The good, the bad, and the ugly of general conference

The story of the resurrected Christ visiting the Americas came up a few times during conference, two mentions right out of the gate. In both instances I got caught wondering something.

I thought it strange that Jesus would invite people in the Americas to feel the wounds in his hands, feet, and side. It made more sense for the apostles in the NT to do that, they had witnessed his death, but the people in the Americas wouldn’t have much of a reference point. I’m sure it’s possible for prophets in the Americas to have talked about how Jesus would be crucified but in the case of the NT apostles, the wounds were a type of proof that it really was Jesus… something that the people in the Americas wouldn’t need or possibly even understand.

The BoM does say

And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come.

So I guess that lends credence to the idea that prophets had written about someone that would come with wounds in their hands, feet, and side. Still strange though, you’d think the voice from heaven and a guy descending from the sky would be enough proof that something big was going down. The out of context wounds would just be gravy at that point.

Two talks about patriarchal blessings. I’m guessing there was a downturn in people getting their blessings during COVID and perhaps that has not recovered to the extent that the leadership desires. This is probably more personal than anything since I’m not a believer in patriarchal blessings. On that note I did find it interesting that Elder Yamashita actually even made some excuses for why some things in patriarchal blessings don’t happen – lame excuses similar to why prayers aren’t answered (maybe he’s got a future with FAIR).

I wish that we could understand Patriarchal blessings as we do any other blessing – as a statement of good will that we hope God will help us make reality. I feel that the expectation of a literal declaration of Israelite ancestry and a prognosticated forecast of your future life are both weird and do not hold up to scrutiny.

I do find the excuse about unfulfilled blessings being reserved for the next life to be especially lame. If that’s the yardstick we’re using then any and all predictions are true. “What? You didn’t get a new puppy for Christmas? Well maybe you didn’t wait long enough and when I say wait longer, I mean for you to wait until after you die and then you will get the puppy for Christmas in a magical land that nobody else can see.”

In my home, we have two teenagers that have not received their blessings and likely do not know much about them. After hearing these talks DW said that we should expect calls from the local leadership inquiring into when we might get these appointments set.

Another thing about Patriarchal Blessings, they specifically discouraged waiting until right before missionary service to get it.

I imagine that giving the blessing to YM that have already committed to serving a mission seems like a wasted opportunity. If more youth get it at younger ages then perhaps the blessing might help them to stay active in the church and choose to serve missions.

As a total side note, I received my blessing as a missionary aged young adult. I told the Patriarch that I was not planning on going on a mission. In the blessing he said that the Lord had a mission for me to complete and that if I was willing to make the sacrifice then great blessings would follow. This was pretty annoying to me because I had just finished telling him that a mission was not in my plans. However, I did later end up serving a mission due primarily to the influence of the institute program at my university but I suppose that the PB didn’t hurt by nudging me in that direction.

I speculate that the brethren would like for youth to receive PB in time for it to make a difference in youth potentially remaining active and/or going on missions.

Since we’re on the topic I have a couple anecdotal stories relating to patriarchal blessings and missions.

I was a young adult convert at age 21 and got my PB about a year later. At the time I had a serious girlfriend. I did not know the patriarch so we had a brief interview beforehand. My PB did not mention a mission and made a passing reference to missionary work (finding joy as I bring others into the church). So the girlfriend thing didn’t work out and in 1983 I did serve a mission. (There are several other things that didn’t/haven’t happened.)

My youngest son got his PB “late” in his late teens. We knew this patriarch very well and consider him and his wife friends (they moved a few years ago). He gave my son his blessing which did not mention serving a mission. Afterwards the patriarch told us he didn’t feel inspired to say that he would go on a mission, almost apologetically as if he was supposed to say something about it. My son did serve a mission.

To explicitly connect a dot, if a blessing tells someone that they will go on a mission it might have an effect on whether or not they decide to serve a mission.

Or maybe they can just wait until the next life. 😈

In Corbitt’s talk (there was one section of his talk that I’d rather not touch because it makes my blood boil) he asked the question, “Why did Jesus have to die?”

Which I thought was an interesting question.

It is an interesting question and one I have given quite a bit of thought and some research. FWIW, my research only further muddied the water. The whole atonement thing as we understand it is a great thing to believe in – it is the “good news” of the gospel, that we can all be forgiven and live again. I like to believe it’s true, and I like to believe in Jesus as a Savior – but I’m not sure he really is. The Jews absolutely believe in atonement, but not in the same way as Christians. I think as Christians we conflate all the Passover, sacrificial lamb, blood of the lamb, Jesus as the Lamb of God stuff when in reality the sacrificial Passover lamb and its blood of early (and modern) Hebrews had nothing to do with atonement or forgiveness of sin (the Passover lamb is eaten by the family and the blood was a sign that temporarily protected the Hebrew children from the destroyer). Atonement to Jews is more equivalent to repentance to Mormons – basically, if you turn to God, God will turn to you (the Hebrew word in this case is shuv, meaning return but often translated as repent). No animals, blood, or sacrifice required.

“Why did Jesus have to die?”

My 15 year old son asked me something similar last week. The question was why did Jesus go to Jerusalem if he knew that he would be killed. I said that we do not have very good information to answer that question. The gospels were written some 30 years after the death of Jesus and are not great as first person accounts. It might have been that Jesus did not know that he would be killed (assuming that he didn’t know the future). The traditional narrative is that he did know but went out of obedience to the mission that his Father had given him. The death of Jesus was certainly unexpected by his followers that had given so much for the movement. I believe that, over time, a new narrative was created that painted the crucifixion as inevitable and necessary.

In a somewhat similar vein, a friend posted the following quote from Elder JRH “How could we believe it would be easy for us when it was never ever easy for Him?” To be fair, the context was about why missionary work is difficult. I’m just not sure that I understand it as an explanation. According to traditional teachings, Jesus suffered in order that we would not need to suffer. Can we, at the same time, teach that Jesus suffered therefore we too should expect to suffer? I’m probably overthinking it. Maybe it was just meant to help people feel like they are in the same general boat as Jesus and not as any sort of doctrinal pronouncement.

I suppose its relatively harmless as long as it isn’t used to silence and shame those that are suffering – as if to say “Why are you complaining? Don’t you know that Jesus suffered too?”

In a somewhat similar vein, a friend posted the following quote from Elder JRH “How could we believe it would be easy for us when it was never ever easy for Him?” To be fair, the context was about why missionary work is difficult. I’m just not sure that I understand it as an explanation. According to traditional teachings, Jesus suffered in order that we would not need to suffer. Can we, at the same time, teach that Jesus suffered therefore we too should expect to suffer? I’m probably overthinking it. Maybe it was just meant to help people feel like they are in the same general boat as Jesus and not as any sort of doctrinal pronouncement.

I suppose its relatively harmless as long as it isn’t used to silence and shame those that are suffering – as if to say “Why are you complaining? Don’t you know that Jesus suffered too?”

I think the above is generally regarding suffering for our sins. All choices have consequences of course and we may suffer from consequences of our sin in life. There is also suffering not related to choices or sin. I think we understand part of the reason we are here is to suffer at least some so that we can understand joy or not suffering. In relation to sin specifically, there is in addition to any suffering we might experience as an earthy consequence, there is also apparently the possibility of eternal suffering (or at least suffering in the afterlife if not necessarily eternal). I think as the atonement/death of Jesus Christ goes it is that afterlife suffering being referred to, not suffering in this life.

Again I like to believe that the atonement of Jesus Christ did make it all right, I’m just not positive that’s how it actually works (but I do believe/hope it does work).