I spoke with my dad about the recent black essay from the church. He seemed genuinely surprised by its existence. (But who knows really. My sibling says, tongue in cheek, that "Dad loves us so much that he us willing to lie to us.)

Anyway, without even discussing the content of the essay he said,"Even Bruce R Mcconkie said that he made a mistake about the blacks." So it's clear that even without knowing the full content, he UNDERSTOOD the need for essays to spin.

That's where I had the opportunity to gently make a point.

"Dad, that's my issue. When McConkie said the blacks were cursed, the church says that he was not 'speaking for the church.' And when he apologized/changed, he still wasn't 'speaking for the church.' So there's the rub. WHO DOES SPEAK FOR THE CHURCH?"

He was kind of quiet thinking about that one.

I assured him that the churches view on gays would change, too.

He--albeit not convincingly--said, "Maybe."

This church has a hive mentality where it is often on autopilot. The members act like worker bees defending the queen with little understanding of what is going on. They will even sacrifice their lives out stinging "threats" without a single word from the queen.

At least we had a conversation.

especially if you popped your sinew whilst "arising" in the
temple. LOL.

Since Mormons are bees and sheep, watch out when the swarm or flock decide to change directions away from the mother ship. LOL!

The temple was a horror to me at 19 and I attributed those feelings to my own lack of faithfulness. That led to 12 more years of guilt.

It was my "Achilles heel," hence the popped sinews. :)

I was thinking the other day of how the mormon newsroom has become "the mouthpiece of the mouthpiece of the Lord"--i.e., that if any announcement is to be made, it doesn't come as proclamation from the prophet; rather, it is sometimes quietly, unnoticeably posted on the newsroom website.

So, if the prophet isn't speaking but the newsroom is, are we supposed to believe what it says? Or is it also "speaking as a man"?

So confusing!

"WHO DOES SPEAK FOR THE CHURCH?"

Pretty easy to figure out, actually.

Whoever's words are shown retrospectively in 50-100 years or so to be socially acceptable is shown to have been speaking for the church.

Whoever's "prophesies" are shown after the fact to have been on the wrong side of social justice or history was obviously speaking as a man.