Religion

The General Conference Odyssey is a group project by a number of Mormon bloggers. We decided to read all the talks[ref]Alternatively: some folks are reading only the talks from those who were or became Apostles.[/ref] from one session of every General Conference per week starting with the April 1971 session[ref]The first one readily available on LDS.org[/ref] and continuing until we catch up.

Our first post went live on December 1, 2015. We’ve posted every single Tuesday since then. Every week, we all post our reviews of the talks from that week’s session along with links to the other folks blogging that week. [ref]This format is what’s known as a “blog carnival.“[/ref] The only exception are current General Conferences, when we all take a break from reading the historical sessions to give our full attention to the current ones.

We call it the General Conference Odyssey because–assuming that future General Conferences maintain the 6-session format–we will not finish this task until 2029. Late in the summer of that year, we will finish re-reading the talks from the April 2029 General Conference before the October 2029 General Conference begins. If future General Conferences have more than 6 sessions, our odyssey will take longer. If they have less, then it will take shorter. In either case, however, an approximately 14-year blogging project seemed to merit the term “odyssey.”

The goal of all the participants is pretty simple. We say that we sustain the general authorities of the Church as prophets, seers, and revelators, so it makes sense to put our time and effort where our mouths are. Reading and then writing about these talks is one way of making sure that we have an eye on the watchmen on the tower.

It is also important, in a time where controversies and viewpoints abound, to keep track of the message that the leaders choose to reiterate. As Elder Eyring taught, “When the words of prophets seem repetitive, that should rivet our attention.” The only way to know which messages are being repeated, however, is to make sure that we’re paying attention to all of them.

Finally, we hope that in surveying a large number of talks over a long time period we will also be able to see trends or changes in emphasis that can help us better understand the Lord’s counsel through His prophets in response to a changing world. The Gospel doesn’t change, but the particular opportunities and dangers we should be most attuned to do change as the world does, and that is another good reason to pay close attention to the words of our prophets over an extended period of time.

This post serves as an introduction to the concept (which you’ve just read) in addition to a more detailed history, a FAQ, and a continuously updated index of all the blog posts in the General Conference Odyssey.

History

On October 25, 2015, J. Max Wilson shared a quote from a talk President Hinckley gave during the Saturday Morning session of the October 1981 General Conference: “Faith: The Essence of True Religion.” I was very struck by this quote, and I spent quite some time mulling it over and discussing my thoughts with friends and family. Eventually, I wrote a blog post for Times and Seasons detailing how I worked through incorporating the talk into my own beliefs. The post I wrote included this paragraph:

President Hinckley’s talk was given 34 years ago. I was a baby then, so of course I have no memory of this talk. I did not know that it existed until last week, when I read the excerpt. And I must confess a sense of shame as I read it for the first time and realized that this past year was the first year (since my mission) that I even tried to listen to all the sessions of General Conference. How many more talks have been given over my lifetime that I have never heard? Never read? Never considered? I say that I sustain the apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators, and yet I have nearly two centuries of their official talks given in General Conference and I have never even considered that I might want to go back and systematically read them to see what they had to say. I think it’s time I change that.

Not long after my post went live, J. Max sent me an email. He shared that he had been working through General Conference talks starting with his birth year. We got together with a few other bloggers we know (basically: the earliest participants in the General Conference Odyssey) and started talking about doing a group version of J. Max’s personal project. We settled on starting with April 1971 because it was the oldest easily available. We settled on a pace of one session per week because it seemed manageable over a long time-frame. I put together the schedule and a Google Doc we could use to coordinate and share links, and then suggested Dec 1 as the start date because: why wait? The holiday season is busy, but if we couldn’t make it through the first one I didn’t see any chance of making it through 14 years of them.

And so our first posts went live on Dec 1, 2015. At that time, we still didn’t have a name of the project.[ref]My working title was GenConCar, since it’s a General Conference Blog Carnival, but I never liked it.[/ref] Michelle Linford said she liked the term “odyssey” that I’d used in my first blog post,[ref]In a Facebook comment.[/ref] however, and with no other contenders, the name stuck.

FAQ

Q. Who can join the General Conference Odyssey?

A. If you’d like to be included as a blogger in the General Conference Odyssey, please contact any of the current bloggers and ask. [ref]If you don’t know any of us personally, you’re welcome to reach out to me using this site’s contact form.[/ref] In general, we’re looking for anyone who wants to read the General Conference talks for the same reason that we do: to better understand the words of Lord’s modern prophets.

Q. Who is in charge of the General Conference Odyssey?

A. The General Conference Odyssey is strictly a volunteer, team effort with no official leader or leadership. I do my best to facilitate by maintaining our schedule and sending encouraging emails and writing posts like this one, but anything else is decided by informal consensus.

Q. Why didn’t you answer my question yet?

A. Because we didn’t think of it. Go ahead and send it to any of the participants or just use this site’s contact form.

Index

• General Conference Odyssey Posts from 2015
  Covers the beginning of the April General Conference from 1971
• General Conference Odyssey Posts from 2016
  Covers the rest of the April 1971 General Conference through the start of the October 1974 General Conference.
• General Conference Odyssey Posts from 2017
  Covers the rest of the October 1974 General Conference through the April 1978 General Conference.
• General Conference Odyssey Posts from 2018
  Covers the rest October 1978 General Conference through the start of the April 1982 General Conference.
• General Conference Odyssey Posts from 2019
  Covers the rest of the April 1982 General Conference through the start of the October 1986 General Conference
• General Conference Odyssey Posts from 2020
  Covers the rest of the October 1986 General Conference through the start of the April 1991 General Conference.

This is part of the General Conference Odyssey.

This week covers the April 1971 Priesthood session. Let me give a brief rundown of some of the least interesting talks.

In the lead talk, President Joseph Fielding Smith describes what it is to be a priesthood holder:

We are ambassadors of the Lord Jesus Christ. Our commission is to represent him. We are directed to preach his gospel, to perform the ordinances of salvation, to bless mankind, to heal the sick and perhaps perform miracles, to do what he would do if he were personally present—and all this because we hold the holy priesthood. As the Lord’s agents we are bound by his law to do what he wants us to do regardless of personal feelings or worldly enticements. Of ourselves we have no message of salvation, no doctrine that must be accepted, no power to baptize or ordain or marry for eternity. All these things come from the Lord, and anything we do with reference to them is the result of delegated authority.[ref]He goes even further: “We must not be guilty of unrighteous and evil acts of abortion.”[/ref]

Future president Howard W. Hunter talks about the very mundane topic of the (then new) meetinghouse library program. Despite the subject’s fairly boring nature, as my stake’s Sunday School president, I was pleasantly surprised to see teaching addressed so strongly, if in a somewhat roundabout way. Hunter highlights D&C 42, explaining that the priesthood is to “teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel. And they shall observe the covenants and church articles to do them, and these shall be their teachings, as they shall be directed by the Spirit” (vs. 12-13). Hunter says we must “seek…diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). While some may find it (unjustifiably) tasteless, I thought his comparison of the packaging of the gospel message to marketing tactics made plenty of sense. Rhetoric and delivery are important. When combined with information or truth, it creates impact.

David B. Haight’s talk features similar thoughts through the discussion of the teacher development program. Drawing on the Savior’s admonishment to Peter in John to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17), Haight believes that not only must “[w]e must understand these instructions and our responsibility to “teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom” (D&C 88:77), but [also] to teach it effectively so that all of us, our children, our children’s children, and generations yet unborn will be able to perceive and comprehend the true meaning of life as proclaimed by the Master, and then have a desire to live it and eventually gain exaltation in the kingdom of our Heavenly Father…”

Sexual morality is addressed in several of the talks from the April session and Victor L. Brown provides a nice summary as to why such morality is important: “Sexual activity is to be indulged in only within the bonds of marriage. When this is the case, it is one of the most rewarding and satisfying experiences man can have. When this is not the case, the same experience becomes base and evil…Infidelity and promiscuous sex activity destroy the basic, vital institution of the family, which in turn destroys all that is good in life” (italics mine). While he does make some cringe-worthy comments about homosexuality,[ref]Brown says, “The Lord defined some very basic differences between men and women. He gave the male what we call masculine traits and the female feminine traits. He did not intend either of the sexes to adopt the other’s traits but, rather, that men should look and act like men and that women should look and act like women. When these differences are ignored, an unwholesome relationship develops, which, if not checked, can lead to the reprehensible, tragic sin of homosexuality. In other words, we have a responsibility as priesthood bearers to be examples of true manhood.” Ouch. And while there is nothing wrong with pointing out sex differences, we shouldn’t–as psychologist Steven Pinker notes–use “dubious sex differences to condemn the choices of women.”[/ref] Brown thankfully points out that morality encompasses far more than just sexuality and offers up honesty and integrity as vital to a moral life. Despite Brown’s anecdotes regarding the honest Mormon professional, it seems that modern Mormon businessmen could use Brown’s reminder. given that Utah is the state with the most affinity fraud per head.

The last three talks really shine. Wendell J. Ashton offers a touching address directed at his two sons. He stresses the “eternal principles” that “can help you lead in a world that cries out for real priesthood leadership.” And in one of the finest conclusions of a General Conference talk I have heard in some time, he declares lovingly,

Stand on your own feet. Stand tall. Hold your heads high as though you are truly sons of God, which you are. Walk among men as holders of powers beyond your own, which you have, through the priesthood. Move on the good earth as though you are partners of the Lord in helping to bring immortality and eternal life to mankind, which you are. Walk quietly, as in stocking feet; but walk fearlessly, in faith. Don’t let the ill winds sway you. Walk as leaders with the priesthood in the government of God. Walk with hands ready to help, with hearts full of love for your fellowmen. But walk with a toughness in righteousness.

N. Eldon Tanner’s talk, for me, is the highlight of the Priesthood session. In the midst of recent controversies and polarization among Latter-day Saints surrounding women and the priesthood, excommunications, and the policy regarding children of same-sex parents, the talk is a powerful reminder that we should not be rejoicing in the falling away of fellow members. “Good riddance” is the not the appropriate response:

Every bishop, every stake president, every leader of any organization knows someone who needs attention, and you and we have the responsibility of going to find that lost sheep…These young men [and women] and these older men [and women] who are inactive in the Church, who have strayed away from the Church because of inactivity or for any reason, need our help and need our attention just as much. They need our prayers and our consideration, and nothing will bring us greater joy and happiness than to see one come back into activity.

Tanner reminds the audience that not all inactivity is due to sin, but sometimes due to neglect. In his recalling of the parable of the lost sheep, I’m reminded of the accompanying parables of the lost coin and the prodigal son. Sheep and sons can wander away. Coins can’t. Owners lose those due to neglect and carelessness. We blame those who are offended rather than seeking to be less offensive.

We as a community have responsibilities toward our members:

Often some little thing, some slight, or a misunderstanding causes one to become inactive. There are those who are discouraged and inactive because they have felt neglected or have been offended; or they are guilty of some transgression of their own, and as a result feel that they are outcasts or that there is no place for them, that they are not worthy or wanted. They feel that they are lost and cannot be forgiven. We as leaders must let them know and make them know that we love them, and help them to understand that the Lord loves them, and that the Lord will forgive them if they will truly repent.

There are people “in every ward ranging in ages from twelve to seventy who, though they would deny it, are hungry for attention, for brotherhood, and for an active life in the Church.” We must say to them, as Tanner did to one inactive brother, “Listen, brother, you need activity in the Church, but we need you, we really need you.” This fellowship goes beyond the individual: “By saving one, we might save a family. We might even save a generation. By losing one, we may lose not only the individual but a family and his posterity.”

One of the final comments of Harold B. Lee rounds out Tanner’s excellent message. Is all that effort worth it? “I want you to know that it would be worth it if it were my grandson, or one of mine. It would be worth it if it were one of yours.”

Overall, a particularly moving Priesthood session.

—

Here are the other folks participating in this grand scheme who have also written blog posts responding to the Priesthood session of the April 1971 General Conference. (If any of the links don’t work, try back later. They are all coming online during the day.)

Bites from the April 1971 Priesthood Session (by G at Junior Ganymede)

LDS Conference 1971 – Meetinghouse Libraries and UX for Gospel Learning (by J. Max Wilson at Sixteen Small Stones)

Dear to the Heart of the Shepherd (by Daniel Ortner at Symphony of Dissent)

Deep Down Inside Us There is Good (by John Hancock at the Good Report)

Betty Friedan and Bishop Brown (by Ralph Hancock at The Soul and The City)

Why I support Friends of Scouting (by Michelle Linford at Mormon Women)

God’s Plan to Exalt His Children (by Miachael Worley at Michael’s Thoughts and Ideas)

Love Fervently (by Nathaniel at Difficult Run)

Three weeks is a little early into a 14-year project, but I’m already impressed with how my view of the Church and the General Authorities is changing. And it comes down to one thing: love. I didn’t expect to hear and feel so much love from the 1970s-era Church leaders. I expected the concern for crumbling moral standards of the day and the (by our standard) harsh language with regard this deterioration. I didn’t expect so much love.

I’ll have to back up very briefly to mention Elder Marvin J. Ashton’s talk from the Saturday morning session of the April 1971 General Conference, “Love of the Right.” In his talk, Elder Ashton explained the famous quote we have all heard, “No other success can compensate for failure in the home.” This is what Elder Ashton had to say:

Following one of our recent general conference sessions, a troubled mother approached me and said, “I need to know what is meant by the statement, ‘No success can compensate for failure in the home.’” Knowing a little of the burdens this friend of mine carries in her mind and heart because of a rebellious, wayward daughter, I shared this meaning with her: I believe we start to fail in the home when we give up on each other. We have not failed until we have quit trying. As long as we are working diligently with love, patience, and long-suffering, despite the odds or the apparent lack of progress, we are not classified as failures in the home. We only start to fail when we give up on a son, daughter, mother, or father.

Elder Ashton’s response demonstrates a genuine love, both for the parents of wayward children and for wayward children. And so I was especially struck when (in the priesthood session we’re responding to this week), Elder Harold B. Lee returned to the same topic in his talk “Today’s Young People.” He said:

I would have you remember a remark of Brother Marvin J. Ashton in his very excellent address today when he said no home is a failure until it gives up on that son, or that daughter, or that husband, or that wife. It must not give up, no matter how difficult the task to save one of ours.

This is a beautiful new way of looking at President McKay’s famous statement. While no success can compensate for failure in the home, no home is a failure so long as we refuse to give up on our loved family members.

In his talk, President Lee (then Elder Lee) recounted a story of a speech given by Horace Mann (“that great educator somewhere back in the time of Abraham Lincoln”) to the effect that a new school—which had cost a huge amount of money to build—would be worth it “if [it] is able to save one boy.” One of Mann’s friends replied that surely Mann was exaggerating. But, according to President Lee, he was not.

Horace Mann looked at him and said, “Yes, my friend. It would be worth it if that one boy were my son; it would be worth it.”

I want you to know that it would be worth it if it were my grandson, or one of mine. It would be worth it if it were one of yours.

Another talk that really conveyed to me a sense of warmth and love was Elder N. Eldon Tanner’s “Search for the Wanderers.” The talk, which emphasized the importance of reaching out to inactive members, returned again and again to a beautiful theme that Elder Tanner once told an inactive member that he was extending a calling to: “Listen, brother, you need activity in the Church, but we need you, we really need you.”

He then went on to say:

Brethren, there is nothing more important in your whole lives than to save souls. We have programs and we have planning outlines for teachers, and we give them teacher helps, and all those things to take care of those who are attending, but I fear too often we are forgetting and neglecting and ignoring those who are not always there, satisfied to say we had 50 percent or 60 percent in attendance.

I don’t care at all for percentages or statistics, but I do care for that boy and the outside young man, and I appeal to you tonight, my brethren, every one of you who is holding the priesthood of God, and particularly those who hold office in the Church, to set about to do as the Lord said, to find that lost sheep, bring him back into the fold, so that you will find joy with him when you meet your Heavenly Father.

I was also struck by Elder Tanner’s ability to empathize with those who wander. He said:

There are those who are discouraged and inactive because they have felt neglected or have been offended; or they are guilty of some transgression of their own, and as a result feel that they are outcasts or that there is no place for them, that they are not worthy or wanted. They feel that they are lost and cannot be forgiven. We as leaders must let them know and make them know that we love them, and help them to understand that the Lord loves them, and that the Lord will forgive them if they will truly repent.

We have an old song, “Where Is My Wandering Boy Tonight?” and I was wondering if that could not be changed to mean more to us in these words: “Why is my boy wandering tonight?”

This is a very near echo of how Elder Ashton talked about the problem of drug abuse in the talk I quoted from earlier, Love of the Right. For Elder Ashton it was not enough to simply teach our youth that drugs are dangerous and immoral. We had to ask the deeper questions:

If we as parents and friends advise our youth that drugs are bad, evil, and immoral, and yet we do not try to understand why our youth turn to this evil substitute for reality, then the drugs themselves become the issue and not the symptom of the greater issue of unhappiness. We need to know why our loved ones want to run from their present life to the unknown yet dangerous life of addiction. What causes a strong, lovely, vibrant young person to allow a chemical to control his or her behavior? What is there at home, school, work, or church that is so uncomfortable that an escape seems necessary?

If we were not faced with the evils of marijuana, LSD, speed, and heroin, we would be faced with some other type of escape mechanism, because some of us as brothers, sisters, parents, friends, and teachers have not yet been able to reach our youth in such a way as to give them the confidence and love they seek.

All of this came to my mind as I was preparing my lesson for Gospel Doctrine. In my ward, today was lesson 43, which covers 1 Peter. A lot of Peter’s tone is very similar to what we hear in General Conference, and especially the emphasis on love and unity. And this phrase in particular stood out: “see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently.” (1 Peter 1:22)

We’ve all heard the command to “love one another” many, many times. And, just as many of us (me foremost!) are perhaps a little too willing to discount General Conference talks as more of the same, I can imagine that Peter needed to hammer the point home a little to get people to realize—again—how fundamentally important it is. Love one another, he said. Fervently.

Here are a couple of additional snippets from the Priesthood session that I liked:

And one of these days he is going to come.

I liked the matter-of-fact tone in President Joseph Fielding Smith’s reference to the Second Coming in “Our Responsibilities As Priesthood Holders.”

It is not difficult for men who are true to themselves to be true to others

An elegant aphorism from Elder Victor L. Brown in “The Meaning of Morality.”

Brethren of the priesthood, in your own circle, in your own home, in your own lives, you must do all you can of your own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.

President Harold B. Lee urging us to go beyond what we are commanded to do in “Today’s Young People”

—

Here are the other folks participating in this grand scheme who have also written blog posts responding to the Priesthood session of the April 1971 General Conference. (If any of the links don’t work, try back later. They are all coming online during the day.)

Bites from the April 1971 Priesthood Session (by G at Junior Ganymede)

LDS Conference 1971 – Meetinghouse Libraries and UX for Gospel Learning (by J. Max Wilson at Sixteen Small Stones)

Dear to the Heart of the Shepherd (by Daniel Ortner at Symphony of Dissent)

Deep Down Inside Us There is Good (by John Hancock at the Good Report)

Betty Friedan and Bishop Brown (by Ralph Hancock at The Soul and The City)

Why I support Friends of Scouting (by Michelle Linford at Mormon Women)

God’s Plan to Exalt His Children (by Miachael Worley at Michael’s Thoughts and Ideas)

This is the second week of a 14-year project to read and blog about every session of General Conference. Today we’re covering the Saturday Afternoon session of the April 1971 General Conference.

The word orthodox is pretty familiar. It’s combination of the Greek words orthos (straight or right) and doxa (opinion) that means correct belief or doctrine. A related but less well-known concept is orthopraxy, which is a combination of orthos and praxia (action) that means correct practice or action. The two concepts are related to the notions of works and grace and exist in similar tension, as the Wikipedia entry on orthopraxy indicates:

In the study of religion, orthopraxy is correct conduct, both ethical and liturgical, as opposed to faith or grace etc. This contrasts with orthodoxy, which emphasizes correct belief, and ritualism, the use of rituals.

Mormonism is often seen as coming down rather firmly on the orthopraxy side of this divide. After all, we have no professional clergy, no formal theology, and an open canon. And so we have neither an authoritative expression of orthodoxy nor a priestly class disposed to write one. Mormon philosopher James Faulconer has even referred to the Church as “atheological,” and Mormon biblical scholar David Bokovoy collected Joseph Smith quotes that suggest an extensive dislike of creeds:

The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we have the right to embrace all, and every item of the truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds and superstitious notions of men.[ref]Joseph Smith in The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, pp. 420.[/ref]

I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.[ref]Joseph Smith in The Words of Joseph Smith, pp. 183-184[/ref]

I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;’ which I cannot subscribe to.[ref] Joseph Smith, Discourse to Saints, October 1843; DHC 6:57.[/ref]

..I stated that the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints … are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time…[ref]Joseph Smith, January 1843, History of the Church, 5:215; from “History of the Church” (manuscript), book D-1, p. 1433, Church Archives.[/ref]

I question whether this either/or divide is actually helpful or accurate, however. Recent talks, like Elder Uchtdorf’s “The Gift of Grace” from the April 2015 General Conference emphasize the important role that grace (associated with orthodoxy rather than orthopraxy) plays in our faith. Moreover, all but the last of Bokovoy’s collected quotes actually indicate that the problem Joseph Smith had with the creeds of his day was not that they were creeds but rather that they were incorrect creeds. The Mormon commitment to continuing revelation rules out static creeds, but not as emphatically or antagonistically as some have believed. It casts creeds as necessarily incomplete but not necessarily abhorrent.

Nevertheless, the stereotype of an excessively orthoprax Mormonism does hold some appeal because it lends itself to a kind of criticism that is very on point with respect to the controversies of the our day. If the Mormon faith places so much emphasis on obedience and correct behavior that it obscures Christ and His mercy, then is it any wonder the Church tends towards authoritarianism and callousness? Even bigotry? And so the stereotype gets an additional boost because it is useful to certain critics of the Church.

But is it really accurate? Or is there a way to reconcile the distinctive lack of formal doctrine and Mormonism’s heavy emphasis on behavior with a robust reverence for the mercy and grace of Christ? Can we bridge the gap between orthopraxy and orhodoxy?

I believe that we can, and that perhaps the answers have been there all along. Those are the directions my thoughts took, at least, as I read Elder Sterling W. Sill’s excellent talk from the April 1971 General Conference: “Great Experiences.”

Elder Sill’s talk begins with a very orthoprax focus and an emphasis on Christ. “The religion of Christ itself is not so much a set of ideas as it is a set of activities,” he says. “The purpose of the Church is to help us translate the principles of the gospel of Christ into constructive, meaningful human experience.”

After this clear thesis, however, Sill spends almost the next 1,000 words (more than ½ of the talk) without mentioning or referring to Jesus Christ again. Instead, he emphasizes things like “a daily practice of thinking some uplifting thoughts, listening to some fine music, reading some stimulating literature, doing some good deeds, and having some great experiences.”

These kind of sentiments sound, at first glance, like the kind of platitudes critics of the Church for being obsessed with obedience and works might levy. A glance at Elder Sill’s biography doesn’t help. He was an extremely successful businessman and several of the more than 30 books he published between 1958 and 1986 seem almost proto-Coveyesque. He wrote three volumes on leadership, for example. Elder Sill’s background, like his talk, seem at first to conform to exactly the worst stereotypes of orthopraxy: overemphasis on lists and worldly accomplishments.

But I have to admit that even at this point I was already impressed by his unique perspective. His notion that the Church exists to transform principles into experience is fascinating,[ref]I haven’t stopped mulling over it all week.[/ref] and I was particularly struck by his emphasis on the dangers of foolishness instead of sin. “The scriptures themselves make almost as many references to fools as to sinners,” he says in a long passage that—at first glance—seems to be primarily about the importance of maintaining high self-esteem.

“Because we draw so much from the rebellion, weakness, and evil with which we are surrounded, we tend to load ourselves up too heavily with guilt complexes, mental problems, insecurity, and mediocrity.” This obsession with negative thoughts can lead to a ponderous D.F.T. file in our minds: a depressing list of all the damn fool things we regret doing in the past.[ref]Also, April 1971 is now the most recent date for the use of a 4-letter word in General Conference that I know of. I’ll keep track of that as I keep reading.[/ref]

The stereotype of an achievement-oriented Mormonism begins to break down as Elder Sill’s talk progresses, but the first the cracks are so subtle that they are easy to miss. It begins with his self-deprecating example of one of the great experiences of his life: “Great experience number one is that I managed to get myself born, and I have been very pleased about that ever since.”

Of course, there is some credit in being born (since it means we held our own in the First Estate), but Elder Sill is quick to point out that many of the advantages of his birth were just “good fortune” that he found out “quite a long time after it happened.”

Then he quotes from a poem[ref]The poem is “Good Timber” by Douglas Malloch, although I had to look that up.[/ref] that emphasizes the importance not of achievement, but of struggle.

Good timber does not grow at ease,
The stronger wind, the stronger trees.
The further sky, the greater length,
The more the storm, the more the strength.
…
And they hold council with the stars
Whose broken branches show the scars
Of many winds and much of strife.

The image of broken branches and scars is directly at odds with the image of Stepford Mormons whose lives are unblemished because of their devotion to God. It is also at this point in the talk that Elder Sill begins to bring God and Christ back into the picture. He says he was baptized, “in the exact manner prescribed by the Savior of the world,” and then speaks of rebirth more generally, saying that our lives really being “when we determine to live by every word of the Lord.” Then comes marriage “in the temple of the Lord” and scriptures that contain “gospel of Christ.”

It’s possible to see these references as off-hand or even pro forma, as though Elder Sill is bringing up God merely because he’s going through the motions. But there’s another explanation for the way God returns to his words in such an indirect fashion: it may be that Elder Sill simply took for granted that we should have had God in mind the whole time. After all, there are two kinds of people who don’t know what the idea of “wetness” means: those who have never experienced water, and those who have never experienced anything else.

And then, lest we still think that Elder Sill’s talk is just an extended exercise in practically-oriented self-help, he says this:

Through my occupation I have had some part in helping to carry forward the work of the world. But I have also had a part in helping to carry forward the work of the Lord, and I may have as much of a part as I desire in that great enterprise in which God himself spends his entire time.

There is no mistaking, at this point, Elder Sill’s recognition that his achievements in business are ephemeral and—in and of themselves—worthless. These are the words of a man who understands where real value lies, and it is not in mortal accomplishment.

Every Sunday my kids spend a lot of time drawing. Usually, when you think about the creation of art, you think about it is a goal-oriented behavior. You draw, or paint, or sculpt in order to create a drawing, or a painting, or a sculpture, and the object you create is the whole point of the work that goes into creating it.

And yet, my kids don’t actually care very much about the art they create. My Sunday bag is jam-packed with their creations, but they have no interest in any of last week’s creations. They only care about whether or not my bag contains one thing: materials to make more art. For my kids, it’s the actual work—and not the product of the work—that matters.

That is the connection between orthopraxy and orthodoxy, between works and faith. Hugh Nibley summarized it by saying, “Work we must, but the lunch is free.” The idea is that our striving towards accomplishment of meaningful work is important because it allows us to strive. The accomplishments–won or missed–don’t really matter.

The trick is that we have to strive earnestly. We have to do the best drawings we can, to return to the example of my kids and their artwork, because even though the art might not matter the fact of sincerely doing our best does matter. And that is why all of Elder Sill’s discussion about the best way to make ourselves useful tools (by, for example, avoiding negativity) are not superficial or vain or idolatrous. Because he well understood that the great experiences towards which we strive do not come from our efforts. Birth, baptism, rebirth through repentance, temple marriage: none of these are experiences we can earn or create for ourselves. In every case, we depend on the kindness of others and especially on the power of Christ.

This is an inspirational talk for me, because it shows the possibility of finding the profound within the mundane. Of finding Christ in our everyday life. And that is truly a worthy pursuit.

——

Here are the other folks participating in this grand scheme who have also written blog posts responding to the Saturday Morning session of the April 1971 General Conference. (If any of the links don’t work, try back later. They are all coming online during the day.)

• The Adiabolist, or Jihad of the Heart (G at Junior Ganymede)
• LDS Conference April 1971 – The Sexual Revolution and Entertainment Media (J. Max Wilson at Sixteen Small Stones)
• Being Slow to Anger (Daniel Ortner)
• Warnings from Warnings from the Past (John Hancock at The Good Gazette)
• “Satan” – Moral Agency and the Problem of Evil (Ralph Hancock at Soul and City)
• Creativity and Celebrating Success vs. The D.F.T. File (Michelle Linford at Mormon Women)
• The General Conference Project: Controlling the Hulk, Believing the Devil, and Cussing GAs (Walker Wright here at Difficult Run)
• 58 years of General Conference: What can we learn?/Messages on morality, religious freedom, and the Sabbath from 1971 (Michael Worley at Michaels Thoughts and Ideas)
• When Thou Art Converted (Chastity Wilson at Comfortably Anachronistic)