General Conference General Discussion

My wife is watching the talks, and I am hearing them as I work away in another room.

There was one talk that invoked a certain amount of guilt on my part. It was the one right before Denelson Silva of the Seventy. The bad part of getting the talk “indirectly” by audio only is that you miss the name of who actually spoke. Perhaps someone can tell me who the speaker was — the speaker list isn’t yet available on the web when I tried to reason it out.

The speaker talked about being active, and TBM mostly — holding a TR, paying an honest tithe, serving in the church, avoiding needing the opinions of others on social media Tik Tok (he mentioned Tik Tok specifically). He said commitment can be measured by the amount of time engaged with the church/gospel (not sure which he said) and that we shouldn’t give superficial service.

One general thing that jumped out at me was the number of women and non-Caucasian or Hispanic people who spoke and prayed. The increase was significant.

I noticed this as well. A good and refreshing difference. I believe there was at least one woman and at least one person of color speaking in each session.

I did see/hear most of conference. Maybe I wasn’t paying close enough attention or my attention drifted before any good parts but I was mostly unimpressed. Way too much focus on the Book of Mormon, obedience, and the “covenant path” for my general liking. If a speaker led with either of those I tuned out.

There were some I thought were slightly better than the rest.

I liked Sr. Yee’s talk (Sat. PM) about forgiving and how the atonement applies to everybody.

Likewise, I mostly like the talk by Sr. Dennis (Sun. AM) but it’s a better read than listen. It would have gone over much better in audio if she spoke to us as adults instead of in a Primary voice as if we were children.

It was nice to hear someone talk about caring for the earth (Bishop Causse).

Elder Schmitt’s names of Jesus talk (Sun. PM) was OK, as was Elder Morrison’s about following the Savior.

I disliked Elder Holland’s talk about why we don’t use/wear crosses. It was hollow and even some what contradictory of itself, and it was dismissive of the beliefs of other faithful Christians who likely interpret some of the scripture he offered quite differently than his point of view.

My general pattern of late has been to come here (and a couple other places) to see which talks were worth it and which weren’t.

I disliked Elder Holland’s talk about why we don’t use/wear crosses. It was hollow and even some what contradictory of itself, and it was dismissive of the beliefs of other faithful Christians who likely interpret some of the scripture he offered quite differently than his point of view.

I think that we do not use crosses because it was a personal hobby horse for a particular church leader way back when and now it is just a tradition that we follow.

I believe that as well. Holland’s talk was therefore apologetic and I believe to a point condescending toward other Christians who do see the cross as a relevant symbol of their discipleship (couldn’t think of the wording I wanted earlier).

I have been asked the cross question, not in a long time though. Mormons do seem to think people care more about us than they actually do. They really only seem to care when there’s dust to be kicked up (think BYU racism allegations).

In my more believing days I’d answer something like “we believe in the resurrected Christ and focus more on his resurrection as opposed to his death.” I still think that’s true, but also appreciate that we do recognize more of Christ’s suffering in the atonement than we seem to have talked about a decade or so ago. Still, I think we give the garden more attention than it deserves (not that it doesn’t deserve any) and the cross less than it deserves (and perhaps our Christian siblings place too much emphasis there). I do recall a talk a few years back, can’t remember which GA, about the atonement beginning at the last supper and continuing until the resurrection. All of it is the atonement, not just the garden, not just the cross, all parts are important.

Nowadays I’d answer differently, of course. I’d probably reference McKay as one of the more interesting things he did seeing as how he was otherwise more progressive and probably a bit ahead of his time. If not for the likes of certain apostles during his regime, I believe the priesthood ban would have ended much sooner. I would probably also state my own belief that the cross is a relevant symbol of Christian discipleship and that I think we err in eschewing it. I believe embracing the cross instead of rejecting it (even apologetically) might do something to help others see that we really are Christians (references I hear about us and no crosses seem to usually be tied to the idea we’re not really Christians). I would wear a cross myself.

If Holland was attempting to quiet the critics or present our opposing view I think he did more to fuel the fire than to quell it.

In general, and I can’t remember all the names to cite them, as I listened, my favorite Joseph Campbell (see below) quote came to mind. I thought the talks ran the gamut. Many trying to talk people into belief (and being pretty uncharitable to those who leave), and then others who spoke from what felt like a very genuine place with no admonitions, no characterizations. Just “this is my experience, why I believe.”