General Conference - Fall 2023

[Roy]

I did not watch conference. I am a member of an LDS facebook group on marriage and sexuality and one woman was distressed about "think celestial" because her husband is not a member. "Think celestial" could be so wonderful about being better to each other "love your neighbor" type teaching. It is sad if it is reduced to "follow the tribe/church."

[Minyan Man]

To be fair, before I can give my opinion about GC I have to read the talks online or in the Liahona.
My general feeling is, if I can find one talk out of the two days, I come out ahead & my time was worth it.
I know for sure that DFU's talk head a chord for me.

I wonder why we don't hear more from him?

[nibbler]

The format of conference has changed recently. In announced ways, the Saturday evening general session, and perhaps it has changed in unannounced ways.

We heard from DFU more in the past because he was once a member of the first presidency and back in those days the format was to hear from each of the apostles once per conference and to hear from members of the first presidency two or even three times per general conference. That format had DFU speaking more than once per conference. Now DFU isn't in the first presidency, so he's back down to one talk per conference.

I think the format has changed under Nelson. There have been multiple conferences where Oaks and Eyring only spoke once. There have been some general conferences were Nelson spoke in every session (yeah).

The current format appears to have retained some elements of the old. For instance, all apostles speak once per conference (provided they are healthy enough to do so) and apostles that aren't in the first presidency don't speak more than once per conference.

[PazamaManX]

I did not watch conference. I am a member of an LDS facebook group on marriage and sexuality and one woman was distressed about "think celestial" because her husband is not a member. "Think celestial" could be so wonderful about being better to each other "love your neighbor" type teaching. It is sad if it is reduced to "follow the tribe/church."

The more I think about it, the more I think that this is Nelson's worst talk. Rather than a Christ-centered message of trying to be a good person because that's what He taught, we got a talk that told us to constantly think about what we're getting in the next life.

The requirement of temple sealing for getting into the highest level was mentioned more than once yesterday. I wonder how many non-member bf/gf's are getting dumped today by their Mormon soon-to-be ex who decided to "Think Celestial"?

[Roy]

The requirement of temple sealing for getting into the highest level was mentioned more than once yesterday.

It looks like your not the only one that noticed that trend PazamaMan.

https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-c ... e-eternity

Article Title: Mormon leaders double down on gender and marriage

[DarkJedi]

I know a little late to the party but I did want to put in my two cents (as a special discount for the forum only today it's free). Because of some other obligations, only tow sessions were fully "viewed" at my house, and parts of two others skipping Saturday evening all together. Viewed in this case means it was on, not necessarily that anyone was paying attention. Such was the case in October 2013 when DFU gave his landmark address that made all the difference for me - I wasn't paying attention until I was. I did take some time to browse in the mean time and here are my thoughts.

I guess I can start with Uchtdorf since there has been some discussion. Sorry Nibbler, I loved it. The parable of the prodigal son (or sometimes called the two sons) is my very favorite passage of scripture. That's because I fully believe that it tells us how it really is and will be. Seeing the father in the story as God, and the prodigal son as all of us (most of us are also the other son) I do believe God will see us while yet a long way off and that he will embrace as as his own and welcome us home with him. I should note there were other talks that would convince us otherwise, that we have to be worthy and married in the temple and so forth and I believe Uchtdorf was directly countering that message. Then again, I'm an uber Uchtdorf fanboy, so take it for what it's worth.

In that same vein, I liked Robert Daines from Saturday morning session. He got off to a slow start with the face blind analogy, but then he put it where it belonged. I appreciate his thoughts about focusing more on being with God than checking the boxes to get into heaven and following Jesus and not just his rules. I also appreciated how he advocated for reading the four gospels and his forthrightness is admitting his own doubts about God's love. I related to him very well, having had very similar experiences. I have said it before and will say it again - we can't feast on the words of Christ reading the Book of Mormon because the words of Christ are in the four gospels. If you want to get to know Jesus, read the gospels.

Ballard: He's a middle of the road kind of guy for me, I love some of what he has said and wholly dislike other stuff. He is part of the dying breed of old school hardliners and one of the last of Mormon Royalty to be in the Q15. I honestly thought he babbled and it reminded me of some of the old guys that make people cringe in F&TM. I did appreciate and note that he pointed out Joseph's reason for praying was to be forgiven of his sins, a fact at the forefront of the other FV accounts but glossed over in the canonized version. I also felt that this may be his last outing in GC.

I don't disagree that Giraud-Carrier's talk was good, not necessarily an all time favorite but a needed message.

In addition to Nelson's talk, I believe Oaks is also to be avoided for the same reason most of his talks should be avoided. I used to like to listen to his thoughtful and well laid out addresses but his singlemindedness over the past few years has caused him to be blind and out of touch with the general membership and with reality. I also found it distasteful that the whole purpose of Nelson speaking at all seemed to be so he could announce 20 new temples. I like a lot of what he has done, but he needs to get over himself in that respect. Saving the Mongolia temple for last on the list was icing on the German chocolate cake for me (to be clearer, I dislike German chocolate cake, especially the icing.) And I was expecting that since he was in such ill health, Nelson would be speaking from home, and not the conference center. I get sitting that long would probably not have been good. Is it good for anyone?

Overall there was way too much worthiness, celestial path, etc, for my liking and I wouldn't recommend wasting 10 hours on it.

[nibbler]

After looking around the bloggernacle, I do appear to be the only one that took issue with DFU's talk. Still do. I'll try to remember how the talk hit as I heard it live and intersperse those thoughts with quotes from the talk.

He begins with these simple words: “A certain man had two sons.”

Immediately we learn of a heartbreaking conflict. One son tells his father he is through with life at home. He wants his freedom. He wants to leave behind the culture and teachings of his parents. He asks for his share of the inheritance—now.

[...]
The son must have felt a thrill of adventure and excitement. At long last, he was on his own. Free from the principles and rules of the culture of his youth, he could finally make his own choices without being influenced by his parents. No more guilt.

People leave the church because the commandments are too hard to live. People want to be free from all of those trappings, presumably they also leave so they can sin.

He could bask in the acceptance of a like-minded community and live life on his own terms.

Maybe someone leaves the church because their tribe constantly judged them and they were seeking a place where they'd simply be loved and accepted for who they were, not judged for who they were not. They were tired of a community that constantly invalidated who they were. They were in a toxic environment and had to escape.

Arriving in a faraway country, he quickly made new friends and began living the life he had always dreamed of. He must have been a favorite of many, for he spent money freely. His new friends—beneficiaries of his prodigality—did not judge him. They celebrated, applauded, and championed his choices.

He found a community that accepted him... but it's presented as this terrible thing. Presumably because he only left so he could freely do the sin and debauchery thing that his former community just knows he's doing.

Had there been social media in that time, surely he would have filled pages with animated photos of laughing friends: #Livingmybestlife! #Neverhappier! #Shouldhavedonethislongago!

This particular part of the talk felt like taking pot-shots and mocking people that leave, maybe because we all know where the story is headed. They only think they're living their best life but they're about to get theirs. Maybe this part hit hard because I've seen people that leave the church post very similar things on social media. This felt like a jab at them.

DFU takes liberties with the story, so will I.

A person that's gay feels hated and oppressed by people in their church. They still feel god loves them, but they can no longer abide the abuse of their community. They see their community as lagging behind in understanding god's true will.

On their way out the door, they hear family, friends, and people they once looked up to openly judge them. They know their former community sees them as not valiant, only wanting to sin, weak.

They find a community that accepts them as they are. They never knew such acceptance even existed, all the while continuing to hear the judgments of their former community that is practically looking forward to their eventual and expected downfall.

Back to the story.

The accepting community is presented as only being accepting because they're getting the benefits of the money. Once the money dries up, so too does the acceptance. In other words, that new community doesn't really love them, it loves their money.

The thought of having to crawl back, proving all the judgements of the former community were correct. The implication being that people that leave the church are wrong and will ultimately recognize that fact once they've been sufficiently humbled.

I get it, that's the actual story of the prodigal. The leaving to live high on the hog, then low on the hog, ignoring morals every step of the way. That's the story, it would be unfair to shoehorn all that baggage I mentioned above into the story. The story is narrowed down to people that leave the path to sin, not people that leave the path because of an issue with the path.

DFU says that the story is also about you and me. Here he's careful to say departing from "the path of holiness" but he eventually does bring it back to leaving the church and coming back towards the end of the talk.

So that's the worry.

October 2013

One might ask, “If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?”

Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations.

That's the kind of quote that piques my interest and makes me feel that maybe there's some acceptance and understanding left in the community.

October 2023. A talk that will probably end up reinforcing the idea that people leave so they can sin. A talk that makes me feel judged by my community.

[DarkJedi]

I think the difference in your perspective/interpretation and mine Nibbler is that I'm not equating the father with the church. I could have missed something in the talk because I've only heard it during its original broadcast, but I don't recall DFU specifically referencing the church as the father as opposed to God being the father, which is how I interpret both the Bible version and this one. I could have missed this, and of course I recognize scripture can be interpreted multiple ways, so your interpretation of the father as the church is valid.

[nibbler]

I don't think he made a connection between the father and the church. Unfortunately that's for sacrament meeting speakers, EQs, RSs, spouses, parents, etc. to make.

[Roy]

I can see nibbler's and DJ's interpretations. I do understand the human nature of wanting to see failure for people that make different choices then we do. This helps to reaffirm or validate the seeming correctness of our choices. I also feel that there is pressure for both active church members and ex-Mormons to portray themselves as super happy (again, to validate our life choices to those around us).

I do hope that this DFU talk can be understood in the context of willfully departing from God and then later coming back and receiving full forgiveness and a huge welcome.

I imagine that if one of our children had run away from home but later returned we would be overjoyed. Granted this "son" seems to be an adult but compared to God are any of us adults. If we are making decisions with the comparative limited knowledge and impulse control of a toddler, then why wouldn't the father rejoice when his son was finally found.

For me, I look at all of us as such toddlers. "Look at me, I am toddler high and mighty. I will tell you all the true knowledge of the Father and judge your worthiness." and yes, those that deviate into unhealthy behaviors of sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. are also toddlers. It feels like we are all playing at "house" and "market" and "church" and being big boys and girls.

Seeing the father in the story as God, and the prodigal son as all of us (most of us are also the other son) I do believe God will see us while yet a long way off and that he will embrace as as his own and welcome us home with him.

Yes! Someday this whole exercise of playing will end and we will be called home to meet our Father in heaven who will sit in judgement of us. I believe that he will run to embrace us while we are still a long way off.

In a similar vein, JS remarked to the Relief Society:

“The nearer we get to our heavenly Father, the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs.”

God can and does take us upon his shoulders (sounds like a toddler position to me) and cast our sins/foibles/transgressions/imperfections behind his own back to look upon them no more.

I am aware that I am cherry picking some things to highlight and ignoring other parts and that this alone will cause many in the LDS church to look on me with distrust and suspicion. At the same time, this "cherry picking" or cafeteria style has been a very useful tool for me in my efforts to StayLDS.