confsatpriesthood-cit-c-1-3117

My General Conference Odyssey

Words of prophetic counsel are a constant presence and fixture in most Latter-day Saint lives. But it wasn’t until I started studying them intently that something changed inside me.

I have been an observant member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for my entire life. I got baptized when I was eight when my family also gave me a journal and a check for twenty-five dollars to start my mission fund. I got my first part-time job at age fourteen as a janitor and worked a variety of jobs to save up for half of my mission. I put in my papers when I turned nineteen and served for two years. I came home, dated a beautiful Latter-day Saint girl, and we got married in the temple and started a family together. 

Yet there’s a sense in which I did not get serious about my faith until a decade later. By the time 2015 rolled around, I’d already been blogging about religion and faith in a faith-affirming way for a few years. If I’d spent my entire life on the covenant path and dedicated many hours to exploring and defending that faith in public, then in what sense was I not already serious about my faith?

The brutal answer is this: I was hedging my bet.

What if the claims of the Restored Gospel were not true? That Joseph Smith never saw God in a sacred grove? What if there was no Lehi, no Mormon, and no Moroni? But let’s go further. What if the man named Jesus died, was buried, and never rose—and was only a man, and nothing more? What if God did not exist?

The reality was that even if all those unsettling possibilities ended up being true—that none of my religious beliefs were real—at the time it wouldn’t have changed all that much for me. I still would have wanted to live a life filled as much as possible with peace and love. All the things I wrote about (epistemic humility, love of family), and all the things that brought me peace and joy (my faithful marriage, my beloved children), I would have sought to treasure regardless. 

This left me with a kind of Schrodinger’s faith: as long as I didn’t really have to differentiate between what I wanted to be true and what I believed to be true, my faith was half-real and half-fake. If I opened the box of my heart and looked inside, would I have found my own tree of faith alive and thriving at the time? Or just a plastic, painted replica? I was afraid to look. And as long as I kept my faith just a little abstract, and just a little vague, I didn’t have to. 

I didn’t have the guts to question whether or not my convictions were true when for so long I had found them useful.

Although I’d been wrestling with these issues for a while, maybe for most of my life, the struggle culminated in late 2015 when I came across a quote from a talk that President Hinckley gave during the October 1981 General Conference, entitled, “Faith: The Essence of Religion.” The talk challenged me directly. After all, I’d started my blogging run at Times and Seasons with a series on epistemic humility and the importance of acknowledging uncertainty. And here was a prophet of God pretty much telling me the opposite. The quote that initially grabbed my attention was this one:

Great buildings were never constructed on uncertain foundations. Great causes were never brought to success by vacillating leaders. The gospel was never expounded to the convincing of others without certainty. Faith, which is of the very essence of personal conviction, has always been, and always must be, at the root of religious practice and endeavor. … Without certitude on the parts of believers, a religious cause becomes soft, without muscle, without the driving force that would broaden its influence and capture the hearts and affections of men and women.

I’d never heard the quote before, and I immediately looked up and read President Hinckley’s talk. It led me to some serious soul-searching. First, about how to reconcile my emphasis on epistemic humility with President Hinckley’s emphasis on certainty. (You can read my Times and Seasons post, The Assurance of Love, to see how I started to work through that clash.)

I claimed to believe that this Church was indeed the Restored Church of Christ. But I hadn’t been acting like it.

More broadly and, for me, more consequentially, this became the occasion of my long-overdue reckoning with my Schrodinger’s faith. If I was to maintain my personal integrity, I had to fundamentally rethink my relationship with the Restored Church of Christ. A casual alliance of shared values could no longer cut it. If I believed that the Church was what it claimed to be—and if I believed Christ was who He claimed to be and that God lived—then it was time to start acting like it. For starters, I could take the trouble to read the words of the modern prophets and apostles.

Like most Latter-day Saints, I had been immersed in opportunities to read and seriously consider prophetic teaching for many years, but the abundance of it all had become too often background noise, with infrequent instances of deeply studying their words for myself. I decided it was time to do more than passively hear; it was time to actively listen.  

And so, in December 2015, I launched the General Conference Odyssey, a 14-year project to read every single General Conference talk going back to the first messages easily accessible on the Church’s website (April 1971) at the rate of one session per week. (I preferred to read them on the Church’s site where I could mark up and annotate them. Other folks who participated printed copies out or even watched the videos instead of reading).  If that sounds like an impressive goal, let me hasten to add that after six years in, I’m already more than a full year behind. But—despite my lackluster performance—the endeavor has blessed me and reshaped my spiritual life.

The proximate blessing has been a fundamental shift in my understanding of the teachings of the Church. Prior to embarking on this experience, I was under the impression like a lot of people today that prophets in earlier eras taught a very different gospel message—and one that most often (surely) lacked sufficient love. After reading scores of sessions of General Conference from the 1970s and 1980s, the dominant conclusion I am left with is the incredible consistency of the General Authority teachings, and the adamant emphasis on gentleness, love, and compassion. The very first session I ever read included Elder Ashton’s talk Love of the Right where he said:

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.

This love and concern are not what I thought I would hear out of a 1971 General Conference talk, but that example is far from exceptional. Later on that same day (in the Priesthood Session), President Harold B. Lee began his talk, Today’s Young People, with an affirmation of Elder Ashton:

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.

Of course, there have been some significant changes in tone and even in content on some important issues between now and 1971. It would be superfluous to have living prophets and apostles if they said the exact same things in the exact same way across the decades. Without pretending these shifts and updates don’t exist, my overall impression remains one of steadfast consistency on the core Gospel of Christ and on preaching that Gospel with an abundance of love, compassion, and consideration.

The secondary but more profound blessing that has followed from this experience is that at last, I’ve found the courage to abandon my Schrodinger’s faith. The act of taking these General Conference talks seriously has been my way of holding the Lord’s hand and taking a step beyond the light of my own understanding. It was a small step—more an act of basic integrity rather than any kind of bravery. I claimed to believe that this Church was indeed the Restored Church of Christ. But I hadn’t been acting like it. 

It was a small act, really. All I’m doing is reading some talks—and writing some blog posts based on what I’m learning. But it was my way of giving up the safety of the hedge. If life were a poker game, I would have stopped hoarding a pile of chips in front of me and, instead, picked a chip off the stack and thrown it into the pot.

Life is messy. As I said, I’m way behind on the General Conference Odyssey. And while I try to watch every single talk of every current session of conference now, with an infant and a toddler that’s more aspirational than anything else. It turns out you can’t go all-in in one fell swoop. Every day you get a new chip, and you have to decide if you want to hold onto it or risk it. 

This weekend, when the general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gather to share their counsel and the Lord’s instructions for us, I’m going to listen. And I’m going to toss one more chip into the pot—doubling down one more time on the risk I’ve placed. In doing so, I hope to take one more step toward the Savior Who calls us with a voice that grows clearer and clearer with every faltering step we take towards Him.

Join Latter-day Saints all over the world this weekend to tune in via the internet to sessions of conference on Saturday and Sunday, April 2nd and 3rd. Come listen to a prophet’s voice! Click here to see broadcast and scheduling details.

About the author

Nathaniel Givens

Nathaniel Givens is a writer and blogger. In addition to Public Square, he has written for Meridian, Real Clear Religion, First Things, and Square Two. He blogs at Nauvoo Neighbor, Times and Seasons, and his own blog: Difficult Run.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Social and Cultural Implications of Russell M. Nelson’s Remarks

Sunday night President Russell M. Nelson spoke to members of the Church 18-30 years old. In his remarks, he encouraged young adults to not allow any other labels to come before three primary identities: Child of God Child of the Covenant Disciple of Christ He clarified that other identities can be important, but that there are significant eternal risks for allowing anything else to obscure our view of these core sacred identities. Certain voices online warned before the remarks that they would be “hurtful,” “terrible” or require cleaning up. Presumably, this is out of the growing perception that the plain teaching of the restored gospel is now harmful to those who identify among one of the “marginalized groups.” At Public Square, we are interested in how our convictions intersect with core issues being discussed publicly. So his remarks remind us that some of the top political columnists in the U.S. believe, “All politics is identity politics.” If our public discourse hinges so much on identity, is it any surprise that this is the topic the Lord would most want us to get right? His remarks have wide-ranging applications. One he addressed directly is political labels. We, of course, have published frequently, and as recently as last week, about the need for unity among Saints. Deprioritizing our political identities can help with this. President Nelson also remarked that if we prioritize other identities, we can inappropriately judge those who have chosen differently than us. He touched on many topics relevant to our discourse in the public square. He warned against prejudice and abuse on the basis of nationality, race, education, sexual orientation, gender, and culture. As we focus on our primary identities, not only can we improve ourselves, but that we can improve our relationships with others by focusing on their nature as a child of God first and foremost as well. That can also help unify us with Latter-day Saints by further recognizing our shared identity as children of the covenant and disciples of Christ. We hope that President Nelson’s remarks will have the effect of increasing discipleship, reducing prejudice, and increasing unity.

“Madame Web” is a Good Film for Young Teens

Sony’s series of Spider-man adjacent films have mostly focused on anti-heroes. Since Spider-man, the hero, is by corporate necessity absent from these films they need to turn less than heroic characters into the protagonist.  This doesn’t make those films bad, but it does make them more complicated, and not often the best fit for the teenaged kids that could otherwise most benefit from the superhero narrative of good vs. evil. In that respect, Madame Web is a welcome reprieve. This is an unabashed superhero origin story. And in many respects, it demonstrates the durability of the genre.  Madame Webb owes much of its success to the animated Spider-verse films. Those films introduced audiences widely to the idea of multiple spider people, and in a recurring motif from the first film the basic beats that define those various spider people, and the near infinite variations those beats can take. Madame Webb hits each of those beats while toying with the formula enough to keep it interesting.  The moral at the center of the film focuses on our ability to influence our futures. After a traumatic incident, Cassie discovers that she has precognition. At first she feels helpless to stop the future predicted in the visions. But when three innocent girls are about to be murdered by the villainous Ezekiel Sims she can’t stand by and is thrust into the role of protector. As the film reaches its climax, both Cassie and the three teenagers she protects learn to step up. And the film seems best suited to teens about their age and a little younger thirteen to sixteen. Dakota Johnson has the acting chops to anchor the film. She ably handles the expositional relationship building, the determined character develop, and the thriller action scenes. Sydney Sweeney, Isabel Merced, and Celeste O’Connor, who play the three teenagers each portray a character who will one day become Spider-woman in the comics. They never try to do too much, and always deliver when the film requires it. Adam Scott is also a standout as “Ben Parker” who spends much of the film excited to become an uncle.  The villain, Sims is far and away the film’s weak point. His motivation is confusing. And it appeared at several points as though his dialogue was dubbed. But his simplicity as a villain helped along the film’s theme. There was little question about what the right thing for our protagonists to do was, only whether or not they would do it.  The film utilizes its range of PG-13 profanity, and the violence is just enough that I probably wouldn’t want my own kids to see the movie until they were teens. In terms of messages about family the film really shines. The film begins with a flashback to Cassie Webb’s mother nine months pregnant and upset about how her child is getting in the way of her work. But much of Cassie’s growth as a character comes from dealing with the damage of that attitude, and learning to embrace her own nourishing side. Each of the three girls are dealing with similar struggles. And Cassie learns the full strength of her powers as she also learns the full truth about her roots.  I certainly don’t want to overpromise on the film. It’s effects are clunky, and the plot is predictable. But it’s a movie you can let young teeangers watch without having to worry about explaining too much afterward, and that they will dependably get a good takeaway from. And if the parents happen to catch it too, they  will at least have a fun time. Two and a half out of five stars.  “Madame Web” releases in theaters on February 16th.

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!