You can read my review of April’s conference here.
Last weekend was LDS General Conference. And being the masochist I am, I not only watched conference, but attended a session also. (If you’ve never gone to general conference as a nonbeliever, you ought to—it’s quite the spectacle.)
I watch general conference because it is an important cultural phenomenon; it helps me keep a pulse on what the Mormon community is thinking and feeling. I can’t blame you for not watching it, though, so I’m going to share with you my brief summary of conference.
This general conference was the usual blend of banality, tedium, pablum, emotionalism, anti-intellectualism, and moralization.
The banal: When something is banal, it is either painfully obvious or trivial. General conference is often both, and this most recent one was no exception. Church leaders rather predictably decried evils like pornography and drugs (to Elder Ballard’s credit, he acknowledged that prescription drug abuse is a problem in the church). More trivial evils like sleepovers, texting, and video games were also discussed (unlike global poverty, war, genocide, environmental degradation, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.).
The tedious: There are a number of things that make conference boring, even sleep-inducing: the dim lighting, the halting and hypnotic cadence of President Monson’s speaking, the funereal hymns, the repetition, the aforementioned banality, and so on.
The pablum: Some LDS leaders speak to members of the church as though they (the members) are children. The emphasis on obedience and simple moral principles like kindness only reinforce this impression. “Milk before the meat,” they say. But must that milk come from a bottle?
The emotional: Few things affect people more than crying old guys, and there was plenty of that on display last weekend. One of the most emotional talks was given by Elder Holland who expressed his gratitude for the members, their faith, and their service. There’s no shame in crying, of course. I am just bothered when the general authorities’ crying is taken as evidence that they’re inspired.
The anti-intellectual: This conference seemed to stress obedience and faith more than other conferences in recent memory. Ezra Taft Benson’s Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophets was cited by two speakers, which I found remarkable.
The moralistic: Conference can get preachy. Apostle Boyd K. Packer was the most stridently moralistic in his denunciation of homosexuality and gay rights. I will address Packer’s talk later on in this post.
I won’t waste my and your time discussing every conference talk, but I think you should at least know about Elder Quentin L. Cook’s and President Boyd K. Packer’s.*
Elder Cook is quickly becoming my least favorite apostle. He has a habit of making ignorant jabs at atheism. In his April 2009 conference talk, he mocked the atheist bus ad campaign in London, and said atheists were dishonorable because they do not have faith. This conference, echoing the controversial remarks the pope made in the UK, Cook compared the rise of secularism to the Nazi’s bombing of London, and argued that societies without religion inevitably spiral into violence and moral anarchy.
To discredit Cook’s assertion, all one needs to do is look to countries like Sweden and Denmark. These countries are extremely irreligious, and yet enjoy the highest standards of living, lowest crime rates, and an unparalleled degree of equality. If religion is really so fundamental to society, then the success of Scandinavian societies is curious.
That said, I do think religion can be helpful to society. But if one’s only or primary reason for being moral is because they think there is a god monitoring their behavior (and thoughts!), then that’s just pathetic. Atheists and agnostics are among the most moral people I know, because they are good for the sake of being good—not because of promises of heaven and threats of hell.
The big news of this conference was President Boyd K. Packer’s talk yesterday morning. Below is a video excerpt of his talk.
Packer erroneously insisted that homosexuality is not “preset” or “inborn,” and that it can be overcome. He made a similar comment in his 1976 priesthood session talk, “To Young Men Only.”
There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just “that way” and can only yield to those desires. That is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life. From our premortal life we were directed into a physical body. There is no mismatching of bodies and spirits. Boys are to become men—masculine, manly men—ultimately to become husbands and fathers. No one is predestined to a perverted use of these powers.
And two years later, in a BYU address, Packer said the following:
Is [homosexual] tendency impossible to change? Is it preset at the time of birth and locked in? Do you just have to live with it? …The answer is a conclusive no!
In his most recent conference talk, Packer also said voting for gay marriage is as futile as voting against gravity, for both are irrevocable laws—one moral, the other natural.
One has to wonder what spurred Packer’s talk. Perhaps it was in part a response to Dr. Bradshaw’s recent BYU lecture that homosexuality is genetic. I don’t know. Whatever the catalyst, Packer’s remarks represent a significant step backward for the LDS Church on the issue of homosexuality.
Isaac Higham, my friend and a gay rights activist, wrote an impassioned response to Packer last night. He gave me permission to quote parts of it here.
I have no interest in arguing the absurdity of [Packer's claims] with the leaders of the LDS church. These are smart, accomplished, and for the most part well educated men who know better. No, I do not speak out and respond to argue their beliefs because surely they have the right to believe whatever they please, however disturbing and absurd they may be.
No, I speak out because I know that somewhere in some LDS family room or chapel pew, there sits a little boy or little girl who was just like me. A little one who desires nothing more than to be “worthy” and to have the approval of their church and of their family. I know that somewhere there is a child who, just like a younger me, quivers in fear of eternal damnation and fear of disappointing the family and the church culture they have been raised in because they are gay.
It is for these little ones that I refuse to stay silent.
The message delivered from the LDS pulpit continues to be a message of false hope, of misery, and of death for our LGBT children. LGBT youth are FOUR TIMES more likely to attempt suicide than their peers and they make up somewhere between twenty and forty percent of the homeless youth population—despite making up less than ten percent of the population of youth as a whole.
For twenty years I listened to the message of self loathing preached from LDS authorities. For twenty years I believed in their false hope that I could pray and fast and serve away my sexual orientation and God would then reward me with “righteous” heterosexual desires.
When the change never came, the blame became even more internalized, and I lost hope. But after a thankfully failed attempt to end the misery of this life, I finally found the true peace of my divine identity. I finally realized that all of those years I didn’t change because I didn’t need to. I was the way God intended me to be.
Isaac went on to call Packer’s comments a “message of death.” I think that characterization is unfair, but I wholeheartedly agree with him that the hope the LDS Church continues to give some gay Mormon youth that they can change is a false and potentially dangerous hope. Isaac knows that from personal experience, and so do I.
The LGBT community wasn’t the only one offended. Several of my LDS were equally upset by Packer’s conference talk. One friend told me that he felt so ashamed, he turned off the television during Packer’s talk and didn’t watch conference the rest of that day. So while I have largely lost faith in the LDS Church as an institution, I have not lost faith in Mormons. If they learned one thing this conference, I hope it’s that their leaders don’t always, if ever, speak for god.
Mormons deserve better than the current LDS Church. I am still confident that the church will become increasingly progressive on homosexuality and other issues, but last weekend’s general conference serves as a reminder that such a change will come slowly and with the occasional setback.
*This is not supposed to be a comprehensive review of conference. Because I am focusing on two talks with which I disagree, my assessment of conference will seem negative. I actually find most of what is said at conference to be either innocuous or laudable, though. The reason for my focus on Cook’s and Packer’s talks is just that they are the most relevant to this blog’s audience.
Jon, if the church changed it’s view on Homosexuality, I’d have to change my view on the church. God is not governed by man. If God says homosexuality is wrong, then your useless rantings will not change is mind.
The LDS Church has changed its mind on issues before, why not homosexuality?
But more to your point: I am not necessarily saying that the LDS Church will have to view homosexuality as morally acceptable. In the following post, I articulate several steps the LDS Church could take to improve the lives of its gay members, short of accepting homosexual behavior: http://usu-shaft.com/2010/friendly-advice-to-the-lds-church-about-homosexuality/
@”Anon”: While Jon and I often disagree on certain issues (mostly historical) related to the church, I think it’s beyond naive to describe his posts as “useless rantings.” He speaks to, and more importantly comforts, a large number of those that the church (our church, I presume) and its members have left feeling disenfranchised and alone. Surely you can see that. Would you rather the demographic Jon speaks to continue to feel as if no one understands them? It’s a lonely and painful place he’s helping them through. I would hope that you’d at least be able to appreciate that aspect of Jon’s work. As a human being, perhaps you’d do well to take some notes.
Quite pleasantly I managed to avoid listening to a single second of conference this week. I’ve found that every year my tolerance for outrageous condescension and anti-intellectualism has dropped markedly. I think 19 years of hearing the same basic talks repeatedly will probably hold me over.
I think Packer’s comments were insensitively timed and frankly just wrong. But then Packer also thinks I represent the greatest threats to the church all rolled into one … so I can’t see us ever getting along.
On the subject of Cook I completely agree. Did you catch his October 2009 talk where he said that it was a higher law to serve others and be kind because god tells you to than because you feel like it is just the right thing to do? The man’s totally irresponsible …
I enjoyed Arnold’s talk. I think his using a childhood story from a cattle ranch to illustrate the value of boundaries and your accusation that he compared members to cattle is a low blow. Why go down to that level?
I didn’t say he made the comparison, but he invited it. Of course it wasn’t Arnold’s intent to compare members to cattle, but I used Arnold’s statements to make a larger point: I think the LDS Church does sometimes treat its members like cattle. And the herd mentality that the church cultivates in its members is definitely on display during general conference.
Why is it “insulting” for him to invite the comparison between members and cattle, but acceptable for you to actually make it? I’m honestly not trying to give you a hard time here, and certainly not looking forward to the inevitable “gang-style jumping” I’m about to receive, but you’ve lost me as to why this is ok. I’m insulted, and could argue quite easily (were I so inclined) that many of your readers on here are just as willing to “follow the herd” while merely posing as freethinking intellectuals. It’s called bad faith.
Eh, point taken. I do certainly think that Mormons’ herd mentality is on display during conference weekend, and that’s a point I retract, but it doesn’t make sense using Arnold’s talk as a launching board for that point. You win.
For whatever it’s worth, your updated version reads very well. Thank you.
Dang. I just deleted it.
We squabble about beef way too much.
Ha ha, agreed.
For the record, it wasn’t the comparison between members and cattle that I called insulting (because Arnold didn’t actually intend that comparison), but instead the notion that arises from that comparison that members need to be fenced off from the world. I think that point was more clear in the updated (but now deleted) version of my comment.
I honestly don’t remember who said it (another blogger, perhaps Eliza R. Snitch? or maybe it was you!), but they basically said what the hell is the point of prophets if all they’re going to do is trot them out twice a year for a pep talk?
And yet everyone is expected to watch, as if they’re going to receive never-before-seen awesome revelations directly from God, every time!
That was me, he he.
People, people, people, Boyd K. Packer was simply stating something that has been here since the beginning of time. Are you wanting God to change his ways? Seriously, come on and think. The only ways that are changing are the worlds. Buck up everyone and start thinking clearly. If a man and a man or woman and a woman want to be together, so be it. But that’s not what marriage is it never has been and it never will be no matter what the courts say. Get over it.
And blacks will always be a lesser race because that’s the way it always has been and will be, no matter what the courts say. Get over it.
Oh…wait…
Don’t joke, tawny probably still believes that in her heart
Lol, yup. God has always had the same stance on marriage. Mormons have ALWAYS held that marriage is between one man and one… oh crap.
Of course Tawny, marriage has always been a constant, clear definition, and has never changed in history, so why change now?
In fact, while we are on the talk of not changing history and have it be god’s will, why do you study? or leave the house for that matter? I expect every woman to be a stay at home octa-mom, not allowed to drive discuss, or have opinions. Therefore, whatever you say here is basically rambling.
The concept of obedience for the sake of obedience was always one that annoyed me. As far as people getting bent out of shape over the comparison to cattle (whether it is overt or implied), it’s nothing new. Jesus Christ himself compared his followers to sheep constantly, and sheep aren’t exactly known for their intelligence. I’m just sayin’.
What gets me about the story is more in its suggestion that the crowd needs to be given boundaries by others claiming their own authority. It says to me “we are here to lead and fence you because you cannot govern yourselves on a personal level.”
I find the resurgence of Benson’s Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophet interesting, but completely unsurprising. In a time of contention within the church, it serves as a reminder that the leaders get the final say and are ultimately not to be contradicted.
As far as Benson, I’m working on my own, lengthy response and presently have nothing to say about it that is both concise and poignant.
Also, I’m not looking to offend. Just throwing in some chips from my vantage point.
Courtney, I don’t believe I got “bent out of shape” about that. Why go there?
She might have meant that I got “bent out of shape.” No worries.
I wasn’t pointing fingers, nor was I attempting to “go” anywhere with anybody. Merely stating my opinion that the comparison was of little consequence one way or another. “Bent out of shape” was not intended as an accusatory or inflammatory phrase, merely a cutesie exaggerated generalization for a level of concern over an issue that I don’t personally find surprising. I was as much referring to Jon as anyone else, but I do beg your pardon if you found it offensive.
Can you tell I’ve been writing a paper? Good grief, am I senselessly wordy.
Courtney, don’t even worry about it. Good luck with your paper. (Try to weave the word “cutesie” in again. It seriously works.)
I’ll always remember Quentin Cook the way he looked that night I ran into him at the party with the Primate of the Orthodox Church in America His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah.
Hit the link and scroll down a bit to see Jonah and Quention chillin’:
http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/party-events-pictures/archive/4745-annual-canterbury-medal-dinner-
Thank you Jon. I cannot come up with the words to argue or intellectually defend gay rights, although it really isn’t on the top of my list, but definitely worth my time.
Pingback: The post that will get me excommunicated « Molly Muses . . .
Pingback: Main Street Plaza » Sunday in Outer Blogness: Damage control Edition!
Now, I have some things i’d like to discuss. Firstly is the part where you said, this is a step backwards on the churches (I’m LDS) view of Homosexuality. This is erroneous. We have always believed homosexuality to be a grievous sin. It clearly states in scripture man shall not lay down with man, nor woman with woman. I do believe it’s a choice, because i have a friend who decided to become lesbian. I pray she’ll return to the correct path. I do like hearing that people are waiting for a retraction. lol You will be waiting a VERY long time. Todays society has become FAR too complacent with evils of the flesh. When you stated that the church simply reiterates itself, and treats members like children, please remember, We ARE children. we are all God’s children. The reiteration is because people are human. We stray, it is the reiteration, which helps to keep us on the right course. If you heard a ‘message of self-loathing’ as you called it, i am very sorry. I have never felt a reason to fear God, nor found any member of the church to be anything other than kind. I also wanted to speak on this statement made by the fellow called Aubrey “Did you catch his October 2009 talk where he said that it was a higher law to serve others and be kind because god tells you to than because you feel like it is just the right thing to do? The man’s totally irresponsible …” Do you believe in Logic, and Philosophy? then Please look up Kant’s talks on Duty. To do something you feel like is morally worthless, compared to doing something because it’s right.
Sorry to those i’ve “insulted”. I would love to talk to anyone who wishes to discuss this further. Please no Flaming insults though. At least have the dignity to be cordial. email:
Pingback: Link bomb #6 | Main Street Plaza
Ah, the ever-wicked Quentin L. Cook, the man who helped loot the state of California to the tune of millions of dollars to his employer. I’ve never met an atheist as immoral as he is. Him becoming Apostle is like Gadiantion becoming Prophet.
Harsh? Too bad. If he doesn’t want people to say bad things about him, he should avoid the appearance of evil instead of profiting from it.