Elder Uchdorfts Saturday Morning Talk

[Anonymous]

For me simplifying is about focusing on the core principles of the gospel (i.e. love one another, Jesus is the Christ) and ignoring the appendages (i.e. family history, the temple, polygamy).

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

For me, the main message I was inspired by Pres Uchtdorf was to simplify the gospel, and not get tangled in the mountains of sediment that build up over time with programs and good ideas which weigh us down and smother our spirits.

Simplify. Live the gospel. Find goodness and live it.

He called for leaders to not burden families, and families to focus on what they need to be happy.

That is a beautiful message.

…even if I believe that can be done by research on the Internet to verify leaders’ messages to me and my family.

When I listen again I’m going to listen for that message. About six years ago that could have helped me be in a better place than I am now.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Since Elder U. is a favorite among many people who come here, I thought it might be good to discuss his talk…His analogy — his Internet search for healing advice after he already had good advice from the doctor. That was a reference to people searching the Internet for details of church history, evidence of the Book of Mormon etcetera. Regrettably, I disagreed with the analogy. The church materials do simplify and whitewash history, and many people feel betrayed by it — and feel the church leaders and published materials are not always a good source of truth — particularly when that truth is not good for the church…I liked how gentle he was about the topic though. He wasn’t brash about it like some GA’s. And it must be hard for him — he’s an Apostle so of course you know he believes in obedience to authority, holding a TR, and the lifestyle of a Mormon. To have to then be responsible for connecting with all the less active people is a tall order when there is a such a gap between his beliefs, and ours…What are your thoughts on his advice?

This clearly wasn’t Uchtdorf’s best work in my opinion. I think the comparison of looking for answers on the internet versus simply trusting your doctor was a particularly bad and inappropriate analogy. If anything assuming the doctor knows what he is talking about I would expect people to typically find more information actually confirming or supporting his/her diagnosis and much of the contradictory ideas or suggestions will be easy enough to sort through in most cases. To me it looks like the problem for the Church is not members being deceived by misinformation and unfair opinions related to the Church on the internet but rather the Church itself continuing to make so many questionable truth claims when there are so many facts directly contradicting or discrediting these claims and these same facts are already confirmed as valid by the Church published essays, LDS apologists on FAIR, serious historical books written by active Church members like Richard Bushman, etc.

So while they are at it they might as well tell people to not read perfectly legitimate books or articles about science and history if they are so afraid of Church members losing their testimonies. The internet has largely been just another step in making communication and access to a wide variety of information and opinions faster and easier for many people and it is here to stay so Church leaders might as well get used to it just like there was no going back to the Dark Ages as a long-term solution after the printing press and increasing levels of education for laymen gave more people the tools to evaluate and judge more information for themselves rather than being told exactly what they should believe by the clergy. If the Church can’t compete very well in an open marketplace of ideas then that is their problem and not something to blame members for. Depending too much on strict information control to prop up dogmatic beliefs sounds cultish and like the type of thing you expect out of totalitarian political regimes not mainstream Christian churches in relatively free and democratic societies.

Even in the case of Uchtdorf’s proposed solution to the dissatisfaction of many members of simplifying things that I actually agree with in principle, like I said in the other conference thread I think it would be much better for him to preach this idea to the rest of the Church Presidency and apostles to try to get them to make some actual changes to things like home/visiting teaching and other callings, lessons, policies, etc. That’s because in many cases it isn’t individual members and local leaders complicating things on their own as much as the Church itself making their life complicated and difficult, adding to the suffering and stress they experience, etc. Simply talking about it doesn’t really change anything when this idea is basically drowned out and overshadowed by existing policies and official lessons and many of the heavy burdens and expectations still remain the same as always leading many Church members to feel burned out, discouraged, etc.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

So while they are at it they might as well tell people to not read perfectly legitimate books or articles about science and history if they are so afraid of Church members losing their testimonies.

exactly.

The key point they are missing is that there is very good information out there, along with lotsa bad stuff and lotsa stuff any Jo Blow can taint and put their own opinions about it.

Makes me wonder…

1. Do they just not understand the Internet and what is and is not out there?

2. Do they think we aren’t capable of discerning truth from bogus lies?

Because the younger generation understands things like Wiki are good tools for information, but suspect to hackers just throwing up unsubstantiated stuff…therefore…the younger generation doesn’t take all things for face value…they verify sources and multiple things (for the most part, people onthe Internet learn that…I guess I can’t say everyone does). And because the bogus stuff eventually gets blasted by serious thinkers…there are checks and balances and credibility …so eventually, things get filtered for those who seek it.

The point is…the Internet gives info about a lot of things. It includes miracle cures for cancer by drinking a shake of chopped vegetables daily. But just because that is on the Internet, I don’t ignore my doctor for crazy internet claims. WebMD doesn’t make my doctor irrelevant…but it has it’s purpose in helping me understand things the doctor told me.

But…as you said, DA…if my doctor is telling me something…I should be able to verify it with several sources on the Internet…and that is not something a weak person does…that is smart.

The analogy Pres Uchtdorf uses highlights the feeling that church leaders want more trust and obedience by members instead of seeking and self-discovery. They want to be the experts and the possessors of the truth…instead of being coaches or mentors to let the members find their own nirvana.

It highlights why some people feel uncomfortable in the church…when the rest of the world has some good tools and wisdom out there…and feel we should embrace it so we don’t get stuck with a horse and buggy religion while the rest of the world is testing self-driven google cars. But those feelings are met with wincing by those in the middle of the flock who think that is not safe. Our religion isn’t really a early adopter…or even an early majority.

I still think besides that part of Uchtdorf’s message, he had good points about simplifying so we can find peace in the gospel, not stress by long lists of “to-do’s”.

Whether with my doctor, lawyer, or prophet…I go with…Trust, but verify with the Internet.

[Anonymous]

Mormonism is welded at the hip to the long list of to-dos. Keep it simple… attend 10 hours of conference to find out how.

It’s a shame some of the “show me” state didn’t rub off on us while we were there. Show us how to keep it simple.

[Anonymous]

Apparently I’m not done.

What does keep it simple even mean? Different things to different people, and that’s a good thing. Meanwhile there’s this line many people are expected to toe.

Take callings. I’ve been in a few units where people held multiple callings. It was exhausting. I may take Uchtdorf at his word and decide for myself that one calling is sufficient for my needs. Let’s pretend for a moment that asking for a release to some of my callings goes super smooth. Now the bishop suddenly has one or two callings he needs to staff and a ward full of people that already have two or three callings from which to select a replacement. His life is now not simple and someone else’s life in the ward is about to become less simple.

People can simplify and the organization can simplify as well. The programs offered by the church don’t always scale to the conditions. This is a good time to remind you that we need 8 endowed priesthood brethren to assist with temple baptisms this Tuesday for the priests and laurels. The mia maids and beehives will be meeting in the YW room. The 11 year old scouts will be doing a swim test at the local pool, the 11.5 year old scouts will be playing Calvinball in the 1st overflow. Etc.

Here’s another thing that’s nagging me and it goes along with what I felt was the overarching theme of this conference.

Setting: Gospel Doctrine class.

Person 1: I’m not sure what this teaching is getting at. I see a few potential issues with…

Person 2: Uchtdorf said keep it simple. Just accept it and move on.

I worry that this “keep it simple” business will be employed as a conversation killer.

Everyone has their own version of keeping it simple. It get’s complex when we try to interact with other people with different definitions of simple. :shrugs:

What do I know, I’m a wallflower introvert. I keep it simple by keeping it to myself… and apparently that gets under the church culture’s skin. They ain’t comfy until I change my simple. :angel:

[Anonymous]

I think part of it is simplifying what we do, Nibbler. I recognize this is only my take on it and that this simplifying thing means different things to different folks. But for me, in addition to focusing more on core principles and less on the appendages, I think just saying (if only to myself) “I’m not going to do that or all of that” is part of simplifying. Of course in some callings it’s nearly impossible to do that. One of the things my stake president said to me when he extended my call was that it could be as much or as little as I want it to be. That has stuck with me. Now a year and a half in, I look at my peers who miss multiple meetings or don’t visit their assigned units very often and I think I get what he’s saying. I told the president of the auxiliary I advise that she works under the same keys I do and has been specifically called to do that job – she doesn’t need my advice, I probably need hers. I don’t do anything with the emergency prep thing. I do visit my assigned unit monthly, but because I like many of the people there and because it gives me a break from my own ward. Generally speaking, there’s room to cut down on what we do. I think it would be helpful if the church made some general changes that would make fewer demands on its people – like a two hour block, fewer callings, and fewer demands on the higher commitment callings like bishop, RSP, EQP, etc. – or more division of the work in those organizations. While I like the emphasis on ward councils in general, the down side of this is that it has made more work for some people.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Setting: Gospel Doctrine class.Person 1: I’m not sure what this teaching is getting at. I see a few potential issues with…Person 2: Uchtdorf said keep it simple. Just accept it and move on.I worry that this “keep it simple” business will be employed as a conversation killer.

I once approached a member of the SP after church because he had said “The church is perfect but the members are not” in our priesthood meeting. I was asking him how he defined “perfect” in that context because the church has changed and continues to change. He responded that he is just a simple man with a simple faith and then enquired after the health of my faith. It was a cordial meeting and I learned something. I had thought that it would be relatively easy to debunk the “church is perfect claim” and have people realize that the word perfect is not a good descriptor of what they mean to say. I was wrong. People can cling to stuff for (what seems to me to be) irrational reasons.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

But…as you said, DA…if my doctor is telling me something…I should be able to verify it with several sources on the Internet…and that is not something a weak person does…that is smart.

Agreed. Even if it isn’t too look for “alternatives”, but to just inform myself of the details the Dr. does not have time to explain to me (and many people don’t care / can’t understand).

But I can see where this does get complicated. I have heard over and over that someone has a question that can’t seem to be answered on lds.com or in church. So they hear about fair Mormon or another apologist web site. They go and find at least someone’s “answer” to the question and whether or not it satisfies them, they also see another topic that has interested them and down the rabbit hole they go.

I can see where the church would stop vilifying and labeling things that don’t paint the most positive image of the church as “anti-Mormon”. They can’t do that. Even faithful members like Bushman are saying much of the events are historically true (even if Bushman puts a different slant than a true anti-Mormon would). But they are still going to push the, “only listen to us” as much as they can.

I know growing up I was deeply instilled that anti-Mormon literature had the power of the devil in it and if I dared look at it I was risking having the devil take control over my soul.

[Anonymous]

Although I agree with DA that it would be great to have the church make the experience of being a Mormon simple, I think Uchdorft was also giving us “license” to say “no” to certain things. i had trouble doing that when I was younger. I thought it was being, as I used to put it “a half-miler”. I don’t think the church can define what simple means for each person, just as they can’t legislate how many children is appropriate for every family.

So, giving the power to the individuals is a nice way of putting us in control of our own lives and service hours. I see his talk as very positive in that respect.

The internet search thing — yes — that was a mistake. The internet is here, everyone uses it — I’m not sure what other advice he would give about the Internet — he MUST know that the new availability of information really is putting a dent in a lot of peoples’ testimonies. And would like to stop that flow of commitment.

What advice do you think he MIGHT have given to people about appropriate use of the internet when they have questions and don’t feel church sources are sufficient?

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

What does keep it simple even mean? Different things to different people…Meanwhile there’s this line many people are expected to toe…Take callings. I’ve been in a few units where people held multiple callings. It was exhausting. I may take Uchtdorf at his word and decide for myself that one calling is sufficient for my needs. Let’s pretend for a moment that asking for a release to some of my callings goes super smooth. Now the bishop suddenly has one or two callings he needs to staff and a ward full of people that already have two or three callings from which to select a replacement. His life is now not simple and someone else’s life in the ward is about to become less simple…People can simplify and the organization can simplify as well. The programs offered by the church don’t always scale to the conditions.

SilentDawning wrote:

Although I agree with DA that it would be great to have the church make the experience of being a Mormon simple, I think Uchdorft was also giving us “license” to say “no” to certain things. i had trouble doing that when I was younger. I thought it was being, as I used to put it “a half-miler”. I don’t think the church can define what simple means for each person, just as they can’t legislate how many children is appropriate for every family…So, giving the power to the individuals is a nice way of putting us in control of our own lives and service hours. I see his talk as very positive in that respect…

That’s the thing; I don’t believe most active members are going to hear the idea, “keep it simple” and automatically make the connection that that means they can say no to callings and unrealistic expectations, they are still going to feel like it is their obligation to accept callings, report home teaching numbers, etc. unless the Church is explicitly telling them they can do what is best for them which I doubt they will anytime soon. So, in other words, nothing has really changed as a result of Uchtdorf’s talk for practical purposes.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Makes me wonder…

1. Do they just not understand the Internet and what is and is not out there?

2. Do they think we aren’t capable of discerning truth from bogus lies?

The analogy Pres Uchtdorf uses highlights the feeling that church leaders want more trust and obedience by members instead of seeking and self-discovery. They want to be the experts and the possessors of the truth…instead of being coaches or mentors to let the members find their own nirvana…It highlights why some people feel uncomfortable in the church…when the rest of the world has some good tools and wisdom out there…and feel we should embrace it so we don’t get stuck with a horse and buggy religion while the rest of the world is testing self-driven google cars. But those feelings are met with wincing by those in the middle of the flock who think that is not safe. Our religion isn’t really a early adopter…or even an early majority…

SilentDawning wrote:

The internet search thing — yes — that was a mistake. The internet is here, everyone uses it — I’m not sure what other advice he would give about the Internet — he MUST know that the new availability of information really is putting a dent in a lot of peoples’ testimonies. And would like to stop that flow of commitment…What advice do you think he MIGHT have given to people about appropriate use of the internet when they have questions and don’t feel church sources are sufficient?

I think they know that many members have found information and opinions on the internet and ended up losing their testimonies as a result and that’s the main thing they care about so that’s why they are saying don’t even look for answers on the internet now. Maybe they saw that the attempted inoculation and apologetic answers didn’t work the way they had hoped so now they are trying to discourage questioning and paying attention to un-correlated information altogether and hoping most active members won’t notice some of the problems and writing off the ones that have already lost their testimony as lost causes.

I understand that some of these Church leaders don’t feel like they can change anything with the Church itself but personally I think the best possible reaction to many members losing faith/commitment would be to change what they focus on the most so that it wouldn’t matter as much if members believe in the restoration story or not and it would be more about the way the Church is now. For example, there are practicing Catholics that aren’t bothered that much by the embarrassing history of their church such as the Inquisition or official doctrines they don’t believe in such as transubstantiation. To me this shows that it is mostly the Church itself that is setting the expectation that it is supposedly so important to accept the restoration story to begin with and my question is, “Why?” Maybe it’s time to tone it down with the prophet hype and instead focus on what we can do to make the world a better place starting with average members and their everyday lives.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I understand that some of these Church leaders don’t feel like they can change anything with the Church itself but personally I think the best possible reaction to many members losing faith/commitment would be to change the emphasis of what they focus on so that it wouldn’t matter as much if members believe in the restoration story or not and it would be more about the way the Church is now. For example there are practicing Catholics that aren’t bothered that much by the embarrassing history of their Church such as the Inquisition or official doctrines they don’t believe in such as transubstantiation. To me this shows that it is the Church itself that is setting the expectation that is supposedly so important to accept the restoration story to begin with and my question is, “Why?” Maybe it’s time to tone it down with the prophet hype and instead focus on what we can do to make the world a better place starting with average members and their everyday lives.

This is really similar to churchistrue’s suggestions for how to retain millennials in particular.

I only heard DFU’s talk once. I don’t know why he was so off his usual course, but I was really struck by his tone of voice and facial expression when he talked about the disrespect on display online. I think something has at least temporarily exhausted his patience, and, to be honest, I really felt for him in that moment. I’ve always admired how respectful and loving he is – or at least seems to be. (And I promise I’m not one of those LDS women with a crush on him. Gotta say I’m shocked at how many women talk about that. 😳 )

[Anonymous]

In his defense, we all know there is a LOT of garbage online – on both sides of any issue.

The internet has provided a ton of wonderful information on any subject, but it also has provided a voice for every idiot to publish anything – and it often provides a forum in which someone can say something they would never say to someone in person, in a tone they would never use in person. Disrespect is not rare, to say the least. There is both wonder and bile online, and too much of it also is couched disingenuously and deceitfully. The internet is both a wonderful and a vile place.

I am not saying people with questions should never try to find information online, since there are really good sites for all kinds of perspectives, but much of the diagnoses / prescriptions online for spiritual matters is more toxic than helpful.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

The internet is both a wonderful and a vile place.

Just like the world!

It did seem that there was a lot of “the evil world is battling us” at conference this time (as usual). But my heart is turned now not towards gay’s encroaching on the family, but to an episode of nightline I got around to watching. It was about how ISIS persecuted one religion that it feels inferior. ISIS went through entire towns killing everyone but the women who were taken as sex slaves if young enough or slaves if a bit older.

[skip the rest if you don’t like to hear really bad stuff]

I still tear up remembering a 14 year old girl recount how in just a few days period of time she was raped dozens and dozens of time until she has constant pain even month later and a young woman that wanted to tell her story also, but after a few minutes the pain was so bad she convulsed and passed out – something she does several times a day. Her 2 year old kid tried to comfort her.

Bad things like this in the world make me frustrated that we are not trying to do more for them. I find it harder to believe in a God that allows this. Much more than if Joseph Smith married and slept with a 14 year old girl.

[Author]

Posts