Now we've begun the promised groundbreaking General Conference that was hyped by Nelson during the final moments of October's meetings. The general authorities were set up in some kind of nearly empty anteroom in the conference center. They also failed to practice social distancing as they could have high-fived each other when speakers approached the podium before waiting for the previous speakers to retreat to their seats. And there was also a completely unnecessary handshake between Oaks and Nelson that may have been setting a terrible example for members in regions affected by COVID-19 around the world.
But anyway, here's what was discussed.
Little did I know when I promised you at the October 2019 General Conference that this April conference would be memorable and unforgettable—that speaking to a visible congregation of fewer than ten people would make this conference so memorable and unforgettable for me.—Russell M. Nelson, Saturday morning session
Hardly thirty seconds into the first speech of the conference, the prophet admits that he didn't see the future. Honestly, we could have ended the conference right here. All credibility lost, step away from the microphone, sir.
Nelson is sort of...trying to make light?...of the fact that he had no prophetic inkling of the global health crisis and the worldwide panic that would necessitate a drastic change in format to a meeting he'd announced would be extra special. Ha ha, that's so funny that the person who has the most direct pipeline to heavenly knowledge was just as shocked as the rest of us by the pandemic gripping the world right now! That Elohim, always the trickster! Boy, you got us good this time! What a prank, you ol' rascal!
I wasn't expecting him to grab the mic and try to claim he foresaw any of this, but it was a surprising admission couched as a joke. I don't know why he isn't worried this weakens the legitimacy of his claim to a prophetic mantle, but whatever.
How can we endure such trials? The Lord has told us that "if ye are prepared, ye shall not fear."—Russell M. Nelson, Saturday morning session
There are a couple of problems with this. Mostly because, in the current context, it's retroactive. And this advice doesn't work retroactively.
We're already in the middle of this trial. If we weren't prepared for it before it happened, how helpful is it to say that preparation prevents fear? Also, I strongly suspect that when God said those words in Doctrine and Covenants 38, he wasn't talking so much about facemasks, non-perishable food, and telecommute-capable employment. He was talking about spiritual preparation. I have a feeling that most church members' fears are of a more temporal nature right about now. We're glad that God is watching out for us because we were spiritually prepared and all, but we'd still like to know how to pay our mortgages and find toilet paper.
Also, since it's perfectly natural to be afraid during such times, I have to wonder how many people watching who are afraid interpret this scriptural reminder to mean that their fear is an indication that their spiritual devotion is insufficient. That's gonna help.
We are blessed to have four primary accounts, from which I will draw.—M. Russell Ballard, Saturday morning session
A little inoculation goes a long way?
Ballard casually drops in this factoid that many members may not have been aware of—Joseph Smith's First Vision story was written down more than once. Without giving any indication that these accounts contradict each other, he goes on to retell the story we all know while sprinkling in a few quotes from sources we don't normally read so that it looks like the other three sources mostly align with the one many of us can probably quote from. It was quite a deft dance with some very complex footwork for such an inflexible old man.
And also—wait, hang on a second...
...okay, now that my tin foil hat is securely fastened, I'll continue.
During Ballard's talk, I wanted to fact-check something because I couldn't remember if the 1835 account that mentioned the host of angels specifically excluded the presence of God or Jesus. When I tried to look it up on the Joseph Smith Papers website, I was repeatedly given an error message that the site was down for maintenance. It's back up now, but if anyone was trying to Google the unexpected detail that Joseph claimed to have seen angels in the First Vision, their best church-produced online source for clarification on this was suspiciously unavailable.
That's coincidence, right? They're not that obsessed with balancing control of the information against the need to appear like they're making the information readily available. Right?
Right?
I have often wondered why Joseph and Hyrum and their families had to suffer so much. It may be that they came to know God through their suffering in ways that could not have happened without it.—M. Russell Ballard, Saturday morning session
Okay, well they didn't have to suffer that much. Maybe if Joseph had abandoned his fraud schemes and decided to get a real job or do some farm work or something, he wouldn't have had to pay such a high personal price in his efforts to maintain the house of cards he'd erected.
But let's look at some of the things that Joseph and Hyrum and their families went through in order to come to know their God through suffering: multiple relocations, a dead brother, dead kids, repeated imprisonments, tarring and feathering, and, of course, getting gunned down in a prison. I can't speak for anyone else, but if my mortal parents were to insist that I go through that kind of excruciating existence as a precondition to get to know them better, my reaction would be along the lines of, "thanks, but no thanks, I'll just have to use my friend's parents as mother and father figures in my life because they're actually good people."
God is a god of love. Oh, but he may have to torture us so that we can become better acquainted with him rather than communicating with us like a mature fucking adult.
The glorious promise of the Savior's atoning sacrifice is that, as far as our mistakes as parents are concerned, he holds our children blameless and promises healing for them. And even when they have sinned against the light, as we all do, his arm of mercy is outstretched and he will redeem them if they will but look to him and live.—James R. Rasband, Saturday morning session
This is intended to be reassuring, I think, to people like my parents who blame themselves for their children's apostasy. But there's a significant contradiction in here that renders it pretty much useless.
So, if we haven't done a good enough job raising our kids to be Mormons, God holds our children blameless, right? But if they've sinned against the light, then...well, in the first place, if we're calling it a sin, then they're not blameless. If they have to be redeemed from it, then they're not blameless. If they have to take action to correct it, even if it's just looking to Christ, then they're not blameless.
Don't worry, distraught parents of wayward children, your kids get a free pass for your inability to brainwash them effectively! I mean, they still have to do the same things you would do when you need to repent of your own behavior, but other than that it's totally a free pass.
I'm grateful to focus my remarks today on women's continuing role in the restoration.—Bonnie H. Cordon, Saturday morning session
Look, of course women are more qualified than men to speak about the experience of women. That shouldn't mean that they're unqualified to speak about human experience generally. Considering how hard the church has been trying to show that it's not sexist, why do we still have women get up and announce that they're going to talk specifically about women? I mean, to be fair, sometimes women get up in General Conference and announce they're going to speak to the children too, but that's also not great in dispelling claims of sexism.
My personal admission today is that as a woman I didn't realize earlier in my life that I had access through my covenants to the power of the priesthood.—Bonnie H. Cordon, Saturday morning session
Wow! I wonder why that was! Maybe it's because the church kept telling you motherhood was so great that you didn't need the priesthood!
She specifically cites Nelson's comments from last October's conference in her lead-in to this, so it kind of makes it sound like she didn't know she had access to priesthood power until the prophet told her she did six months ago. Which begs the question of why the prophets haven't been saying this all along to avoid precisely this kind of misunderstanding.
45 years later, she recalled it as if it had happened yesterday.—Neil L. Andersen, Saturday morning session
This is referring to a woman named Beatrice who once recalled how a prayer of faith helped her recover a lost pair of glasses in the ocean. My question for Andersen is that if she can recall a spiritually affirming experience like this with such clarity after 45 years, why was Joseph Smith—who, I should note, didn't live long enough to recall anything from 45 years earlier—not able to consistently recount the details of his First Vision experience as if it happened the day before?
I knew that God knew that I knew that a window of heaven had been opened.—Neil L. Andersen, Saturday morning session
Andersen's talk really irritated me, so I'm also going to take a moment to discuss what a shitty writer-slash-orator he is. I knew that God knew that I knew? The pointless repetition is unnecessarily redundant. Besides, it's no secret that God is supposed to be omniscient. Why would we have ever doubted that God was aware of what we did or didn't know? Drop the first two verbs and speak like a normal human being.
You knew that a window of heaven had been opened. Great, let's move on.
President Dallin H. Oaks, in responding to a SINCERE MAN who claimed never to have had such an experience, counseled, "perhaps your prayers have been answered again and again but you have had your expectations fixed on a sign so grand or a voice so loud that you think you have had no answer." The Savior himself spoke of a people with great faith who were blessed with fire and the Holy Ghost, but knew it not.—Neil L. Andersen, Saturday morning session
His emphasis in the lead-in is obnoxious. He really hits the sincerity bit hard so that members can understand the apparently shocking concept that people can be sincere when they say they haven't had their prayers answered. Everybody in the audience has experience with this. Even if we have had some answered prayers, we've all experienced the disappointment when it seems like one has gone unanswered. The emphasis on the man's sincerity makes it look like Andersen is trying to pretend this is not the case and that people who struggle to receive personal revelation are the outliers.
But his attempts to validate this man are watered down immediately. The word "claimed" makes it sound like that corny line from tons of movies when one character is having trouble convincing people that something supernatural or incredible happened and another character tries to reassure them by condescendingly asserting that "I believe you think you saw something." Andersen believes that we think we haven't had our prayers answered. We're not lying about it, we're just wrong. Oh, look, Andersen is going to pat us on our heads now.
And Oaks's quote is gross. Not many things are more arrogant than trying to tell someone else about their experiences. And I wonder where people get the impression that we can have grand signs and loud voices when our prayers are answered. Was it Joseph Smith? Was it Nephi? Was it Enos? Was it the brother of Jared? Was it the teaching that we'll feel a burning in the bosom if we're praying for something right?
And to add insult to injury, Andersen goes on to talk about people who were blessed with fire and didn't realize it. Fire is a pretty strong image. It doesn't sound like the kind of thing you wouldn't notice. So is Andersen saying that not only was Oaks's guy expecting the wrong things, but he was also completely oblivious?
The bottom line is that when you think your prayers haven't been answered, it's your own stupid fault.
They will feel the joy of being willing to engage in and sacrifice for the cause of Christ.—Douglas D. Holmes, Saturday morning session
Stop. Fetishizing. Suffering.
At more than one point in his talk, Holmes discusses in blissful terms the youth's opportunities to sacrifice for the gospel. Sacrifice is not inherently noble. I could pay a pretty high social price and lose friends and maybe jobs if I were to join a white supremacist group. I would be sacrificing personally in my devotion to the cause, but that wouldn't make the cause in any way admirable. Personal sacrifice in service of a reprehensible cause is sad. It speaks to misguidedness, delusion, and wasted effort. Sacrifice is only noble when it is in the service of something noble and when it is given freely rather than when it is requested or extracted.
Telling people they should expect to sacrifice and that they will feel happy about it is shitty, especially when it's coming from someone in a position of power who doesn't need to make those sacrifices.
The promise of President Russell M. Nelson that this conference will be memorable is already beginning to be fulfilled.—Henry B. Eyring, Saturday morning session
I'm just glad he didn't say "prophecy."
But other than the facts that there's no audience, the hymns are reruns, and that one little extra video clip of Nelson being weird to a bunch of kids in a church historical site was included, nothing about this conference is memorable in any way that a previous conference was not. And call me crazy, but I don't think small format adjustments like this, most of which were forced upon the church by non-heavenly circumstances they admit not to have foreseen, constitute anything that merits a pat on the back for a fulfilled promise.
Even an unbelieving world will recognize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and realize that the power of God is upon it.—Henry B. Eyring, Saturday morning session
This just doesn't make any sense.
I'm not sure if "recognize" is supposed to modify both "the church" and "the power of God," or if he's saying that the church will be officially recognized in the way that the United States government recognizes the government of Germany, or if he's saying that the church will be peculiar in a way that will make them immediately identifiable to outsiders, or if he's just trying to drop some weird slang in here.
Please express your vote in the usual way, wherever you may be.—Dallin H. Oaks, Saturday afternoon session
Because it's the first day of General Conference, obviously we're going to do the sustaining of the general authorities and officers of the church, right?
Since there was pretty much nobody in the room with the actual speakers, Oaks explained that we're going to do things the way we always do it, even if there aren't any regular members present to pretend to vote. He expected people to raise their arms to the square in the comfort of their own homes around the world and he expected this to count. Although he did remind us that anyone opposed should contact their stake presidents, he then continued with the custom as though nothing were out of the ordinary. And the YouTube audience watched as a handful of old white dudes sitting in a little room raised their right arms to affirm themselves as God's handpicked messengers.
Oaks wanted us to participate, but the outcome of the voting would have been unchanged regardless of whether anyone actually did participate. If this doesn't drive home the point that the "sustaining vote" is a complete sham, I don't know what could.
This sacred ancient record was not translated in the traditional way that scholars would translate ancient texts by learning an ancient language. We are to look at the process more like a revelation with the aid of physical instruments provided by the Lord as opposed to a translation by one with knowledge of languages.—Ulisses Soares, Saturday afternoon session
I think this is part of the effort to slide the understanding of Joseph's supernatural abilities away from translation and more toward revelation in the hopes that this will also one day be popularly applied to the Book of Abraham.
Also, it's interesting that the physical instruments that aided in this process were provided by God. If that's the case, you'd think Joseph would have found the seer stone in the ground next to the plates and the Urim and Thummim instead of during a completely unrelated well dig years before.
And why don't prophets use physical instruments to aid their revelation anymore? We've had seventeen presidents of the church—why have numbers two through seventeen refused to bust out the seer stones or the spectacles? Is that why there's so little scripture from after Joseph Smith's death?
Please note that Lehi did not leave the Tree of Life. He stayed spiritually with the Lord and invited his family to come where HE was to partake of the fruit. The adversary would entice some to leave the joy of the gospel by separating Christ's teachings from his church. He would have us believe that we can stay firmly on the covenant path on our own through our own spirituality, independent of his church. In these latter days, Christ's church was restored in order to help Christ's covenant children stay on his covenant path. In the Doctrine and Covenants we read, "Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church."—John A. McCune, Saturday afternoon session
So now we're learning that our faith is so fragile that we want to be passive and terrified when we're trying to save our friends and relatives? When Jesus taught about leaving the ninety and nine and going after the one who was lost, do you think he was advising that we should stay with the flock and beckon so that the wandering sheep would return? Of course not. That isn't going to work.
But the grossest part of this talk was how hard McCune hit the point that we absolutely need the church. You can't separate Christ's teachings from his church, apparently. I think that's a tough argument to make, considering Christ's church wasn't really formalized during his lifetime. He wasn't building temples and setting apart area authority seventies and putting out correlated materials and making policy changes. Christ was focused on the teachings, because Christ was smart enough to realize that while an organization can be useful, it's the concepts of the gospel that are vital. The modern church, which has become distantly removed from Jesus's actual teachings, hungers for tithes and its leaders crave the status and adulation granted to them by their divine position. So of course they don't want you to try and separate the doctrine from the organization. They need you to need the church. Or, as Neil L. Andersen would say, they need you to need the church needing you to need them.
Did Jesus teach that you can't reach the highest degree of glory without paying ten percent of your income to perform secretive saving ordinances in a fancy temple? No. The LDS church teaches that, though. Did Jesus teach that if you don't attend worship services every week you're going to Hell? No. But the LDS church teaches that poor attendance can make you unworthy of a temple recommend, which might mean you won't get to perform those secretive saving ordinances in a fancy temple. Did Jesus teach that you should be meek, merciful, pure in heart, and that you should hunger and thirst for righteousness? Yes. The LDS church teaches, apparently, that those things are not good enough on their own and that you need their organization in order to really follow Christ.
And then, bafflingly, McCune immediately contradicts his own point by citing D&C 10:67: "whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church." I don't think he understands that verse. God's saying here that his church is not a physical building or a chartered institution. He's saying that if you repent and you come unto him, then you're numbered among his church. The church, in this context, is not an officially organized body.
It's also worth pointing out that the very next line of that section of the Doctrine and Covenants says, "Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church." One of the General Authorities declared more than repenting and coming unto Christ as conditions for being considered part of God's church. And the sitting prophet let this happen. I think it's safe to say, on this point alone, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in a state of open apostasy.
When was the last time you felt the sweet influence of the Savior's atonement in your life? This happens when you feel an exquisite and sweet joy come over you that bears witness to your soul that your sins are forgiven. Or when painful trials suddenly become lighter to bear. Or when your heart is softened and you're able to express forgiveness to someone who has hurt you. Or it may be each time you notice your capacity to love and serve others has increased, or that the process of sanctification is making you a different person, patterned after the Savior's example.—Gérald Caussé, Saturday afternoon session
This was a weird run. The crux of Caussé's address was that the atonement is a gift given freely, that it is intimate and personal. It sure seems weird that we'd have to set aside time to think about how we've experienced something that intimate and that personal. You know what else is intimate and personal? Romantic love. When's the last time you felt your wife's love in your life? If you have to take a few minutes to think about it, I may have some bad news for you.
But if the atonement is what he says it is, we wouldn't need these exercises to recognize it. And many of his examples are things that I have felt during my time as a committed apostate. Apparently, the sweet influence of the Savior's atonement in your life should feel pretty much the same way it feels to work on becoming a kinder, emotionally healthier person.
Our Heavenly Father wants us to recall his and his beloved son's goodness, not for their own gratification, but for the influence such remembrance has on us.—Dale G. Renlund, Saturday afternoon session
It's very strange to me that Renlund goes out of his way to make sure we don't think God is an egomaniac. No, no, he doesn't want us to think about how great he is so that he gets any pleasure out of it! Of course, he still requires that we worship him, but he's not full of himself, I swear.
We can be reverently joyful as we realize that without Jesus Christ, we're doomed, but with him, we can receive the greatest gift Heavenly Father can give.—Dale G. Renlund, Saturday afternoon session
What a weird thing for someone who's trying to comfort us to say. We can be reverently joyful as we realize that I'm not stabbing you in the neck right now, too, because then you'd be doomed, but if I were to walk into a room and say that to you, suddenly you'd be very uncomfortable and wondering if there's actually a risk that I might stab you in the neck.
Thanks, Dale. Very reassuring.
No comments:
Post a Comment