Kurt Francom is thehost of the Leading Saints Podcast and is the author of “Is God Disappointed in Me?” Kurt believes that shame is the main obstacle to keeping people engaged in the Gospel, and that focusing on grace can help retain members. Kurt’s book aims to articulate this idea and provide encouragement for those feeling overwhelmed by their gospel experience. Kurt frequently tackles sensitive topics in church leadership, like pornography, drug use, and suicide. This isn’t your typical fare at Sunday School, and Kurt often brings in experts to help train leaders on how to handle these tough topics. He aims to provide helpful perspectives and resources for individuals.
Kurt argues that God has never been disappointed in us, despite some church leaders suggesting otherwise. Kurt challenges the framing of doctrines like eternal families, which can lead to misunderstandings and sadness. He says true doctrine can be framed badly and hates the “sad heaven” narrative that some promote. He also discusses the importance of addressing shame in overcoming addictions. Kurt frames grace in an encouraging way to help people stick with their faith longer.
Rick expressed frustration with shame-based approach to addressing pornography addiction. Kurt suggests that focusing on behavior change may not lead to heart change, as Christ’s approach involved transforming identity first. The Church’s focus on behaviors can sometimes overshadow the importance of grace. Kurt feels it is important to emphasize God’s grace and acceptance vs. shame and condemnation.
Rick asked Kurt about the Old Testament God, who seems angry and disappointed. Kurt said that is a tough one, but a sweet grandmother would read it as encouraging, highlighting God’s desire to help us change. Francom emphasizes the importance of God’s grace and acceptance in overcoming sin and weakness. Rick compares God’s coaching style to that of “a player’s coach” like Pete Carroll rather than “drill sargeants” like Bill Parcells or Bobby Knight. Kurt seems to emphasize the encouraging, rather than coercive coaching which highlights God’s desire to help people progress and develop.
Mormonism and Evangelicalism
Kurt has done interfaith work with Pastor Jeff McCullough. They discuss the role of good works in Mormonism and evangelicalism, and how Mormons and evangelicals differ with regards to grace and works. Following Jeff’s visit to an LDS ward, Kurt visited 3 churches with Jeff, including a Lutheran Church with a more liturgical tradition, a church plant (branch), and a megachurch with a charismatic pastor. Kurt appreciated the variety of experiences and noted things he both appreciated and missed while visiting these other faith traditions, noting the diversity of worship styles and the importance of self-awareness for LDS leaders. Kurt enjoyed the live music and the impact of different perceptions on leadership,, and found beauty in their worship. Kurt believes God is present in these churches, bringing people closer to Jesus Christ.
Latter-day Saint and evangelical differences.
Kurt and Jeff share quirks and differences in their faith traditions, such as how they celebrate Halloween and handle coffee consumption. Kurt and Jeff have a friendly and respectful dialogue about their beliefs, highlighting the value of understanding and appreciating different perspectives. Kurt found it interesting that Jeff said few evangelicals have images of Jesus in their homes. Jeff found the Word of Wisdom’s ban on coffee & tea strange.
Kurt aims to reframe repentance as a beautiful gift given by the Savior, rather than a source of shame as stated in his book. Rick asked Kurt about whether the LDS Church’s framing of the Gift of the Holy Ghost can lead to shame and exclusion. Is it true that the Holy Ghost won’t dwell in unclean temples as LDS are taught? This framing can lead individuals to feel rejected by God, but Kurt shared examples of how some people who are excommunicated have shared that they have never felt closer to God. This is another example of poor doctrinal framing. God never abandons us.
How grace and redemption work in Mormonism.
Kurt and Rick discuss the concept of spiritual experiences and how they can be misunderstood. Kurt emphasizes that God’s grace is sufficient and can reach anyone, regardless of their circumstances. Sometimes the Church’s focus on improvement rather than redemption can be harmful. It is important to emphasize the importance of framing the gospel in a redemptive way to help individuals recognize their need for God’s grace.
Whether God is disappointed in members who don’t take religion seriously enough.
Rick asked if God may be disappointed in some who don’t take religion seriously enough. He gave an example of some members of their congregation may be disappointing God due to their lack of commitment to their faith. Kurt argues that even if God is not all-knowing, He still believes in the Atonement of Jesus Christ completely. Kurt argues that leaders may be disappointed in members and try to transfer that disappointment to God, but God is never disappointed. God understands we may fall like a child learning to walk. But just like a parent doesn’t get mad when a child takes steps, God is encouraging us even when we make mistakes. Kurt believes God’s grace is unconditional and not disappointed in us, even when we mess up.
Kurt argues that God’s disappointment doesn’t fit with the God of the Old Testament, but does fit with the God of the New Testament, who is a God of complete love. They agree that shame doesn’t work as a motivator for spiritual growth, but love does.
Disappointment with God and faith.
Rick shares instances of disappointment with God, especially when a spiritual prompting turns out differently than expected. He expressed personal skepticism towards spiritual promptings after experiencing contradictory outcomes.
Kurt acknowledges that people may feel disappointed in God, even in the face of tragedy, and emphasizes God’s infinite grace and long-term perspective. Kurt shares his personal experience of feeling disappointed in God at times, but emphasizes that God will always be present and engage with us, even if we don’t want to engage with Him.
God’s influence in life, suffering, and leadership.
Kurt and Rick discuss how God works in their lives, with Kurt emphasizing that God is constantly directing them through small, everyday experiences. They discuss God’s communication with us, with Kurt emphasized God’s presence and understanding.
Allowing girls to pass the sacrament in the LDS church.
Rick and Kurt discuss the issue of girls passing the sacrament in the LDS Church. Rick noted Greg Prince has stated that women used to set up the sacrament table. Greg also noted that passing the sacrament is not a priesthood responsibility, but that leaders in the early 1900s simply needed to give the deacons something to do. Many argue that the Church should allow girls to prepare and pass the sacrament, citing equality and lack of priesthood function.
Kurt felt is is important to maintain gender roles in religion, emphasizing the importance of engaging men in faith development. Kurt argues that men’s involvement in religion is crucial for children’s faith development and moral values.
He suggests that the church should prioritize faith development over equality for the sake of better outcomes for children. Kurt believes the male priesthood is a better long-term model for the church, giving more opportunities for men to engage in a faith tradition in a more masculine way. Kurt acknowledges the importance of creating a space for young women in the church, but believes equalizing everything is not the best plan.
Women’s roles in the church, including priesthood and blessings.
Rick and Kurt discuss the historical role of women in laying hands on the sick and blessings, with Rick asking if it was ok to seek for a restoration of these practices. Kurt expresses concerns about framing the priesthood change as an equality issue. Kurt felt that equality would be too political, but was fine if it was framed as a restoration of previous church practices.
Christian Nationalism
Is Christian Nationalism a problem in the LDS Church? Kurt generally aligns with conservative politics, but noted he was surprised to learn about some of President Benson’s views. While there may be some pockets of Christian Nationalism in LDS congregations, Kurt didn’t think it was a widespread problem. He misses the open dialogue and messiness of the 1970s and 80s, when leaders were more forthcoming with their political views.
What are your thoughts on this? Does the Church frame some doctrinal issues (like grace) poorly? What do you think of Kurt’s positions on shame and grace? Is God ever disappointed in us? Do you listen to Leading Saints podcast? Do you like his approach to shameful topics like pornography, suicide, divorce, singles, and shame? What are some doctrines or policies that could be framed better?
Wheat & Tares 
I love Kurt’s emphasis on God’s unconditional love. I completely agree with him in that. God never abandons us, even especially when we are doing wrong. That part of our theology ought to be made clearer.
Kurt’s podcasts were the first podcasts that push against an Orthodox view of religion that I allowed myself to listen to. I am grateful to him for that.
However I eventually saw his blind spot, and it’s glaringly obvious in this interview.
So Kurt, the current priesthood hierarchy is better for children? Be clear here. It’s better for male children, at least in the short term.
But think about it Kurt. Is it better for female children? Male children are taught leadership and to be prepared to preside. Female children are taught to defer to males. It may seem to you this is better for females, but I assure you it is not.
Eventually many women do grow up and find we are no longer willing to be subservient and 2nd class citizens who never have a final say or even representation among those who have a decision making voice in the church. Another problem this causes is that often women expect to be treated with equality in marriage but the men expect them to defer. This causes tons of inadvertent conflict between men and women that mean well but can’t get unified without the woman deferring. It’s a problem that’s clear as mud since we make a lot of talk claiming women are equal but expecting women to defer since the man presides. Whereas a woman who sees herself as equal expects to have an equal voice and decision making power at home and at church.
It feels like betrayal as we get older, when we have so much spiritual growth we want to share with the church but nobody is interested in what an old woman thinks. Plus, often those male children grow up and find they are feminist and LGBTQ allies. And they aren’t necessarily comfortable with the church’s hierarchy because of this. It’s part of why our young men leave the church. Our young women are leaving the church too. They look around and church is the only place women don’t have an equal say.
So no. I don’t think the male priesthood hierarchy is better for children.
There are several comments on the ‘Wheat and Tares’ site claiming the LDS church is losing young people along with men and women who are older members. Several age groups who are affected, say the contributors, can’t endorse and believe in current church policies. Yet, several independent and church studies claim just the opposite. Based on reported stats the church is growing but at a slower rate than in the past.
Bottom line, what are we to believe, and does it really matter.
geraaldo 121,
I am speaking from my own personal experience and observations in my personal circles, that members of the church, especially young people, are leaving the church. I have also read the various claims in both directions from the church and other parties. I imagine even if long time members are leaving perhaps more members are joining to make up for this decline in developing countries.
Regardless, in my opinion church leaders should care about the faith crisis of members and make efforts to apologize for inequities of the past, correct hurtful practices of the present, be honest and transparent, and to act with integrity. This could help the feeling of betrayal members are faced with as they become more aware of the less faith promoting narratives of church history that the church has had to admit to as the development of the internet has made covering the past impossible.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to find any academically credible independent studies that claim Mormonism is NOT losing young and old members. Despite the questionable statistical reports issued by LD$ Inc., the facts are clear.
From Jana Reiss’ book The Next Mormons: How Millenials Are Changing the LDS Church:
“The generation born from 1980 to 1998 has a rate of 46% which is a drop from the normal 75% retention rate.”
From an article by David G. Stewart: “The End of Growth? Fading Prospects for Latter-day Saint Expansion”:
“Much of an increasingly sparse harvest has been lost to rush-baptize programs that have failed to fortify prospective converts with habits of regular
church attendance and other lifestyle changes prior to baptism. The burden of inactivity has discouraged international members and diverted resources and
manpower from outreach. These practices have left the LDS Church numerically deprived of the active membership that it could have achieved with a
timely focus on convert preparation and retention.”
“Trends point to continued underperformance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints compared to its competitors. While a range of possibilities exist, the default path is for further decline of growth rates. The LDS Church is unlikely to regain its former growth trajectory. Prospects of becoming a major world faith have faded and are likely beyond reach.”
Bottom line is there exists a plethora of scholarly studies documenting net declines in retention and activity.
what is fascinating to me about his descriptions of doctrines is that they bear little resemblance to the Mormonism I grew up with. Same impression I get of Terryl and Fiona Givens that preach a doctrine of godhood and atonement that is more divergent than most exmormons. They just pair it with calls for devoted obedience and fidelity to the current church leaders and structure. It is a deeply conservative approach to change where the doctrine and teachings diverge but still support all of the power, functions, forms and leadership of current church.
In the middle of my faith crisis I listened to both of the Givens and this podcast, but in the end didn’t resolve my concerns enough to make it worth staying. Now sometimes if I am up early I will check in and listen while I am drinking my coffee, but less often. Giving up trying to reconcile my doubts and faith mean less willingness to try to listen to the mental gymnastics behind these apologetic and faithful professional theologians.
@lws329 This is a perfect comment! I 100% agree with what you said. My son is 9-years-old and he has not been baptized. I think as long as yearly worthiness interviews are a thing, we’ll probably not have him baptized until he is 18.
We asked him if he was interested in getting baptized and he said yes, but only if mom does it (he also said he wants to wear a white t-shirt and white shorts, no pants!) Well, that is good enough for me, but I told him he might be waiting a long time!
My uncle and aunt were married in the temple and are no longer active. They might have even had their names removed, I’m not sure. But his wife is a high-powered executive who has worked at many fortune 500 companies. He tells a story of the advice that the temple sealer gave to him when he was at the altar. The sealer said, “Do you want to know the secret to a happy marriage? I’ll tell you: give your wife a little bit of spending money every week and don’t ask her what she does with it.” He related this story some 20 years later and cheekily recounted that he had indeed kept the advice, but with a twist: “Every week I ask my wife for some money, and then I give it to her, and I tell I don’t care what she does with it.”
The absurdity of modern gender roles, power, and authority vs what exists in the church is pretty obvious. I did, however, appreciate Melissa Inouye’s suggestion that perhaps if the men have the sacerdotal priesthood that the women in the church should have control of the money. Imagine if every man in the church had to go to women-led organization to get spending authority for anything. I kind of like it, but mostly because I think this would lead to women being ordained sooner rather than later because I can’t imagine the men giving up the purse strings anytime soon.
I also agree with *@lws329. *I liked all his comments and found his thoughts to be very liberal in regards to standard church dogma *until *he got to his thoughts on women’s roles. While he tries to soften his stance with the idea of restoring previous privileges, the bottom line is he finds women second rate because he doesn’t find them equal. While he says we need to emphasize God’s grace and acceptance, he’s not extending acceptance to women. I was enjoying his views, but this part was contradictory and soured my thoughts. As he (like all of us) continues on his learning journey, I hope he is open to expanding and changing his thoughts on women because his other views are much healthier than the standard fare at church and he can be a source for good.
I agree with the others who say this dude needs to change his attitude toward women.
I first noticed that the way he addresses shame is strictly about how men are shamed in the church and how it sounded like he doesn’t have a clue that women are shamed for having female bodies, and worse if we dress to make those bodies attractive and at the same time, shamed for not being attractive enough. We are horrible either way. If we are attractive, some man is telling us to cover up because we are causing men to have thoughts. And if we are not attractive enough, we are told to put some paint on the barn. Either way, it is all about our bodies. Then on top of all that shame, if a woman is sexually harmed by a man, the harm is denied and it is all about what she did to cause it. Even if she was 5.
So, while men are shamed for behavior, like looking at porn, women are shamed for simply existing as female.
So, while I totally agree with Kurt on how shame is harmful to men, he really needs to get a clue as to how shaming the church is to women.
And I was horrified that he thinks the current system with the church has with male only priesthood and male centric lessons in all meeting is good for “children”. Does he even realize the children come in “girl” as well as “boy”? It sure doesn’t sound like it. Has he ever talked to a woman about what it is like in primary where 90% of stories, examples, and songs are all about males? Well, let me share my experience. I don’t remember how old I was, only that I wasn’t baptized yet because this experience made me not want to get baptized. We were in primary and had just heard a story about a boy who woke up in the night while camping and was prompted to move where he was sleeping. It took a while for him to be convinced to get out of his warm sleeping bag and actually move, but eventually he did. In the morning he found a tree had fallen right where he had been sleeping. I remember thinking that God would never protect me that way because I was a girl and all such stories were about boys. I thought it sad that God would just let a girl be killed by a falling tree, but I had NEVER heard any stories about a girl, so my conclusion was that God didn’t like girls. After all, he was a boy too, and most boy are selfish twits (yes, I had brothers, why do you ask?) that don’t like girls. So, God was just another selfish, self centered jerk. And Kurt thinks this kind of upbringing is good for girls?
So, no thanks, Kurt. I’d rather keep the way the church shames men and change how it talks to and about women. I don’t want your version of the male centric church where women only exist to serve men. And if you don’t think equality is important, let the men be second class for a while. I think that will be good for children, at least the half that is female.
I generally really like Kurt Francom and have listened to many of his podcast episodes that are inspiring. He is making some valuable public proclamations about topics the LDS church has long struggled with, namely “Grace”. I also agree with commenters here that he is willing to challenge the “framing” of ideas or doctrines, which I agree with, but not willing to take a deeper look and underlying systemic issues that are not in line with a God of equality.
He made a comment in part 1 above about “commandments” and their purpose. Our problem with our religious language is that it’s trapped inside of a legalistic framework. ALL of our terms, including sin, obedience, repentance, covenants, justice, mercy, forgiveness, judgement, etc are defined and used in a black and white legal system where people are coded as guilty or innocent. This, IMO, created by a faulty premise, cannot escape devolving into the structural “top down”, dictatorial patriarchy we use, but refuse to acknowledge. Kurt stated that the purpose of commandments are to provide ways to refine us and help us become like him. I don’t completely disagree, however, we Westerners have swung the pendulum so far away from communal society, that even Salvation is viewed as an individual achievement. If we pay close attention to the original 10 commandments, what God is attempting to protect is NOT one’s personal standing before heaven. God is not providing a set of “to do’s” whereby we can prove our acceptability to him, and thereby qualify for his Grace. This story is completely backwards, we have an order of operations problem where we keep solving the addition and subtraction portions of the problem first and then wonder why we keep getting the wrong answer.
Grace is original, period. Grace comes first or it is NOT Grace anymore. Grace is “unmerited favor”, which means by definition there is no qualification needed, there is no checking the naughty or nice list twice to see if you deserve to get the gift. That logic makes the gift no longer a gift, but rather an entitlement. Commandments are not about the individual at all. God is only and always trying to protect the relationships that make up community, he is providing the basic things that break the trust that binds people together, and to create the awareness of God’s presence in relationship. Commandments are the ways we honor the dignity of each other, where we see another’s “Shalom” as intrinsic to my own. Commandments are the ways in which we reflect the image of God into the world around us, they are the ways in which we express the Grace he has already given.
Furthermore, covenant is NOT a contract, where God seeks to guard his precious blessings by dictating the actions needed to open up his heavenly account. Covenant is not a “ruling over”, it’s not a dictatorial arrangement where my interest in the arrangement is to get something I want from the other party. That is a marriage for money idea, and one that is a recipe for divorce. Covenant is a partnership between people that have a mutual goal in mind, where they both need each other to reach that goal. Covenant is really God trusting us to do what he can’t do here on earth. Covenant is about valuing the relationship and its power to produce good, not as some remedial exchange.
A few years ago, when I was in a phase of my faith deconstruction in which I tried to give equal time to faithful podcasts, I found Kurt’s output (Leading LDS, now Leading Saints). I initially found the subject matter interesting, but then quickly tired of it. Kurt seems sincere and no doubt has good intentions, but he also has willful blind spots. His livelihood depends on building and maintaining a faithful, orthodox core audience. He may take liberties and nuance his way around LDS theology/cosmology, but he will never openly question or express dissent with the Church, it’s leadership or organization, even when that is the most obvious root cause of a problem he is discussing. That’s the line he refuses to cross, hence his orthodox views on gender (in)equality in the Church. I wonder if he has more nuanced private views, but keeps them to himself so as not to alienate his audience and jeopardize his livelihood. In any case, he is willfully ignorant, which makes him ultimately part of the problem and not the solution.