all institutional power to men in their 80s and 90s is part of the problem, but I’ve posted on that several times in the past.
I worked hard to make my comments on Elder Holland be positive. He deserves some sympathy and support. But the Church sometimes does the same thing with senior missionaries (work them to death). Nothing metaphorical about that claim. It depends on the mission president, but it reflects another LDS view that almost always places the interests of the institution over the health and welfare of individual members. In the eyes of LDS leadership, we are all expendable.
Another example of this way of thinking is the regular stories we hear about some peasant couple who, with their last $50 for the month, pays tithing rather than buy food for their children. Really? That is presented as an example of faith, but what it shows is the institutional disregard for the welfare of individual members in favor of the interests of the institution. In certain cases leaders do care about particular individuals, but for the institution as a whole: They. Don’t. Care. About you, me, or anyone. We are all expendable. So yeah, I am frustrated because that is misguided and utterly at odds with any biblical injunction in the New Testament. Pray for the health of Elder Uchtdorf. He is our only hope.
I think that some clarification is needed relating to the example in the OP. Korihor was not lynched; he was rebuked and cursed, and then trodden down by another group of people (ostensibly due to his status and circumstances as a literal beggar). I think the OP might be referring to Nehor, and he was put to death according to the legal system in place – and the record does not give the method of execution except that it was ignominious. Sherem is the first example given of someone teaching ideas and philosophies in conflict with the main narrative, but his “punishment” was literally left up to God.
I understand the sentiment of the OP, but the use of charged words when giving an incorrect example does detract from the main point – and could be seen as engaging in similar behavior to what is being called out as negative.
Elder Gerard previously was a oil/gas lobbyist…
Personal reactions: yesterday I literally felt smothered as I heard the announcement of Lehi and West Jordan temples – they will become the 3rd and 4th temples closest to where I live.
“Damn the truth claims – full speed ahead on the temple building project.”
So I left and went for a drive – going forward I think I will arrange to be on a roadtrip during General Conference. And it may be time for me to fully disengage from the Church and let the consequences follow i.e. redefine my relationship with my TBM wife and child #2.
Child #1 is a free spirit and growing into her feminine beauty and independence and there will come a time when she disengages as well although she became semi-active again by her own choice several months ago.
Jack Gerard’s talk was abysmal. Half way through I pulled a dictionary off the shelf and searched for alternate definitions of the word “integrity.” It didn’t help. It was doublespeak. One could easily come away from the talk believing that institutional loyalty had supplanted loyalty to Jesus’ teachings.
I strongly condemn the claim that Porter Rockwell fired some shots at Governor Boggs. If Rockwell had fired any shots, Boggs would have never lived to tell the tale.
I like Elder Uchtdorf and appreciate his messages – more than others he seems kind and compassionate. Unfortunately he doesn’t have the strength of personality or conviction to change church culture. Remember he signed off on hiding church assets from members and the SEC.
The church is decades away from meaningful change.
I’m struggling to understand where you get this statement: “Korhior who criticized religious beliefs and who was lynched by offended believers in a Book of Mormon story.” Korihor, per the account, was trampled to death by the Zoramites, hardly “offended believers.” Instead, it sure seems to be another variation of Satan does not stand by those he tempts when the “end” comes for that person. I just can’t imagine any “TBM” getting Trump-style mafia speak from such an allusion, since no TBM would see themselves in the Zoramites. Instead, they would see the Zoramites as symbolic of others who have also rejected the gospel.
It just makes your point #2 there completely pointless – “if you get upset and decide to kill them, well I guess they deserve it, don’t they?” It reads, rather, as a conclusion you made that you then tried to force the story to fit. I just can’t imagine anyone getting a message from that allusion to Korihor as an invitation for people to commit violence against those that criticize etc. I would instead get the idea that those that criticize will be betrayed or at least abandoned by those the criticizer was their friend and co-criticizer.
And I don’t mean this as a defense of Elder Gerard. I find the talk topic disappointing as well. But let’s not distort stories and gin up controversy (inviting people to lynch) where the story just does not support that conclusion (outside of the poster’s head, at least). That’s just poor form. Frankly, it cheapens just how horrible Trump’s actual antics are, and how actual people (frustratingly, way too many members of the church) find justification in Trump’s words. To equate E. Gerard’s allusion to Korihor to Trump (1) gets the Korihor story fundamentally wrong to begin with (honestly – lynched by offended believers? the Zoramites who kicked out Alma??? come on), and (2) desensitizes people to the real problems and issues that Trump’s rhetoric and antics creates.
Dave B. I liked your OP very much, and mirrored many of my thoughts about conference. Just one suggestion. Young Women do a whole lot more than go to the gym or the grocery store. They play basketball, volleyball, swim, and other sports or activities wearing much the same thing as their male counterparts. This is true with BYU women’s sports. Unfortunately, I have heard that the garment police are still active at the BYU gym, focusing exclusively on women, as they were when I attended more than 40 years ago. You are certainly right that women’s clothing and garments are policed more than men.
One quick story. My junior year, DHO became the president. A-line skirts were the fashion, and you had to have some sort of slit to be able to move your legs, whatever the length may be. One Sunday, DHO was with wife and daughter and was horrified by seeing a girl in a crosswalk. ”What is that?” he asked. ”It’s the current fashion.” ”Not at BYU.” So we got half a devotional from him insisting that any slit in a skirt must be sewn up. My irreverent roommates and I had some fun with that–“Sew up your slit or you’re a slut,” and more importantly, why was he checking out some girl’s ass? Suddenly the campus was filled with slit police. Ah BYU!
Dave B: Here’s a way-back story that indirectly speaks to your comments about religious violence and persecution complexes.
In 1976 then Missouri Governor Kit Bond officially rescinded the infamous 1838 Mormon Extermination order by Governor Lilburn Boggs. Oddly enough, that official order had never been taken off the books, so I suppose it was technically unwise for any latter-day saint to enter the state due to threat of execution or forced removal. Not that that would have ever happened, of course, but it was, at least, a nice gesture by Governor Bond. The idea had been bandied about among MHA members and was presented to him by RLDS appointee minister Lyman Edwards, who along with his brother Paul (who died just a few months ago), is a grandson of RLDS President Fred M. Smith and great-great grandson of Joseph and Emma. I remember RLDS World Conference delegates giving Bond’s declaration a warm and enthusiastic response, even though it was basically a symbolic gesture. As I recall news reports from LDS general conference where the declaration was announced, the attendeees’ response was polite but mixed with some laughter. In my biased way, I translate that as “Well, bless your heart Governor. But, you know, we are not giving up the best persecution story we’ve ever had. It’s even better than that time Joseph was tarred and feathered and run out of Kirtland.”
Interesting side note: In his infamous July 4 oration, Sidney Rigdon, was actually the first to use the term “extermination,” in his case what might lay ahead for Missourians who opposed the Mormon setttlers in northern Missouri. Pot/kettle.
Dave B,
I agree with others who have indicated that you seem to be a bit out of sorts.
I thought the conference was beautiful. But, of course, that should come as no surprise to those of you who know that I’m orthodox. It was as if the leadership was trying to lift the entire church to a higher spiritual echelon. There was a lot of focus on Christ and our relationship with him.
After hearing President Oaks’s talk, I’m tempted to burn my garments. He didn’t even try to make garment-wearing sound like something spiritual. He sounded like a power-hungry cartoon villain who had trapped a bunch of innocent people in a devil’s bargain and is now collecting. Isn’t the church wealthy enough to survive even if people stop buying their underwear?
I second Jack Gerards talk being abysmal. Hello pot, I’m kettle. The guts it takes to stand in public and lecture people on being honest, while simultaneously displaying a lot of questionable ethical standards as an institution, is mindboggling. When he talked about his interview with Elder Uchtdorf and being asked, Is there anything in your life that, if made public, would be embarrassing to you or the church? WHAT? And Gerard spins this “risk management” question from something about “worthiness” to “Integrity”. Maybe, I’m wrong, but isn’t the irony of the question in a talk about integrity that, anyone on the planet could answer No to it.
First of all, of course there is something in my past, his past, anyone’s past that would be embarrassing. The question however reveals in a single sentence what I see as the central problem of my cherished LDS tradition, PERFORMANCE! That question essentially says, I don’t really care about “You”, or even what you have or haven’t done it your life, I’m really only concerned with how that might reflect on us. These types of questions promotes a culture of dishonesty and hiding. If I remember correctly, isn’t it the character of Satan in the garden story that tells Adam and Eve to hide when they become aware of their nakedness? It seems like it places the emphasis on appearing to be good, instead of actually being good. How are any of us ever going to feel whole when we are asked to show up as part of a human?
I listened off and on. Most of the messages seemed to be about encouraging personal religious practices: making covenants, going to the temple, prayer, the sacrament, scriptures. And the personal blessings you will enjoy as a result. What about the rest of your time? Is the goal to fill every waking hour of life with scripture reading and going to the temple? Our leaders travel a lot. Do they see the horror show out there, that the world is desperately in need of Christian service and values? I am disappointed not to hear more about ways I can be a disciple of Christ in my community. Finally Elder Stevenson at least mentioned loving your neighbor. Did anybody else say anything at all about what we should be doing in the world as Christ’s body? Maybe I missed some talks, if so please point to them.
I don’t care about any more blessings for myself right now! I want the kids and families being blown up in war or starving to death to see some love, mercy and justice from people who believe in Jesus.
Dave B,
While I admit you didn’t get the details of the Korihor story right I am sad to say that unfortunately, in my ward the story is being used as you described it, and so may be interpreted by members as you described.
I post a lot on FB, and I have been open about my concerns with multiple topics. A woman whose family dominates the leadership of the church in my area (her brother was bishop, now her brother in law is bishop, her husband is in the bishopric, she and her sister have both been RS presidents) spoke recently about Korihor in sacrament meeting. Her sister and brother are both on my FB friend list, so I know she is quite likely aware of my concerns personally.
She carried on at length praising Ammon and the former Lamanites as “bad asses” for physically attacking Korihor and carrying him off to be judge by Alma. She meant this in a very physical way and compared it to the actions of an athlete she admires.
She went on to say that we are too soft today on people speaking out against the church. I personally felt a sense of being physically threatened. But when I asked other people what they heard in that talk they all heard different things.
So, yeah. The use of that story against people who disagree can be troubling. That same story can be used to pin point what is an anti Christ point of view. The anti Christ point of view Korihor was in trouble for preaching, was that God doesn’t bless anyone, and that we each do how we do because of our individual “management of the creature”. So basically Korihor was preaching a form of prosperity gospel, the idea that each of us are in control of our lives and can be judged on that basis.
It’s as Dan McClellan says. People use the scriptures to serve whatever agenda they personally want to achieve.
Dave B, thank you for providing us a post and an impetus to discuss general conference. I can only speak to Elder Holland’s address, which I watched in part because of your post singling it out. Notwithstanding his infamous “musket” address, Elder Holland’s is a voice and a speaking style I have been fond of since he was called to the apostleship while I was serving my mission.
In a forum which often does reverence to the point of innocuous corporate speak (bland), Holland has often spoken with a fervency, even passion, balanced by poise, and offering greater depth of thought. Also, with the possible exception of a President Hinckley talk or two, I’ve never seen anyone else land a boisterous joke and secure a bigger laugh from audiences that otherwise only specialize in folding their arms and bowing their heads. There are others, plenty and confident, in the Church who could speak as well, with as much talent, but of all the apostles called since him, only Elder Soares has kept me at all interested, or feeling that I’m receiving anything more than sanitized, correlated, and thoroughly belabored talking points.
My 2 cents on Korihor. He’s a man who, at least early on in his BoM cameo, says some pretty reasonable things and asks some fair questions. Suddenly then, when a clumsy Book of Mormon author needs him out of the way, they have him turn out to be a special witness turned liar. How convenient. Then Alma denies him mercy and, regardless of whoever performed his trodden-under-foot execution, we see a BoM author who seems just fine with Korihor’s violent death. Crude storytelling to say the least. And anyone who uses it matter-of-factly to elicit spiritual loyalty today is no one I care to be mentored by. If you want thoughtful, compelling storytelling about civil disobedience and mob violence, skip the Book of Mormon and read Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities.
Again, thank you for this post Dave B.
lws329, holy cow then I must revise my earlier statement. I really can not believe that people would get that kind of message from mentioning Korihor. Really disappointing.
We, my husband and I, had forgotten completely that this was general confrence weekend.
We were out and about doing things and did not hear or read any of the talks.
We had an absolutely wonderful weekend and do not feel that we missed a thing.
We look back on the time when were were “all in” for the Mormon church and not only listened to but eagerly read and studied the confrence talks for months following conference.
No longer.
Since we left most of the institutional aspects of the Mormons behind our lives are now more wonderful, peaceful and even Christlike in what we choose to do with our time and money and energy.
Obeying Christ’s commandments, with love our neighbors as our selves being what we focus on the most.
No worry about small unimportant things like do we or do we not wear the garments properly, or work on getting to a Temple.
We live in an area ( not Utah) where the nearest Temple is 200 miles away over two high mountain passes, we seldom even think about a Mormon Temple now.
I almost passed on this article but decided to read it and the comments anyway.
I think DaveB did a fanstastic job in his writing and so did the commentors.
I apoligize that my comment is not quite what is expected to follow DaveB’s guide lines.
Reading all of this was a great experience, thanks to all.
I agree with most of what has already been said on this thread.
Elder Gerard’s talk was especially jaw dropping. So hypocritical.
Before Elder Kearon got up I said to my wife “watch, this will be the one guy who’s actually humble and won’t make himself the focus of the talk.” And then he gets up and begins with a smarmy, aw shucks, humble brag about how his mother in law would be so surprised at his call.” Translation: “Look at me, I’ve just won the second biggest prize in all of mormonism. Aren’t I so great? Oh how proud my mother in law would be.” I got up and left the room.
Chet,
I know I’m walking on sacred ground here–but please–stay in the church for the sake of your family. What you don’t want to do is leave and then half a lifetime later learn that you were wrong. By then there might be damage done that could take several generations to repair.
I also found Elder Holland’s talk to be really sad, “my wife died, and I almost died and was comatose for while, but my take away from this is that I haven’t been working hard enough’
so depressing, it’s borderline prosperity gospel stuff
just relax dude, you’ve done enough
on the other hand though, this might also be a normal response to having lost someone dear to you and going through a traumatizing experiencing generally. Some people may not want to sit around all the time and dwell on their misfortune. Maybe it is better to be busy.
Anyway, I always have and will appreciate Elder Holland for pretty always getting personal in his talks. Whether or not I agree with his messages, you can at least tell he’s a human with actual human experiences he tries to relate to his messages. Most other GC speakers get up there and give these very robotic talks using non-concrete items to argue their points mixed in RMN quotes.
The same goes for a lot of the “old guard’ I think. Eyering and Uctdorf also make use of personal stories and experiences to illustrate their points. While it seems like most of the new guys just get up there and parrot RMN.
One of the moments that made me cringe the most was the guy that followed Elder Kearon, he said “can I borrow your accent?”
It just made me think about the anglo-centrism that white americans and especially mormons have in general. They love their british stuff and collectively can’t get over an apparent cultural inferiority complex they have to the British.
Like, would he have said that about Elder Soares’ accent? Or the accent of the Latin American woman who spoke?
Brad D: “You’re trapped now.” This encapsulates what I’ve heard from leadership under Nelson et al. They are focused on the idea that members are their captive audience, and they can do whatever they want, and everyone has to go along with it. It’s like being an ant in someone’s ant farm. There is no respect whatsoever for the members’ experiences or needs. This is their church, their money (even though it’s not like they threw a bake sale), their agenda, and you have to either get in line or shut up.
Instereo: I’m not sure about the justification of religious violence, but nor are they really calling it out. For example, if there’s a divide between bigots and racial or sexual minorities, they are on the side of the bigots. Bigots aren’t getting sidelined. Allies are. The fact that Wilcox agreed to meet with the Black Student Union after he made racist comments, then had armed security guards on hand “just in case” is exactly what I’m talking about. He certainly wasn’t taken to task for his racism. There’s a real us vs. them going on with current leadership, and they love to pretend to be the victims when they are actually the victimizers.
englecameron: I think you must be referring to a pencil skirt which is slim-fitting and goes in at the knee. An A-line skirt doesn’t usually have a slit as it goes out on both sides like an A or triangle shape.
April Young Bennett: Bingo. I completely agree.
Jake C: That’s funny you should mention that about Korihor. As a teen when I first read the BOM, I had the same reaction to that story. He’s the reasonable one, then all of a sudden a completely implausible pivot to him being a liar?? How convenient. My first thought was “Yeah, that never happened.” Like, who’s writing this crap?
So many troubling things happening around the world these days; it would certainly be helpful if we could get some real, meaningful guidance from a genuine mouthpiece of God about how we as disciples of Christ should navigate these challenges of our day. But we don’t get to hear about any of that in GC. Instead, we get fluff, retrenchment and hypocrisy. We get not one, but two talks about policing our own (and each other’s) underwear. Let that sink in for a minute.
Many Mormons choose to leave (or at least, re-negotiate their relationship with) the LDS Church for a myriad of reasons, but one very common reason is that they are burned out and turned off by the high-demand aspects, giving up so much of their autonomy to a Utah-based real estate investment firm that asks for so much, while giving little or nothing meaningful in return. One of the most tangible manifestations of that sacrifice of autonomy (besides tithing) is the temple garment. Officially, the Church teaches that it represents sacred covenants and has spiritual significance, but DHO let it slip that it was really about institutional loyalty, or rather, the institution’s ability to maintain power and control over the members.
Somehow, certain senior Church leaders seem to think the answer to the problem retaining burned-out, disaffected members is to tighten their grip even more. Either they are way out of touch with the membership, or they are deeply scared of losing their power. Or perhaps both. Whatever it is, I don’t see Christ in it at all.
Great summary. I did not listen, but my take on Gerard is that he literally doesn’t know what “Christian kindness” or “integrity” means. Like, literally doesn’t speak good english.
Love your take on how the Church is weaponizing covenants. Agree 100%. It’s depressing. It’s a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
It’s creepy for 90+ men to tell women what underwear to wear. It’s also creepy for women to be the messengers taking away other women’s autonomy.
I’m v interested in the garment discussions since I’ve personally observed MANY MANY LDS women being public about choosing not to wear garments which is in my view an important step in many women’s reclamation of personal authority and autonomy. So to see it get so much pushback is not surprising but is truly disgusting to me.
I don’t know about religious violence. I mean, I can’t see gangs of deznat-ers roaming the streets of Provo busting the ungarmented knee caps of their backsliding peers like militant Mormon punk-rock straight-edgers. However, I do see the garment line and sabbath breaking police at the BYUs taking boundary maintenance upon themselves with increased shaming. A “celestial smile” check coming soon to the BYU-I testing center is a plausible scenario (I’m only half kidding).
In terms of conference, there were a few bright spots, but overall I agree with the OP. I’m not sure when this happened (maybe the sad heaven talk) but sometime in the Nelson era, what originally seemed to be a rebranding of the same old stuff (eg. Covenants for Commandments or Covenant Path for Endure to the End), became “get with the program or you’re out.” I mean, really out. That is, Jesus can’t/won’t intercede in your life unless you do these very specific Mormon/Nelson things on a regular basis. I don’t know if this was intentional but it felt this way.Even the more positive, hopeful talks( like Elder Kearon’s) couldn’t escape the elephant in the conference center. He kept saying that God doesn’t put up road blocks to Him. He welcomes everyone. Maybe this was meant to be aspirational on his part, but I kept thinking “but…but… really??” [sigh]. I’m still waiting for a general conference where the speakers tackle and offer solutions for the really problems and injustices of society, and the very real challenges living humans are facing in THIS LIFE. It will be interesting to see which talks get emphasized in wards over the coming months and how the general membership responds to this boundary maintenance push.
Elisa, great comment “It’s creepy for 90+ year old men to tell women what underwer to wear”.
Amen To That.
I believe it is also creepy ( and a little perverted ) for a member of a bishopric or a stake presidency to ask women about their sex lives ( do they obey the laws of chastity) or their underwear ( do they wear the sacred garments properly).
It gave me a very unpleasant feeling when as a very young female convert I went into my first worthiness interviews before getting permission to attend the temple to be “sealed” to my husband.
I have never lost that creepy, unpleasant feeling of those interviews and do not understand how any male ( bishop or stake president) can feel like this is something they are willing to do to “fulfill their calling”.
It is weird.
I mentioned this feeling to my husband for the first time just a few years ago.
He told me that he thought it was creepier and weirder for a man to ask another man those questions.
I had never thought about it from that point of view, male, but I do think sweet husband has a point and a good one.
Those questions stomp all over a personal right to very private information.
It has been decades since I went into a small room alone with a male ( not my husband) shut the door behind me and put up with him asking me to answer those invasive private questions.
Same for my husband.
I’m kind of baffled by all the new temples. On the one hand, I think they literally have no idea what else to do with all their wealth, which is gobsmacking as there are many many things that could be done with it to elevate the human condition and create actual good will with the world, communities, and church members. But this one just feels like a lazy / easy way to spend a bunch that also creates a physical legacy. As the church continues to shrink, who is going to staff these? Who will attend? Is there really a demand for this??
@chloe yes, absolutely creepy. And it bothers me how many years I pushed down the feeling of “this doesn’t seem right / this violates a boundary to me.” I silenced that voice – my own voice – for so long it was hard to find later.
I agree it is also creepy for men to ask other men those questions but I disagree that it’s somehow worse because the power dynamic in a man in a position of authority that a woman will never be in asking those questions of women is just not the same IMO. But in either case I won’t subject my daughter or my sons to worthiness interviews. I find the concept and practice to be absolutely abusive.
Elder Holland holds such a complex spot. His talk when I was in the MTC “An High Priest of Good things to come” was very impactful. He then was on the same flight as I was to my mission and spoke to the missionaries there, giving his pulpit-thumping “Missionary work and the atonement” talk that he gave to missions everywhere and again was very impactful my whole mission. I couldn’t get enough of Elder Holland. Until he spoke of violent muskets and uncharitably called out a convocation speaker who shared his approved script. Since then I just can’t. I do feel very sad that he feels he isn’t enough.
That seems to be the real tension. In the last decade or so, we have Brene Brown and Adam Grant and the Tedx circuit telling us we are enough just as we are. This has impacted so many of us who thought we could never be enough. If we are enough, then things like 24/7 garments or a cup of coffee or attending boring sermons every Sunday just isn’t important. Being enough is what matters.
It appears the institution doesn’t like it when it’s members decide they are enough and disengage on all the rules. I truly believe this approach to double down will not give them the desired outcome. But whether is growing because we are God’s true church or shrinking because it’s one of those sifting of the Saints moments, the Church always has the narrative it needs to give those who stay. The house always wins.
To Dave B and RFM, thank you for watching conference so I don’t have to =). I spent Sunday morning riding Space Mountain with my wife and eight year old son instead =).
Riffing off of Chloe’s topic, over the last few years as I’ve watched members in my ward start using Nelson phrases constantly, I’ve felt more and more unsettled. And then in the span of six months, “think celestial” has taken over our discourse. And I don’t live in the Morridor.
It’s beginning to get creepy.
I’m in my 50s and a lifelong member. Maybe I’m misremembering, but this is new and weird behaviour for us to change what phrases we use so quickly.
If it wasn’t for online communities that expressed similar distaste for the new catchphrases, I’d probably be looking around at my ward and asking, “Am I being punked?” Because it honestly feels like an elaborate prank. Or Stepford Wives/Bodysnatchers territory.
Is anyone else as creeped out by this as I am?
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
James and Adam F, good points. But as lws329 notes (thank you!), a careful reading of Alma 30, reflecting its details and turns, is not what generally gets taught out of Alma 30. In the same way that “the Constitution” gets waved in American political discourse, often by people who have little idea what is actually in it, “Korihor” stands for some general ideas that don’t follow the narrative precisely. Like political violence.
April YB: “He didn’t even try to make garment-wearing sound like something spiritual.” Yeah, it’s like when parents give up trying to make up supporting explanations to give the kids and just say, “It’s a rule. I don’t care what you think. Follow the rule!”
Jake C., yes, the narrative in Alma 30 sort of takes a reasonable first half, then lurches to a desired conclusion, in a rather unconvincing way. But whether the narrative is historical or made up is, to a certain extent, not relevant to the way the narrative gets trotted out and employed in LDS discourse. Like Elder Packer’s story. It doesn’t really matter whether the story he related was accurate or apocryphal, what matters is he used to story to signal it’s okay to beat up a gay missionary.
Angela C: “I’m kind of baffled by all the temples.” I agree it’s a good way to spend some of the excess money they keep accumulating. It’s part of the “put a temple within 90 minutes of most Church members” initiative. Like so many corporate new programs or initiatives, I don’t think they have given much thought to its possible failure. If fewer people attend, they’ll just scale back hours. It’s not like they spend money to pay workers to staff them. It’s hard to see how they could fail financially.
In general: I know my OP came across as rather harsh. Well, I didn’t write the talks. If they delivered better messages, I’d have nicer things to say. But I’ll try and write something nicer next week to bring balance to the Force.
Angela. I often hear and read where the church is losing members, as you mentioned while discussing the proliferation of new temples.
But there are some analysis groups that report the church is actually increasing membership at a rate of one or two percent world-wide.
So, who is accurately reporting the actual trend? The church is continually reporting an increase in the number of new Wards and Stakes.
I would like to read your take on this issue..
I was also shocked by one sentence in particular from President Nelson parting words. He said something to the effect of, if not for our temple building and doctrines about securing the afterlife, we would just be a teaching and humanitarian organization, and not much else. He says that like those things are meaningless. What’s wrong with tending to the life that is here and now? When Jesus says, “What’s bound on earth is bound in heaven”, I would contend as he always teaches, that if you don’t create something in the present, there will be no future waiting for you.
toddsmithson,
President Nelson went on to say:
“Many other organizations can and do make your life better here in mortality. But no other organization can and will influence your life after death.”
@Dave B. All good brother! I actually agree with you a lot more than you can tell from my comment. My comment was also directed at myself and the way that I was feeling after conference. And I think that your way of looking at things is valid. Once I heard your explanation, I could tell that your criticism didn’t come because you hate the church and wanted to fight against it, but because you love the church and want to see it succeed. (Which again goes to my point. In my experience, once I hear from an individual what their motive actually is, it usually isn’t nefarious. People are usually just doing their best to do what they think is the best thing to do). And people see things very differently depending on their experiences, environment, personality, stage of faith, race, gender, etc… Thank you again for your commentary and thoughts.
I’ve commented on my reaction to this post. Here was my reaction to conference.
I’ve read New Testament and (at least in my mind) I have a general sense of Jesus, the things that he taught, and the types of things that he would say.
I’ve also studied a bunch about cults and cult leaders. I have a general sense of how cult leaders operate, the things they teach, and they types of things they would say.
When I listen to the top leaders of the church, guess who they sound more like? They consistently operate like cult leaders operate, teach things cult leaders would teach, and say things that cult leaders would say.
It’s frustrating and disappointing. I don’t want to be a cult member. I really just want to follow Jesus and the things that he taught. But I was born and raised in the LDS church, so this is my heritage and culture and where most of my family and friends are. My question is: “Can I just be a follower of Jesus Christ and remain in the LDS church?” I guess I’ll try, and just see how long they let me.
Margot: I completely agree with you about what a turn off it is for people to be so openly Nelson worshippy, and I do not get it at all. Back when I was going I heard a much younger than me sister gushing about him with big wide eyes “President Nelson is just soooo amazing!” to someone else. I was just shaking my head. Has she literally never heard or read anyone else speak ever? I don’t understand how anyone can think this is the pinnacle of human contribution or wisdom.
Angela, here is my prophecy based on exactly the retrenchment push. Yes, with so many temples and a shrinking membership, staffing temples will become the new way to try and keep members in and active. There will soon be a dialogue about how vital the work is and that covenants were made in the temple to give of our time, talents, etc., so therefore, many of us older members will be “called” to serve in these temples. You will be voluntold to serve in the temple. So you’re not going to serve a senior mission, eh? Then you can serve in the temple x hours/week. I’m afraid I can see it coming, and there is nothing in this world that I would rather do less than have to go to the temple weekly just to keep them operational.
April Young-Bennett,
Saying the recent rule-reading about g’s was about money is a cheap shot, unless you have evidence. Yes- it’s typical border-guarding, and yes, heavy-handed and unhelpful (it’s like they never raised teenagers). But, g’s are subsidized, and not a money maker like tithing settlement at Christmas or temple recommend pressure (dependent on tithing).
I agree the recent rhetoric is problematic, targeted at women, but not ready to say that finances were the bottom line. Change my mind?
(I’m a she/her, despite my alias).
One of the temples announced is “Brisbane Australia South Area”. There is a Brisbane temple on the south side of the Brisbane River. South of Brisbane the next major population centre is the Gold Coast, which starts 60 k south and goes to the Queensland border 100 k south. North of Brisbane the state goes for 2200 k. I live 25 k south of Brisbane. It is not to be the Gold Coast temple so on the south side of Brisbane? Why not on the north side? The road system is not designed for north side people to cross the river in the centre of the city where the presen temple is, so why another south side temple.
We have 7 units in our stake and one ward sized building from the 50s with air conditioning without a thermostat, a sound system from the same era. I froze, and could not hear the speakers.
I had to give a lesson on a talk by Jack Gerrard, so I looked him up. Yes he was a lobbyist for big oil on 5 million a year, but he saw his role to undermine climate science. Among other things he set up grass roots (grass roots means not set up by others) staffed by oil employees, and used these grass roots bodies to threaten politicians, so they did not get too green. He exercised his power without integrity, or openness.
Jack – “Many other organizations can and do make your life better here in mortality. But no other organization can and will influence your life after death.”
Those words, for me, do not provide a contextually useful commentary to his previous words, they just pile on to the mess I already see. The Old Testament has almost no references to the afterlife, they simply have no concept of life after death, they are more caught up in their current existence. God’s covenant with Abraham is about earth life. The New Testament offers little more in the way of emphasis on the afterlife. Even Jesus’ frequent references to “Eternal Life”, if you study the Hebrew and original Aramaic, that Jesus spoke, do not suggest that the term “Eternal life” is exclusively about life after physical death. Eternal life, for Jesus, was a way of being alive, a way of responding to an imperfect world, a way to show up in a world filled with conflict where peace could still abound. And chief among those ways is found in the parable of the Sheep and goats. I don’t see anything in Jesus’ words that support Eternal life being a reward for performing more rituals, spending more time being baptized for dead people, purifying myself by distancing from those awful sinners. His teaching was entirely about how we attended to the needs that are right in front of us. If I just use money spent as a metric for how well our LDS church is doing on the here and now, it’s fairly clear to me that we are missing the mark. We spend a disproportionate amount on lavish buildings, now in places that cannot support them, to secure a future existence we know so little about (basically nothing), while we hoard earthly resources and neglect the needs of people we have the capacity to help.
Troubling to hear the heavy emphasis on literalism. As in Moses, Elijah, et. al., appeared to JS in the Kirtland Temple. Was that before or after he used the notorious “Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Company” as the first Mormon affinity fraud scheme?
De Novo, I thought the same thing. The only talk I actually sat down and listened to fully was Nelson’s right at the very end. I was interested to see how an almost 100-year-old man would handle delivering a conference talk. His delivery was better than I expected. Still the subject matter was not good. I had been wondering if Nelson has speech writers or if he constructs the talks himself. His most recent talk suggested that he actually does a lot of it himself. It fits a pattern. I remember Nelson mocking the Big Bang Theory not to long ago. Real embarrassing considering his background in medicine and science. The emphasis on real visions of Elias and Moses just sounds bizarre and off-putting. I thought for a moment that the church might be moving, even if just barely, past the literalism of Joseph Smith’s visions and miracles, but I guess I was wrong.
Also, on temples. If you can’t emphasize growth in actual numbers, and you want to not highlight how rich you are, then just build a bunch of over-the-top opulent buildings called temples (which provide no real value to the surrounding community) and say “look at how much the church is growing!” It’s working though. I just saw in my news feed “Breaking News! Church to build temple in Lehi!” Ugh, local media. Can’t fawn over the church enough? Wow, I mean wow, I did not see that coming. A temple in Lehi?? My goodness. What’s next? West Jordan? Oh wait, they’re building one there too.
Mortimer: Personally, I think you’re right that money is not a motivator for the garments themselves (I’ve previously heard that they are sold at cost or even at a loss), but the real money is tithing. If you don’t wear garments, you are less likely to attend the temple and if you don’t attend the temple, you are probably less likely to pay tithing. Not wearing Gs is one of the signposts of reduced commitment. This is especially true since to the church commitment = the church in control. You could increase your commitment to the gospel when you stop wearing garments, but the church conflates itself with “the gospel” and “Christ” and “being a good person.”
Some very good and interesting comments here about the building of new temples.
Toddsmithson made an excellent observation as to the teaching of Christ in the New Testament.
He summed it up by saying that most of Christ’s teachings were about what we can do here and now to relieve the misery of our fellow man, not so much as to the lovely afterlife we will be given if we focus on rituals and pedantic works.
Several others have questioned the accelerrated Temple building as I do and many others that I know here where I live.
I have also wondered how the temples in some very unstable political and economic areas are doing.
I have friends and family that live in California near the border accross Tiajuana Mexico.
They tell me that like so many other building there the bullet holes in the exterior of the Temple are filled in and painted over on a regular basis.
There is a lot of shooting and fighting over territory by the drug cartel war lords which damages everything in sight.
My family has been wondering how the temple in Haiti is faring now where the gangs are shooting up and burning down the country.
So many of the big lovely buildings have been taken over by these gangs who occupy them, damage them horribly and then move on to a new one when they are tired of the mess and destruction.
Is the Mormon temple in Hatit being lived in by thugs and creeps now?
I do not trust the church leaders to tell us the truth, far far too many lies have come from their mouths.
toddsmithson:
“If I just use money spent as a metric for how well our LDS church is doing on the here and now, it’s fairly clear to me that we are missing the mark.”
The church ranks up there with the largest NGOs in the world in terms of money spent on humanitarian efforts. And that doesn’t include the donation of time and sweat on the part of its members. Even so, the church is much more than an NGO–and so its budget reflects other costs involved in running such a large and multifaceted organization.
Brad D:
“The emphasis on real visions of Elias and Moses just sounds bizarre and off-putting.”
I think you’ve identified a real sticking point between TBMs and many progressives. As a TBM I believe with all my heart that the heavens are opened and that such visitations are as real as real can be. But a conversation on the subject between one like myself and one who doesn’t believe in the reality of an upper world typically doesn’t get beyond the question of how to objectively verify such a reality.
About Korihor’s lynching and the relevant Book of Mormon passage, Alma 30:58-59:
“And it came to pass that they were all convinced of the wickedness of Korihor; therefore they were all converted again unto the Lord; and this put an end to the iniquity after the manner of Korihor. And Korihor did go about from house to house, begging food for his support. And it came to pass that as he went forth among the people, yea, among a people who had separated themselves from the Nephites and called themselves Zoramites, being led by a man whose name was Zoram—and as he went forth amongst them, behold, he was run upon and trodden down, even until he was dead.”
I’ve always read this story as meaning that he was trampled by a stampeding crowd in their hurry and disregard for other’s lives, not that he was intentionally murdered, but now I can’t really tell which reading is better (though I’m leaning towards the murder aspect). Thoughts?
Jack –
The church being one of the largest NGO’s is not true, they are only one of the “perceived” largest due to a very clever accounting change in 2021.
The church went from approximately $50 million in humanitarian aid from about 900 projects in 2021, to $900 million (close to a billion as Oaks puts it) in 2022 on the same number of projects. This is truly odd. How did this happen? Somebody sitting in a cubicle came up with the brilliant idea to start counting “fast offerings” as humanitarian aid, which instantly added $850 million. Also, as part of the calculation are all the volunteer hours provided by members that are given a money value without having to shell out a single dollar.
Comparing the church with other philanthropic entities as a percentage of wealth, the LDS is among the stingiest NGO’s in the world. And of course, 98% of the members don’t know of the sleight of hand they pulled to appear more generous. I wonder if Jack Gerard would call this integrity.
@Jack, the Church was caught secretly (even from much of its own top leadership!) hoarding 100+ billion dollars through Ensign Peak a few years ago. The Church had only ever spent any of these billions on 2 things: City Creek Mall and a bail out of its own insurance company: DMBA. I guess those costs must be the “other costs involved in running such a large and multifaceted organization” you are talking about. A church that hoards wealth to build malls and bail out insurance companies is a curiously multifaceted church indeed. The Church has increased humanitarian spending recently *after* their massive hoard was exposed. Interesting timing, yet in terms of percentage of overall wealth, the Church doesn’t even come close to comparing with other charitable organizations (I mean, it’s a joke to even try to compare.).
Also, the set of people who don’t at all believe in an “upper world” is a very small subset (certainly true outside of the Church, but I suspect it’s also true within the Church) of those who aren’t too sure that Joseph actually saw Christ, Moses, Elijah, etc. in the Kirtland Temple, that Joseph’s “translation” of the Book of Abraham is a translation at all, that the person’s bones the Zion’s Camp dug up was really a “white Lamanite” named Zelph, that this “upper world” told, and continues to tell, the Q15 to exclude LGBTQ indivduals from the Church, that spiritual experiences are any stronger in the “Lord’s University” (the temple) than they are anywhere else, that wearing ritual underclothing bearing exact copies of masonic symbols is super important, etc. I personally believe quite strongly, despite the fact that I have no way to “objectively verify” this belief, in the existence of an “upper world”, while I have serious doubts regarding some of the LDS claims about things that the Church has received from this upper world.
Toddsmithson – I don’t doubt your information regarding donation amounts because sadly it makes sense to me, but can you provide a source? This is something I would be interested in sharing with others, but I like to check things out before doing that. Thank you!
It’s been a while since I read the actual text of that Korihor story and I gotta say, regardless of who killed him and how, Korihor certainly wasn’t treated to much Christian charity by the Nephites.
”For I was hungry, and ye gave me scraps: I was thirsty, and ye sent me to the next door: I was a stranger, and ye ran me out of town to be trampled underfoot.”
I appreciate anyone who catches me up on conference so I don’t have to sit through it. Wars and genocide rage across the world, we move deeper and deeper into climate crisis, women’s rights are rolled back in the US, misinformation spreads virtually unchecked on social media, AI looms like a specter over our reality, and younger generations face increasing economic hardships while a known criminal and wannabe dictator is poised to become president of the US a second time. I am genuinely hungry for spiritual solace grounded in reality and the church instead serves up conformity rooted in a nineteenth century fever dream. No thank you.
The church leaders who concocted the shell companies that led to the $5 million SEC fine need to read Elder Gerard’s talk. So tired of the double speak.
Aporetic1,
I can think of at least two or three phrases from the New Testament that–by many of today’s standards–would make the Savior look like quite the cult leader. And I write that as a believer.
I’d agree that some of the words of modern leaders give that impression of the faith as well. I think the New Testament bears some responsibility for that conditioning.
And yet, ironically, the more I heed the advice of the Savior and leaders of this and past dispensations, the greater thirst for knowledge I have, the more I look outside myself, the more I care for the needs of others in or out of my faith, and the more freedom I feel. Feels like a poor tactic for control. I can see unity as a definite byproduct though.
Sooo…
Did any of the speakers address (however vaguely) the current escalation of political polarization, ill will, and faithlessness in democratic institutions?
I’ll be honest, from what I’ve read so far, this conference doesn’t seem as controversial barring the underwear obsession they continued from their Women’s Conference meeting.
That’s not noth’un of course, but the criticisms seem focused on fewer cases of extraordinary insensitivity/dishonesty than normal.
On the other hand, there have also been consistently mentioned by both TBM’s and progressives two major talks as being exceptionally good.
Am I missing anything, or was this General Conference pretty forgettable in comparison to its surrounding context?
two really good talks, two (three?) particularly bad talks.
a lot of ‘meh’ in between.
Forgettable is preferable to incendiary but also unlikely to move members and nonmembers towards any abrupt change to political behaviour. That seems odd if they’re worried about domestic political instability. Maybe I’m just entering my mellow stage as an exmo, but nothing strikes me as significant about this conference.
Eli, I’m glad that you’ve had such a good experience. I say, keep with it brother, if it’s leading to good outcomes for you then it’s tough to argue with that.
I’ve actually been really conflicted in my own life as I’ve studied cults. On the one hand, it’s really concerning to me that when I read about cults, most of the bullet points match up with the church organization I belong to. On the other hand, I look at my life and all the great outcomes I’ve achieved in my life while belonging to this high demand church organization, and for me it’s been a net positive.
The conclusions that I’ve come to are: #1 Even if the church is on the spectrum of being a cult, for most people it’s not a destructive cult (although for some it is). #2 The strict rules and cult-like practices supported me and were comforting when I was younger (and in my earlier stages of faith) #3 As I’ve aged (and grown hopefully), I no longer feel supported by strict rules and cult-like practices, they feel constraining and controlling (dare I say damning?) to me.
Linking this back to the OP- All the talk about covenants and garment wearing can actually be supportive and comforting to people, depending on where they are in life. The same talk about covenants and garment wearing can feel like “controlling and weaponizing” to other people. It’s not necessarily good or bad. I think that you feel supported and comforted by it, then good for you, embrace it! If you feel controlled and constrained by it, then it’s okay to just say “That’s not for me” and let it go. Those who are supported by it will tell you that you are wrong, (thank you Jack), but that’s okay. And you’ll likely want to tell Jack he’s wrong, but you won’t be able to convince him, and that’s okay too.
@familywomen: Here’s the source you requested. Go to the website, scroll down, and select the link for LDS Charities 2022. It’s a series of slides that gives an excellent breakdown of the church’s humanitarian donations. https://widowsmitereport.wordpress.com/
@toddsmithson: “The New Testament offers little more in the way of emphasis on the afterlife“
The New Testament, at least Jesus’ teachings, is entirely regarding the afterlife, even if indirectly. Whilst Jesus didn’t spend time talking about the afterlife itself specifically, he specifically tied all of his teachings to the afterlife, such as in the Sermon on the Mount where he references it multiple times. He focuses on how we should live now, but the point of that is that how we live now directly affects the afterlife.
Dot & familywomen
Thanks Dot for posting the link. This video also provides a nice summary of what the Widows mite report details out.
Did the Mormon Church REALLY give $1 Billion to Charity? – YouTube
The point here is not that the church is lying, only that once their massive wealth was exposed during the SEC scandal, they needed to step up their humanitarian game. The answer was not to actually significantly increase charitable aid around the world, although it has increased some, it was to begin reporting fast offerings as humanitarian aid. To be fair, fast offerings are “kind of” charitable aid, but is often tangled up by those receiving it first being tithe payors. Reporting fast offerings is not necessarily false, but the appearance of greater aid did not happen because “The Church, the institution” imparted of more of their money from their investment portfolio. It came on the backs of individual members, with “The Church” taking the credit.
I’m with Kirkstall – thank you for your comment. I feel like church is indeed in a completely different century trying to work on things that really have zero bearing on the challenges of living in today’s world. I don’t feel like it is an exaggeration to ask “is there ANYTHING that the LDS church is currently emphasizing doing ANIYTHING to help anyone?” Being inactive the past few years and seeing things from a different angle, I see little value in anything related to temples, garments, reminding women of their “eternal place” (always less then men, but wow, we love you!), the dire need of the “traditional” family structure (sorry to the millions that will never fit in), more tithing to a church that doesn’t spend much at all to help others, missionary service that doesn’t amount to anything productive…seriously, is the church completely irrelevant in 2024 to what people need as a community?
Note: leaving my full name – wouldn’t dare be accused of lacking integrity by the Brethren for doing something without full transparency.
“It came on the backs of individual members, with “The Church” taking the credit.”
They revamped the Primary program in 2018 I think to introduce flexibility to the program and provide some direction. I believe that the church was transitioning away from Cub Scouts and easing into the 2 hour church format at the same time.
As I was watching the introduction videos designed for Primary leaders, parents, and children – I was struck by how the family-centered “credit” for a child’s accomplishments was being given to the church program while the family was actually providing the supports. To my perspective, I saw that potentially the initial goal framework was provided by the program being rolled out – but the family was sitting with the child day by day to complete the accomplishment.
Sea Urchin –
One of our biggest problems reading scripture is that we read ancient text through a modern western lens, which causes us to mostly misunderstand the words, phrases, and messages Jesus taught as he intended them, through his original eastern poetic style, but instead we impose meaning on the text from our point of view. Dave Brisbin has become extremely meaningful in my reading of the New Testament. He has done invaluable work in trekking through Jesus’s words and placing them in their ancient context. No word of phrase is any more misunderstood than what he says is Jesus’ primary message, which is “The Kingdom of Heaven”.
He explains this far better than me so here are some of his words.
“If you were asked to name Jesus’ main purpose in his ministry, could you do it? There will be many answers of course, but we don’t have to speculate. Jesus told us flat out in Luke 4 that his purpose was to preach the Kingdom of God to all the cities. So if the Kingdom of God is Jesus’ purpose, have we gotten the message? Do we know what the Kingdom is? Just as it was misunderstood by Jesus’ first followers, we misunderstand too, which is why Jesus goes to such lengths to tell us that the Kingdom is not a place but a quality of life to be lived, not future but now, not out there somewhere, but within and all around us.
If you were stranded on the proverbial desert island with just the Sermon on the Mount, you’d have not only all of Jesus’ teaching, but the core of all the prophets before him. The first Jewish followers understood the Sermon as the foundation of the Way of Jesus and of theirs as well. Used it as a catechism, memorized it, internalized it, passed it on by oral tradition for thirty to fifty years until finally written down in Matthew.
The Sermon hasn’t changed since Matthew, but our view has. The church hasn’t known what to do with the Sermon for some sixteen hundred years, since we stopped looking at it in the way it was first delivered. If we’re willing, it can be our foundation again, clarifying and focusing again in a way so needed today as more and more people needlessly leave Jesus in search of authentic spirituality…because the church doesn’t know what to do with the Sermon.
The Sermon can reclaim its proper place in our lives if we’re willing to see it again through the eyes of poet Jesus: not defining literal truth as much as evoking a life of radical change, as a balance between knowing and loving, unlearning enough to know how to love enough to see what is uncontained in words. The Sermon only makes sense within the context of the Kingdom of Heaven, the reign of God’s unity right herenow, the quality of life of someone who has become Kingdom—not a code of conduct to obey, but the gradual acceptance of a gift we could never give ourselves. We don’t enter or possess this Kingdom, that is poet-speak for realizing Kingdom in ourselves as we intentionally live our Way into seeing life through Father’s eyes.”
In LDS terms, we have adopted the literal view and placed that view into a structure of rites, rules, and rituals that will bring about our requisite reward in the afterlife.
I personally take no issue with employing rituals as a liminal space, where they are used as introspection and invitations for God to come into my life. My issue with how my LDS tradition positions, let’s say “temple marriage, eternally sealed”, is the ritual is seen as a literal necessity. The ordinance itself is what makes the marriage eternal, and any marriage, regardless of the strength it has, if not performed by the power of the LDS church, then it will not have heavenly staying power. This makes sense until you spend a little time living, and then this literalist view becomes completely absurd. Marriage, by any measure, the ones that we might call heavenly are not made divine by pronouncing them so, they are made heavenly by creation. The ritual can be really nice as a way to create the possibility in our minds, but whether I have a great marriage, even one that will transcend death, is entirely a matter of doing the things that create that. It makes zero sense to me that a marriage is bound in heaven, that hates each other here on earth, or abuses, betrays, etc. Or a relationship here on earth that is beautiful, fulfilling, productive, and loving with be disbanded because it wasn’t performed in the correct building.
Sorry, for the way to lengthy post, but this has become one of the major sticking points for my engagement in the church.
Amy,
I want to add to that, it’s convenient for the church to blame parents when children leave the church rather than accepting our children’s specific concerns as a reality the church could change.
As my son says “They could be less culty”(less controlling of members starting at young ages).They could be less misogynistic, they could make a real place for single and LGBTQ people in our church physically, emotionally and in heaven. They could be transparent and tell the truth and act with the actual integrity of accountability. They could open up lines of communication to listen to members. They could start specific programs in every stake to help the homeless, staffed by missionaries.
Temples are great and inspiring for many people and work for the dead has it’s value. Still, I think work for the living is really what matters.
Angela C, agreed- it’s all interconnected and tithing is the machine that needs to be piled with border guarding. But, thank you for acknowledging the fact that g’s are indeed subsidized (even more so today as the church grows across the world). The g industry is also supported by many volunteers. It alone is not a cash cow, as April suggested. (She is one of my heroes and I am both appreciative of her advocacy work on behalf of LDS women), but in the interest of facts and fairness, I called that low blow out.
Misappropriation of money raises the hackles in others and creates and instant bitterness. When it is deserved, it is deserved, but when it’s fake- its sole purpose is just to poison.
BTW, I “liked” your comment, I don’t know who the lone thumbs-down person is.
“I want to add to that, it’s convenient for the church to blame parents when children leave the church rather than accepting our children’s specific concerns as a reality the church could change.” – ls329
I just figured that the church organization used that as a purity culture mechanism and thought something could change if the parents (who were listening to the church) did. The children (having been raised largely in cultures that were more nomadic, globally connected, and focused on anti-discrimination practices) weren’t listening to the church organization, so talking to them was a waste of the church’s time.
The church leadership is older, primarily male, and has the mental assumption that “parents have more control over their children” then the parents really do. They don’t necessarily remember how much control their parents had over them, and/or how much control they had over their children. It doesn’t help any that when they had children, times had shifted as much – so their wives were the primary child-raisers (who got the children to do “the things”), so they think it is easier then it actually is.
I also wonder at times whether D&C 121 is “a means to an end” or “the end itself”. All those good qualities (patience, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith) are worth cultivating – but you can’t do it in an external power struggle because they are internally driven. If you are working “in good company” on patience for example – you need to be able share in the frustration of being patient and practice active listening to hear how the other person practices patience. If you are “your own best company” and working on patience, then your inner monologue is going to be about “how do I become patient here” and “how do I put up with this situation better”…
But if these virtues are just “a way to get an end result” – which may be at least more self control and introspection if not more then that – I guess it doesn’t matter as much?
Just recently, I landed on the idea of informed consent and garments. I now know I was asked to agree to something I did not understand. I now have to choose to lie, be inauthentic in a TR interview or be judged as a covenant breaker “- both options stink. Defending myself by discussing my body and clothing is quite icky to me as well. 😦 it’s really unfortunate.
“Informed Consent” is such a big concept – especially when talking about a religious/cultural perspective.
I was thinking about how the baptism promises our 8 year old children consent to are “the same” and “not the same” as those same promises that our theology teaches adults consent to upon baptism and re-consent to while taking the sacrament. When I was younger, I thought that was super-cool and an equalizing factor, but now – I’m not so sure.
I’ve been thinking about what I actually promised to when I got sealed to my husband. The language has updated at least 1x in 17 years – so technically I don’t know if I am bound to what I said “Yes” to when we got sealed, what I told my husband I would say “Yes” to before we got sealed (we had a rather frank discussion where I explicitly told him that if he thought I was actually going to “obey” him even though that was in the wording – I wasn’t and he needed to take that into consideration), or what the legal ramifications of “saying Yes” then means now in terms of being “legally married” (as a spouse, my paperwork has additional fields, different forms, and I am held accountable for the “care and support” I provide my husband by the medical field sometimes).
As part of the sealing process in the temple, I didn’t explicitly commit to making all his doctor appointments, but the unstated order of things says that that was part of a general commitment of being married for forever (unless I explicitly refuse to do so to the point where my spouse gets into the habit to handling that).
While my example is a specific example that can be hand-waved as “enabling my spouse” and “good wife gold star”, there is a lot of gray areas where what I do as part of “being married” isn’t directly spelled out as part of the sealing process or the “being legally married” process.
I wish that someone had counseled us about “what the legal definition of marriage” entails, as well as the “cultural definition of a legal marriage” before we even got to “legal definition of a sealing” and the “cultural definition of a temple marriage”. We don’t talk about it because those who are married civilly first are assumed to have sorted it out before “getting sealed in the temple” and should know about it. We assume that the “temple marriage” side is the more important side (law of chastity and all that) and that “having a temple marriage” teaches people “how to be married” and what “the marital responsibilities” are. And to be honest, maybe we don’t have standardized definitions for any of those situations that we can talk about.
@toddsmithson
There’s a lot to disgest there, but do you believe in the afterlife at all? Or is it more the LDS rituals and rules that you disgree with?
You’re correct that we apply modern understandings to the ancient text, but unless you’re completely at odds with modern Christianity’s interpretation of it (in the general sense), then it’s a moot point. If we take Jesus’ teachings alone then he is most definitely referring to the afterlife, both in the Sermon on the Mount and other teachings. I do find that this is undeniable, regardless of the lens used.
>Marriage, by any measure, the ones that we might call heavenly are not made divine by pronouncing them so, they are made heavenly by creation.
I agree. For me, a sealing only makes a marriage heavenly if it’s done in faith, in the same way that baptism only provides rebirth if it’s done in faith. Of themselves, it’s just words and a ritual, but when done in faith, they’re transformative covenants.
Sea Urchin
Do I believe in the afterlife? Similar to asking people whether they believe in God, there is a lot to unpack that we believers have chosen to encapsulate in a simple, Yes. My answer about the afterlife is, I live my life as if the afterlife exists. That is even more the reason I believe, as LSW states above, the work for the living ought to take priority over the work for the dead. So, I believe, whatever the afterlife is will largely depend on the sociality we have attended to here.
As far as the sermon on the mount being perfectly clear he is talking about “the afterlife”. Are you not bringing to the text an assumption about the words you understand to mean “afterlife” and imposing them on Jesus. Did Jesus mean the same thing with the words and terms he used as we modern readers do?
You say it’s perfectly clear, I say, no it isn’t. Similar to the story of Adam and Eve, Christians say it’s clear that “Sin” was the problem exposed in the story, but the story says absolutely nothing about “sin”, it only says they will now have to work and have adversity, but nothing about sin. So, how did Christianity come to see the primary issue of mortality as sin?
@Margot and others:
The rapid adoption of the latest “new phrase” is absolutely something weird and modern (didn’t exist back when i was in college three decades ago). There was then, typically, a search for “themes” in what the prophet was emphasizing, so I suppose we’ve always wanted to discern what the prophet’s emphasis was. But it didn’t involve catchphrases and sloganeering back then.
Personally, I find the “memeification” and proffering of catchphrases (“think celestial”) to be sorta not my jam and weird-ish. That was my initial reaction to “think celestial” last conference – – it felt like it was TRYING to be a bumpersticker. Having said that, I’m solely making a stylistic point here. The underlying idea (of trying to adopt an eternal perspective, making sure we prioritize the important over the urgent/immediate, thinking longterm vs shortterm) is an abundantly appealing one and a great reminder, in my opinion. I have an older sibling who has for years invoked a quote attributed to President Kimball — “this life is but a grain of sand on the Sahara of eternity” — that conveys a similar idea, and I find it moving and poetic. Again, stylistically, I prefer poetic over a more meme-caption approach, but to each his own I suppose. (In fact, it could be argued that bumper sticker approaches are perhaps a new effective way to approach gospel ideas in the age of tiktok; maybe “think celestial” is a big hit with youth? In which case, good for RMN and the church for trying to adapt to messaging norms to achieve greater impact. Who knows.)
Having said all that, what i DO find odd is the rapid adoption of new phraseology – like wildfire – upon its introduction. No example is more illustrative than the erasure of “Mormon” from our vocabulary. Like… ok i guess, if that’s what we’re doing now. (I personally find it strange and whiplashy to shift from the recent I’m a Mormon vibe, as others have pointed out ad nauseum.) But the thing that felt cult-y and weird to me was the moment i was sitting in a second or third hour on a fifth Sunday, not too long after that RMN talk, and hearing ward member after ward member suggest some sentiment that indicated that ‘they were always offended by the word Mormon’. And i was finally like: Listen, if the prophet is asking us to de-emphasize the use of that moniker now, fine. But we certainly don’t have to pretend it used to offend us! It certainly didn’t offend Joseph Smith. Folks weren’t quite sure what to do with that comment, indicating that they had been “told” what to believe, so retconning their own past views was almost reflexive. THAT was the moment that surprised me: people in the church are now gaslighting THEMSELVES in an attempt to over-virtue-signal. Like, wow. That’s what’s weird. And now I can’t unsee it… rapid adoption of “think celestial” rings the same way. Or Elder Haynie’s 2023 GC talk about Pres. Nelson crushing his water bottle and the rest of the first presidency immediately following suit. It’s a strange thing, and I think also explains the rise of the practice of relentlessly citing the current prophet in GC…. though i could be wrong, I speculate that this is purely an informal norm that has arisen, versus some explicit instruction. But it’s become a strange sort of hyper virtue signalling now, to adopt the latest phrase etc. Sort of a piece with the exuberant gushing about going to the temple (I mean, I’ve had wonderful experiences in the temple… but the way it’s now relentlessly described is way over the top. sort of like Hawkgrrrrl’s reference to people gushing over RMN as a speaker being so amazing.) There’s this apparent social desirability now to be superlative in one’s true blue status.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
I’m going to close comments now, as the Church just released new guidance to local leaders on LDS garments (a letter and revised TR questions), which deserves its own post rather than get discussed in the comments here in relation to Sister Dennis’s talk. Expect another post at W&T in coming days.