Of Contradictions and Heartbreaks
Ever since I was an investigator, Elder Uchtdorf had always been my favorite speaker at General Conference. His words focused on love, welcoming invitations, and an acceptance of people’s differences. He seemed to be the advocate for the marginalized, the outcast, the lonely, and the broken hearted. I myself had felt welcomed by his talks.
His words paint a picture of a church that, though imperfect, still invites and welcomes all who desire to be there. He has admitted that leaders of the church have hurt people before, and when people choose to leave the fold, it is often much more complicated than we often portray it to be. Describing them as lazy or lacking faith doesn’t quite hit the nail on the head.
Yet, conference after conference, we hear contradictions. It is difficult to believe that Ucktdorf’s words represent the church when the prophet himself, President Nelson, used the words “lazy” and “lax disciples” to describe those who can’t exercise a particle of faith.
It is difficult to follow Ucktdorf’s invitation to “come, join with us,” when President Nelson says you should never take counsel from those who don’t believe exactly what the church teaches from over the pulpit.
Meanwhile, Elder Oaks is calling for more disciplinary counsels to take place in wards around the world. His words during April’s 2025 conference suggested that those who leave do so because of their own failings to keep up with scripture reading, prayer, and repentance. While they may say that the church isn’t meeting their needs, he says, they are simply lacking humility and trust in what the Lord has provided. While Uchtdorf can acknowledge that the church has hurt people before, and that those people have legitimate concerns, Elder Oaks seems to lack the humility to do so.
President Nelson has said, “Anger never persuades. Hostility builds no one. Contention never leads to inspired solutions.” Yet, that is most of what I heard at April’s General Conference, mingled with the occasional inspirational message of love and acceptance. This mixture created a perplexing concoction, one that has left me utterly confused.
Sister Runia’s suggestion that “God forgives without shaming us, comparing us to anyone else, or scolding us” is in stark contrast to Elder Oaks’ talk, where he compares those prepared to meet God to those who are not prepared. He shames the youth and returned missionaries who don’t keep up with activities or who experience periods of inactivity. He shames adults who have chosen to depart from the church, describing all of the above as examples of people who are not prepared to meet God, suggesting that “we all know” these kinds of people.
Elder Uchtdorf’s declaration that our love for one another is how we show our discipleship, more than our covenants or priesthood power, was in opposition to Elder McCune’s admonition that true disciples make and keep covenants. He said these true disciples are connected to God and Jesus with a “special relationship and can experience their love and joy in a measure reserved for those who have made and kept covenants.” As if covenant keeping Latter-day Saints are closer to God and more blessed than anyone else in the world.
“Our ability to sense a full measure of God’s love,” Elder McCune continued, “or to continue in his love, is contingent upon our righteous desires and actions.” This feels at odds with Sister Runia’s words that our worth is never tied to our obedience. To continue in God’s love shouldn’t be contingent upon anything.
Elder Kearon’s emphasis on us – all of us – being beloved children of God; that God has omniscient love for us and has planned our every tomorrow, feels odd next to Elder Rasband’s slander toward “naysayers” of the church, suggesting that they are but “mere footnotes” in the church’s work. I guess we don’t always treat fellow children of God as if they really are children of God.
Elder Renlund said, “If we are wise, we receive the truth by accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ through priesthood ordinances and covenants.” I suppose those whose beliefs differ are not wise? He says this is important to prepare for the second coming. Meanwhile, President Nelson says charity and virtue are what is necessary to feel confidence before God. Certainly anyone who is charitable can feel confident before God, then, regardless of their beliefs. So why must we receive the “truth” of the gospel in order to prepare to meet God at the second coming?
The contradictions go on and on.
It feels like there are two different churches; the kind that Uchtdorf professes, and the kind that Oaks represents.
The church I joined was that of Uchtdorf’s. If I had heard these messages from the likes of Oaks, and the consistent slander from over the pulpit, it is likely that I would not be here, writing this right now. Because that is not a church I would have joined.
Now I’m left wondering: what kind of church did I join, exactly? One of love, acceptance, freedom, open arms, and expansiveness? Or one of shame, conformity, rejection, fear, and arrogance?
The church is likely a mixture of both. Unfortunately, you cannot guarantee that a bishop or relief society president or an apostle will be the former. It seems far more likely, based on my anecdotal experience and that of others, that they will embody the latter.
Yet here I am, unable to let go of the hope that I felt as an investigator, but overwhelmed and discouraged by the disappointment I feel as a member.
Only one thought stood out to me this General Conference: I don’t know what this church stands for. The mixed messaging is more than just confusing; it is unbearable to watch. I can’t help but think of the bible quote, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.”
What made this conference even more heartbreaking was Ucktdorf’s talk. Blogger Lavender so perfectly put my thoughts into words.
One of the few advocates who seemed to welcome me and so many others on the fringes, seems to have drawn a line in the sand of who exactly he thinks is welcome in this church. Long story short: it’s not someone like me.
His words, though not surprising to hear at conference, was surprising to hear from him. Perhaps that was the biggest contradiction of all; Ucktdorf contradicting himself.
The hope I had felt as an investigator and as an early convert is nothing but faint smoke; the outcome of a flame that has lost its burning essence.
Perhaps Ucktdorf didn’t mean it. Maybe he didn’t realize the many “ifs” that he added to his talk. At the very least, he appears to be humble enough to acknowledge that maybe his words hurt some members, just like he admitted that other leaders have. Besides, there were a few redeeming talks by the likes of Kearon and Runia.
But is that enough? Will that be enough to make the church what I once thought it was?
Or was everything I knew a facade? The milk before meat, as some would say; the pretty words and loving gestures that cause us to join, only to be replaced with messages of shame, conformity, and submission to authority?
The latter is not the church that I joined. If the church isn’t what I thought it was, and if I am no longer welcome, I guess the only realistic option is to leave.
Or, we can stay and wait for the “ideal,” as Ucktdorf puts it.
How long, Elder Uchtdorf, should we be expected to wait?
How much ecclesiastical abuse, gender inequality, and silencing must we tolerate?
How much of ourselves – our very conscience – should we be expected to stuff down, ignore, and repress?
Elder Ucktdorf, how can we possibly stay when we are disinvited from church, disfellowshipped for speaking our own thoughts, or even excommunicated from our own communities?
We proudly display “Visitors Welcome” in front of our ward buildings, as if everyone is welcome in our church. There should be an asterisk beneath that says, “You are welcome to stay only if you eventually convert and believe everything that we teach. If you don’t, or if you share beliefs that we don’t care for, you’ll be asked to leave.”
This isn’t about waiting for an ideal; this is about realizing that the ideal will never be possible as long as the likes of Oaks is in charge. It will never change with leaders who refuse to acknowledge the institutional flaws that exist. It will never change as long as the leaders remain ignorant to what our true grievances are.
So, do we leave, or stay and advocate for some future ideal? Either way, all I’m left with are contradictions and heartbreaks.
Both do little to feed the soul.
