The Upcoming YSA Face to Face

I’ve seen a few of these face to face events; they were all very similar in that they answered a nearly identical set of questions for each event. I’m super jaded right now but it seemed like the questions more closely followed the message the apostles wanted to deliver to the youth than they followed the actual concerns/questions of the youth.

E.g. They’ll answer a question where the answer will be a way for them to reiterate how marriage is between one man and one woman, because they fear growing acceptance of gay marriage among the youth.

I hate to be this way but I don’t expect this particular Q&A session to be any different from the last few I’ve watched.

I don’t think you ever see anything but softball questions unless you are a significant news crew or doing an reputable expose of the church. Otherwise you will only see a polished PR presentation.

Elder Cook attended our Stake Conference last month, and he presided over a session for the youth and YSA that included a Q&A session.

He said the second most asked questions/topic was about the church’s stance on same-sex issues – and that this was consistent throughout the sessions the apostles attend. They are getting the message very clearly from the youth.

He spoke movingly and beautifully about his time as a Stake President in San Francisco during the height of the AIDS epidemic there, when members were dying regularly. He stressed first that he learned directly how badly our actions as members had hurt them, and he cited several experiences that were heart-breaking.

I know the top leadership isn’t going to support same-sex sealings in the immediate future, but I am convinced the lower apostles generally view the overall issues differently than the top apostles – and that they understand the youth in the church see those issues differently, as well. Much will continue to change in my lifetime, I am sure.

Here are my pros and cons about the Face 2 Face event. Like you said, beefster, I like how Ballard said we shouldn’t demonize the PERSON having a problem with porn. I think that was a good thing to say. As well as a couple other things I can’t remember which I thought were good, even a couple jokes that made me chuckle. Now for the downside, I did NOT like when Ballard started talking about how the church leaders have NEVER hidden anything because that’s not part of the Lord’s program, and to just trust them. Bothered me a LOT, since we literally have proof of things being hidden from the members in church history, and the church currently hides its finances. I felt like it was a flat out lie. Here’s the whole quote:

“It’s this idea that the Church is hiding something, which we would have to say as two apostles that have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning of time–there has been no attempt on the part, in any way, of the Church leaders trying to hide anything from anybody.

Now we’ve had the Joseph smith papers. We didn’t have those where they are in our hands now. And so we’re learning more about the Prophet Joseph. It’s wonderful we are. There’s volumes of it. There’s so much in those books now on my book shelf. Maybe you’ve read them all [gestures toward Oaks], but I haven’t got there. I’m a slow reader.

So, just trust us wherever you are in the world, and you share this message with anyone else who raises the question about the Church not being transparent. We’re as transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth. We have to do that. That’s the Lord’s way.”

The other thing that was at the top of my list for bothersome things said, was Oaks saying this (on how to know whether answers to prayers are from ourselves or from God):

“If we get an impression contrary to the scriptures, to the commandments, to the teachings of his leaders**, then we know that it can’t be coming from the Holy Ghost. The gospel is consistent throughout.” (Asterisks added)

It mainly bothered me because it touched on one of the problems I see in the church where your inspirations have to line up with what the GA’s say, or you’re feeling the spirit wrong. Even though we have so many examples from church history of church leaders being wrong, if we get an answer from the holy ghost saying the leaders are wrong, we aren’t supposed to listen to that. He could have meant it differently, but that was what I heard.

I think Elder Ballard thinks the Church is honest and transparent, and has never evaluated whether that’s actually true. It would be enlightening for him to do so, but nobody is going to hold his feet to the fire until he does. Besides, to him, the Church is axiomatically good. To him, it’s not possible for the Church to act unethically.

I wrote up a little something to work through this by abstracting away the religion-specific details.

Let’s say that I have a special coin.

I believe that flipping this coin results in heads far more often than tails. This belief is a big part of my identity. I believe that it’s very important for you to believe it as well.

So I flip the coin. It’s heads, and I show you.

Throughout the day, I flip the coin. When it’s tails, I’m a little disappointed. When it’s heads, I show it to you or tell you about it.

I never count. I tell myself that that’s not how this is supposed to work.

I never grab the coin after it lands tails-up and turn it over. That would be cheating. I never cheat.

You’ll sometimes catch me flipping the coin but not showing you the outcome. Early on, you ask me about these times. Maybe I tell you that those outcomes aren’t useful. Maybe I say that they might give you the wrong idea. Maybe I say that you shouldn’t pry into sacred things.

When you’re old enough, I confide in you that the coin doesn’t always land heads-up, but that it does often enough. I actually never said that it always does. Besides, I needed you to trust me and my special coin.

When your friend wants to observe and count, I say no way. That’s not how this works. If you listen to him, he’ll warp your beliefs. I know what’s true, and I know you won’t discover the same truth for yourself if you don’t approach this like I do. Now that you’re getting old enough to have your own coin, it’s critical that you treat it with the same respect and reverence that I treat mine with.

One day, I give you your own special coin, just like mine. You believe that flipping this coin results in heads far more often than tails. This belief is a big part of your identity. You believe that it’s very important for others to believe it as well…

Have I lied?

Have I hidden anything from you? Or have I only given you the evidence I thought was important?

Let’s say that friend of yours who wanted to observe and count became so persistent that I had to discredit him so you wouldn’t listen to him. Is that hiding anything?

Let’s say I occasionally kept a journal of coin flips as a faith-promoting exercise, and once I recorded despairing over getting 10 tails in a row. I didn’t show you this entry because I thought you weren’t ready for it – your testimony was still too weak. Is that hiding anything?

Am I honest?

I’m switching gears, so new post.

I sincerely believe that our leaders are approaching this problem in the wrong way. Breaking things down –

The problem: Someone feels as though church leaders have been dishonest with them.

The current approach: Malign the people that feel this way. They’re wrong, we haven’t mislead anyone. Some people will call this approach gaslighting and it will likely drive many away.

A better approach: Validate people’s feelings. People feel as though their trust has been violated. You aren’t going to solve the problem by telling them they are wrong for feeling that way. You don’t have to completely agree with people, but you need to find some way to validate their feelings.

I’ll go back to my days in the MTC where we read scenarios as a part of our training and were instructed to identify the best approach:

Approach A:

Elders: There has been no attempt on the part of the church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody. You just didn’t study enough. There was this one article in 1970 where we came clean after the Tanners found out about… :silent: I’ve said too much.

Approach B:

Sisters: I’m sorry and I completely understand. I just learned about the multiple first vision accounts myself. Would you like to talk about them?

[side note]

It was a running gag in the MTC that in all the examples they provided in the training materials the elders were usually the ‘bad’ example and the sisters were usually the ‘good’ example. Probably wasn’t even true, but it was the gag.

[side note]

It was a running gag in the MTC that in all the examples they provided in the training materials the elders were usually the ‘bad’ example and the sisters were usually the ‘good’ example. Probably wasn’t even true, but it was the gag.

Let’s say that I have training materials.

I believe that the “elders” in the training materials examples are the bad example far more often than the “sisters” in the examples. This is a big part of my identity. I believe that it’s very important for you to believe it as well.

So I read the materials. The Elders are bad examples, and I show you…..