Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[USU78]

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3826343-155/op-ed-what-i-have-learned-as

So many questions I'd love to ask her to answer and explain:

for example, how was it a surprise to her that testimony and personal revelation were somehow important to Mormons?

[Jeanne]

Very honest, forthright and true to herself.  That is okay with me.  I would love to talk to her too!

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3826343-155/op-ed-what-i-have-learned-as

So many questions I'd love to ask her to answer and explain:

for example, how was it a surprise to her that testimony and personal revelation were somehow important to Mormons?

She seems to have missed out on a lot of the things that are taught in our curriculum. 

And it's not as if we don't repeat things a lot.

I fault her for not paying enough attention. 

[Storm Rider]

Yawn, hope you are happy.  Thanks for letting us know your thoughts and your opinions.  

It is pretty obvious she has a very, limited understanding of the gospel with a lot of wrong conceptions upon which she has built her new paradigm - building on sand.   Or she may just be ignorant of the teachings of the Church.  Next.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Storm Rider

[Fly Fisherman]

I just read this and had the same thought: sad. No offense to her, but her understanding of the issues seems very "juvenile" to me. 

 

She has been writing opinion pieces in the SLTrib for a while now. They all have been like this. Her trivial understanding of things is sad.

[The Nehor]

How delightfully hackneyed.

[smac97]

A few thoughts:

1. She seems to view the Church as a political construct, one that is answerable to its constituency.  This is evidenced by her demand for "reparative actions such as diversifying the leadership."  "Diversifying" here probably refers to calling more black, hispanic, and/or Native American general authorities, but probably not more Asian general authorities, or "diversifying" in terms of traits other than race.  The sort of "diversity" I think she has in mind probably conforms with notions arising from the American political left.  That's all.  I don't say this to criticize the American political left, but rather to point to it as the lens through which Mrs. Viegas-Haws views the Church.  This is in contrast to how the Church presents itself: as an organization guided by revelation, not by modern political orthodoxies.

2. This is not a surprising development.  Mrs. Viegas-Haws has been publicly railing against the Church for a while now.  

3. Mrs. Viegas-Haws kinda sorta contradicts herself.  She states: "To properly develop mentally and spiritually, I must follow my own conscience whether it is in opposition to the leaders or not."  But then she also states: "Using my feelings (feeling the "spirit") to determine what is true or not is a very subjective and incomplete measurement of truth."  These appear to be at odds with each other.  A person following her "conscience" could be easily be said to be following her "feelings."  This is why having external yardsticks (scriptures, modern prophets and apostles, local priesthood leaders, study, prayer, temple attendance, personal revelation, etc.) is such a blessing.  We have the means to gauge whether our "feelings" (which can also be styled our "conscience") are in accordance with the mind and will of God.  I fear Mrs. Viegas-Haws has lost track of these things, and instead resorts to some sort of "If I like it then it must be right, regardless of what the Lord's servants or the Spirit have to say" kind of analysis.  Ironically, she condemns the subjectivity of her "feelings" while simultaneously using her subjective "feelings/conscience" as the ultimate arbiter of truth.

4. Mrs. Viegas-Haws also states: "Beliefs/revelations/speculations do not equal knowledge."  But one's "conscience" also "do{es} not equal knowledge," yet she claims she "must follow" her "conscience."

5. Mrs. Viegas-Haws is bearing false witness against the Church.  Big time.  "When the prophet speaks the thinking is NOT done" is a reference to a 1945 "Ward Teachers" message which was almost immediately repudiated by the President of the Church.  She also obliquely accuses the Church of teaching principally by "fear, shame and guilt."  She also claims that the Church does not allow women or people of certain unidentified races to be "fully ... accepted" in the Church.  These statements are all rather flagrantly misleading, and are foreign to active, observant Latter-day Saints.  

I wish Mrs. Viegas-Haws well.  I hope she rediscovers faith ("if there is an afterlife...").  I hope she has a change of heart and returns to the Church and to the gifts of the Spirit that are housed within it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 3, 2016 by smac97

[Tacenda]

http://mormonstories.org/?s=julienna+viegas+haws

I listened to this MS with her awhile back, the writing was on the wall then even.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

1. She seems to view the Church as a political construct, one that is answerable to its constituency.  This is evidenced by her demand for "reparative actions such as diversifying the leadership."  "Diversifying" here probably refers to calling more black, hispanic, and/or Native American general authorities, but probably not more Asian general authorities, or "diversifying" in terms of traits other than race.  The sort of "diversity" I think she has in mind probably conforms with notions arising from the American political left.  That's all.  I don't say this to criticize the American political left, but rather to point to it as the lens through which Mrs. Viegas-Haws views the Church.  This is in contrast to how the Church presents itself: as an organization guided by revelation, not by modern political orthodoxies.

....................................................................

Thanks,

-Smac

Your points 2 through 5 are very well taken, Spencer.  However, I would like to take issue with part of your first point, at least partly because I have had powerful mentors and colleagues who are faithful Mormons who have also been strong members of the so-called "political left," one of the most noteworthy among them being the late Hugh Nibley.  The Restoration itself is a bringing together of some very diverse cultural and religious patterns from a long history, some of that diversity getting stuck in the craw of both left and right.

Viegas-Haws would like to see increased ethnic and racial diversity in high places, which I also think would be a good idea, but I am very patient.  She is not.  In the Roman Catholic Church, for example, it took a long time for that Church to be wrested from the domination of Italian clerics, despite having become a powerful worldwide church.

[Stargazer]

28 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your points 2 through 5 are very well taken, Spencer.  However, I would like to take issue with part of your first point, at least partly because I have had powerful mentors and colleagues who are faithful Mormons who have also been strong members of the so-called "political left," one of the most noteworthy among them being the late Hugh Nibley.  The Restoration itself is a bringing together of some very diverse cultural and religious patterns from a long history, some of that diversity getting stuck in the craw of both left and right.

Viegas-Haws would like to see increased ethnic and racial diversity in high places, which I also think would be a good idea, but I am very patient.  She is not.  In the Roman Catholic Church, for example, it took a long time for that Church to be wrested from the domination of Italian clerics, despite having become a powerful worldwide church.

No, no, Nibley was not left like the modern political left.  The left that I believe smac is referring to is the current leftist demand for "diversity", which means diversity only in skin color, not opinion.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

No, no, Nibley was not left like the modern political left.  The left that I believe smac is referring to is the current leftist demand for "diversity", which means diversity only in skin color, not opinion.

Not sure you understand the modern political left at all.

[rockpond]

I'm not sure on what grounds people are dismissing her or saying that she doesn't understand.  Here are my thoughts, point by point.

#1 Was taught and often repeated.

#2 "Follow the Prophet" is sung endlessly in primary and primary programs in sacrament meetings.

#3  Simply a fact.

#4  Also a fact.

#5  Just her personal experience, neither right nor wrong.

#6  Using fear/shame/guilt to get members to do the "right" thing is probably a theme across all religions.

#7  We are definitely taught that we are chosen and special.

#8  She wants apologies for mistakes the church has made with respect to blacks and LGBT persons.  Okay.  Church leaders have said that they don't need to or won't.

#9  Church members can (and do) claim that any hurt is not the Church's fault because we can't step away from the true doctrine/revelation.  She disagrees.

#10  Just her personal experience, neither right nor wrong.

[carbon dioxide]

My take on her 10 points

1.  Of course prophets can be wrong.  The only time a prophet would be right is if they speak by revelation.  Otherwise their opinion is just as good as anyone else.  When someone becomes an apostle, they don't have a Borg like experience with God where God channels his thoughts to them on a constant basis.

2. Following one conscience might bring mental and spiritual development.  In most cases in life, people who follow their conscience are following their own will.  God however would not agree that one can draw closer to him by being in opposition to what he has established.  

3.  The scriptures do not say to just use your feelings to know truth but we are to ponder, study thinks out in our mind, ect.  

4.  Beliefs and speculations do not equal knowledge.  Revelation however does equal knowledge.  It is not transferable knowledge.  It is knowledge for the individual.  If I saw a ghost, I probably will not be able to prove to other people what I saw but I know what I saw and for me that is all the is required.  If other people do not believe, that is not my problem.  It changes nothing.

5.  Not sure what she is getting at at jumping off a cliff.  One can think for a time they are flying while not noticing the ground slowly getting closer and eventually they crash into the ground.  Anyway yes the devil does offer nice things for those who follow him but she will find out that devil will not be their to deliver her from trouble.  The chains of the devil can be pleasant for a time.  If they were not pleasant, few would remain a slave to him.

6.  I have no problem with this point for a person who leaves the Church.  I would expect it.

7.  She is right here.  Jesus did say many are called but few are CHOSEN.  I guess this means she is right.  She is not special or chosen.  She revealed this to us.

8.  She needs to specify more clearly one what the leaders need to apologize for.   Her "reparative" actions go against what the Church is.  If the church was to diversify the leadership simply to satisfy people like her,  that would suggest the Church is not run by Christ or revelation.  The Church simply is deciding the membership on is own will.  I sure would like to see more diversity in the Church.  Having some black apostles would be wonderful BUT only if that what the Lord wants.  Diversity to satisfy the will of man or her will makes the Church just like any other church.

9. Where is the double standard on gender, race, or orientation?  There is order in the Kingdom of God.  If one does not like the order, they can use their agency not to be a part of it in this life and the life to come.  As the scriptures say, God will prepare a place for the unclean and unrighteous to dwell.  She will get what she desires.

10.  The garments are not about feeling comfortable in your body.  They are about reminding the covenants we make in the temple.  She may do whatever she wants with her body and she will receive a resurrection state that matches the consequences that are according to the dictates of her conscience.

I guess the overall bottom line is we are will get from God exactly what we desire. If we desire for exaltation, celestial glory we follow God and are obedient.  If we desire to do our own will and do it our way, they we receive those wages at judgement.   God remains exalted whether we chose to follow his laws or not.  He wants us to return but he is not going to break the laws of heaven to bring more people in.  He is content with sending people to the Terrestrial, Telestial, or Outer darkness kingdoms.  It is no glory off his nose.

Edited May 4, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure on what grounds people are dismissing her or saying that she doesn't understand.  Here are my thoughts, point by point.

#1 Was taught and often repeated.

#2 "Follow the Prophet" is sung endlessly in primary and primary programs in sacrament meetings.

#3  Simply a fact.

#4  Also a fact.

#5  Just her personal experience, neither right nor wrong.

#6  Using fear/shame/guilt to get members to do the "right" thing is probably a theme across all religions.

#7  We are definitely taught that we are chosen and special.

#8  She wants apologies for mistakes the church has made with respect to blacks and LGBT persons.  Okay.  Church leaders have said that they don't need to or won't.

#9  Church members can (and do) claim that any hurt is not the Church's fault because we can't step away from the true doctrine/revelation.  She disagrees.

#10  Just her personal experience, neither right nor wrong.

Nearly every point of the ten is certainly believed by some Mormons, including Viegas-Haws.  Unfortunately that is no defense for being quite wrong on every count.  It all goes back to the silly notion of infallibility of the Brethren, to false versions of Mormon history, and lies told about what the Brethren have and have not done.  She has the right to believe anything she wants, and to make any false claims that she wishes, but that is no justification for poor journalism and rush to judgment.  She has no depth or sense of perspective, which are frequent accompaniments to apostasy.

[thesometimesaint]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

No, no, Nibley was not left like the modern political left.  The left that I believe smac is referring to is the current leftist demand for "diversity", which means diversity only in skin color, not opinion.

I find it quite exhilarating that good Mormons like Stargazer and I can have such different political idea's. Diversity just for the sake of diversity is no virtue, and the lack of diversity just for the sake of lack of diversity is a vice.

[smac97]

On 5/4/2016 at 6:09 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Your points 2 through 5 are very well taken, Spencer.  However, I would like to take issue with part of your first point, at least partly because I have had powerful mentors and colleagues who are faithful Mormons who have also been strong members of the so-called "political left," one of the most noteworthy among them being the late Hugh Nibley.  

I specifically noted that "I don't say this to criticize the American political left."  Rather, I was attributing her perspective on the Church (vis-à-vis her apparent preference for racial quotas in the leadership of the Church) to political, rather than religious/spiritual, origins.  Her demand for "reparative actions such as diversifying the leadership" (which is to say, a demand that leaders of the Church make decisions about who to call as General Authorities based on A) skin color, B) an intent to seek forgiveness from society ("reparative actions")) makes little sense coming from a Latter-day Saint who believes the Church is guided by revelation.  However, her demand makes quite a bit of sense when it is construed as coming from the viewpoint that A) the Church is a political construct, and B) that construct should reflect the values of and conclusions reached by the American political left (which uses words like "diversity" as a sort of code for preferential and unmerited treatment for some favored political constituencies).

That's my take.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 4, 2016 by smac97

[thesometimesaint]

I think you have a very narrow Utah-centric view of the American Left. Sunday morning is still the most segregated time in America.

[Analytics]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I specifically noted that "I don't say this to criticize the American political left."  Rather, I was attributing her perspective on the Church (vis-à-vis her apparent preference for racial quotas in the leadership of the Church) to political, rather than religious/spiritual, origins.  Her demand for "reparative actions such as diversifying the leadership" (which is to say, a demand that leaders of the Church make decisions about who to call as General Authorities based on A) skin color, B) an intent to seek forgiveness from society ("reparative actions")) makes little sense coming from a Latter-day Saint who believes the Church is guided by revelation.  However, her demand makes quite a bit of sense when it is construed as coming from the viewpoint that A) the Church is a political construct, and B) that construct should reflect the values of the American political left (which uses words like "diversity" as a sort of code for preferential and unmerited treatment for some favored political constituencies).

That's my take.

Thanks,

-Smac

In the context of her editorial, she's talking about the hurt that the Church has allegedly caused to blacks, women, and LGBTQ members.  Putting some blacks, women, and LGBTQ members into prominent leadership positions is the restitution she is suggesting. 

Her values are based upon her own spiritual insights.  She has come to the spiritual conclusion that her conscience transcends mere feelings and that her conscience will be the ultimate rudder in her life.  You can argue that the human conscience is mere feelings that need external yardsticks such as scriptures, modern prophets and apostles, local priesthood leaders, etc., but that is extremely unconvincing for those of us that have been touched by the ideas that Emerson articulates in Self-Reliance. 

Viewed from the context of spirituality, steps of the repentance process include admitting you did something wrong, saying you're sorry, and trying to fix the harm you caused.  The demands she places on the Church are the same demands that the Church puts on everybody who sins.  In principle, whether this makes any sense isn't a matter of whether one believes the Church is guided by revelation.  It's a matter of whether one believes the Church is less than perfect and is therefore subject to the same process we all go through to repent of mistakes.

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nearly every point of the ten is certainly believed by some Mormons, including Viegas-Haws.

Well then her piece is verifiable.  There's really no point in complaining about it because you disagree with her conclusions and decisions.  Those are subjective, different for each person. 

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Unfortunately that is no defense for being quite wrong on every count.  It all goes back to the silly notion of infallibility of the Brethren, to false versions of Mormon history, and lies told about what the Brethren have and have not done.  She has the right to believe anything she wants, and to make any false claims that she wishes, but that is no justification for poor journalism and rush to judgment.  She has no depth or sense of perspective, which are frequent accompaniments to apostasy.

That doesn't matter at all.  She's giving her perspective, that's the whole point.  She's quite right in many cases, in that members think, feel and believe that way.  That there are problems we must face and accept.  It feels like too many are want to ignore any perceived problems in favor of fighting against anyone who dares question or raise concerns. 

Quote

I don't think that solely focusing on the good in the church and ignoring the bad is the answer. Working on being inclusive, truly loving and accepting God's children just the way they are is what real disciples of Christ should be about.

She's right.  We need to accept all that we are, good and bad, address it, fix it and in so doing hopefully we become more and better.  If we do as many a member tends to do, "solely focusing on the good in the church and ignoring the bad" we will lose in the long run. 

[smac97]

On 5/4/2016 at 7:21 AM, Analytics said:

In the context of her editorial, she's talking about the hurt that the Church has allegedly caused to blacks, women, and LGBTQ members. 

All of which are "favored political constituencies" for which the contemporary American political left regularly demands "preferential and unmerited treatment."

Note that she omits Asians, Indians, and other racial/ethnic groups which, by her apparent reckoning, are A) not reflected in the GA quorums, but which B) are not "favored political constituencies" for which the contemporary American political left regularly demands "preferential and unmerited treatment."

Hence my point that she is reading political expectations (of a decidedly leftist American flavor) into the administration of spiritual matters of the LDS Church.  She makes no mention of petitioning God about the need for "reparative actions such as diversifying the leadership," and I think that it because, for her, God is not part of the equation.  The LDS Church, for her, is a is a political construct that should reflect the values of the American political left.  This is why, in my view, her essay reads the way it does.

Quote

Putting some blacks, women, and LGBTQ members into prominent leadership positions is the restitution she is suggesting. 

Who, do you think, should be doing this "putting" according to Mrs. Viegas-Haws?  And how would such decisions be made according to her?  She makes no mention of God, or of seeking to discern God's will in this this "putting."

And on what basis would this "putting" take place?  She makes no mention of God's will, or of the meritorious character and spiritual strength and testimonies of such persons.  She is advocating preferential and unmerited treatment of people in the Church based not on the will of God, but on the vagaries of currently popular trends emanating from the American political left.  For her, God is not part of the equation.

Quote

Her values are based upon her own spiritual insights. 

Her "values," whatever they are, do not appear to emanate from an LDS perspective, and instead from a place where she "can be spiritual without being religious" (whatever that means), where she has "lost faith" that the LDS Church is "led by God," where she places little to no value on the counsel given by leaders whom the Saints sustain as prophets, seers and revelators, where the revealed truths of the Restored Gospel have been supplanted to vague bromides ("I believe we create our own heaven or hell right here on earth and, if there is an afterlife, whatever we created will follow us."), and so on.

In short, she does not believe that the Church is what it claims to be, and instead that it is a political construct that is answerable to its constituency, and that it should reflect some specific preferences emanating from the American political left.

To be clear: I am not criticizing the American political left.  I am simply identifying it as the alternate philosophical lens through which Mrs. Viegas-Haws views the Church (rather than through the lens which posits that the Church is what it claims to be, that it is led by revelation, etc.).

Quote

She has come to the spiritual conclusion that her conscience transcends mere feelings and that her conscience will be the ultimate rudder in her life.  You can argue that the human conscience is mere feelings that need external yardsticks such as scriptures, modern prophets and apostles, local priesthood leaders, etc., but that is extremely unconvincing for those of us that have been touched by the ideas that Emerson articulates in Self-Reliance. 

I respect the sentiment that "her conscience transcends mere feelings and that her conscience will be the ultimate rudder in her life."  I am quite willing to accept that people can believe this, and I will respect it.  I even think that many decisions made in this way will be correct and moral.

I sense, however, that people like you and Mrs. Viegas-Haws do not return the favor.  Latter-day Saints have come to a "spiritual conclusion" that using our wits, our learning, and the Spirit "transcends mere feelings," and that a Latter-day Saint's conscience informed by learning, experience, the Scriptures, counsel from modern prophets and apostles, and - most of all - The Holy Spirit "will be the ultimate rudder in {our lives}."

Quote

Viewed from the context of spirituality, steps of the repentance process include admitting you did something wrong, saying you're sorry, and trying to fix the harm you caused.  The demands she places on the Church are the same demands that the Church puts on everybody who sins. 

First, she is not in a position to call the Church to repentance.  That is the Lord's prerogative.  She presumes to usurp a role that is not hers.

Second, her call to repentance does not purport to be derived from God's will.  Rather, she appears to be calling the Church to repentance because it has not conformed to her expectation that the Church's actions reflect the currently popular trends of the American political left.

Third, "{t}he demands ... that the Church puts on everybody who sins" involve either repenting privately before God or, for more serious matters, to involve one's local priesthood leaders.  This is nothing like Mrs. Viegas-Haws' attempt to publicly shame the Church into capitulating to doing what she wants it to do.

Fourth, Mrs. Viegas-Haws presumes to declare that the Church's actions (presumably including things like last November's changes to the CHI) are "sins."  I suppose reasonable minds can disagree about such things, but taking Mrs. Viegas-Haws say-so as a given is not reasonable.  

If Mrs. Viegas-Haws is trying to transmute the Church into a political construct (as I think she is doing), then that is wrong and I will give no credence to her presumptuous calling of the Church to "repentance."  And if Mrs. Viegas-Haws is usurping the role of God and God's prophet in calling the Church to repentance, I will also give that call no credence.  Either way, I think Mrs. Viegas-Haws is wrong.

Quote

In principle, whether this makes any sense isn't a matter of whether one believes the Church is guided by revelation. 

With respect, I disagree.  The Church is not a political construct.  We do not elect our leaders.  Our leaders do not have constituencies to whom they are answerable.  Ours is a community of faith that claims to be guided by revelation.  Mrs. Viegas-Haws has published a list of grievances that does not take into account the character, structure, and purposes of the LDS Church, and instead treats it like a political entity.  Mrs. Viegas-Haws publicly calling the Church to repentance makes all sorts of sense if the Church is a political construct, but it makes no kind of sense at all if the Church is what it claims to be.

So with respect, I'll have to disagree that "whether one believes the Church is guided by revelation" is irrelevant to the coherence of Mrs. Viegas-Haws' position.  The issue of revelation, and of Mrs. Viegas-Haws' disregard of it, is at the center of how her outlook should be construed.

Quote

It's a matter of whether one believes the Church is less than perfect and is therefore subject to the same process we all go through to repent of mistakes.

With respect, I disagree.  None of us, including the faithful, observant Latter-day Saints, believes that the Church is "perfect," or that it does not need to improve.  The leaders of the Church are constantly calling the members of the Church to improve our lives through repentance, obedience to righteous principles, service to family and to the community, and so on.

The issue is how it needs to improve, and when, and using what ways and means, and - perhaps most of all - who is in a position to call upon the Church "to repent."  Mrs. Viegas-Haws will not be viewed as being in that position by those who "believe the Church is guided by revelation."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 4, 2016 by smac97

[thesometimesaint]

I personally believe the Church is perfect. The mortals in it, not so much.

[smac97]

On 5/4/2016 at 7:19 AM, thesometimesaint said:

I think you have a very narrow Utah-centric view of the American Left.

I don't think so.  I virtually never discuss politics with local friends, neighbors, relatives, etc.  And I glean my perception of American politics from many different sources, virtually none of which are "Utah-centric" (I read the Tribune a bit, but that's about all), and which reflect a rather broad spectrum of political perspectives.

Quote

Sunday morning is still the most segregated time in America.

Quite a non sequitur you have there!

The LDS Church does not segregate congregations based on race.  It does provide specialized congregations to accommodate language, marital status (YSA wards) and, to a limited extent, cultural preferences.  Hence in our stake we have both a Spanish-speaking ward and also a Japanese-speaking ward.  There are no restrictions as to who can attend these wards.  My brother, whose wife is Samoan, attends a Polynesian ward with her and their children.  My adopted sister, who is Hawaiian, does not attend a Polynesian ward.  In my ward we have folks from Korea, Mexico, El Salvador, Hawai'i, Guatemala, The Philippines, The Navajo Nation, and more.  

 

[rockpond]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nearly every point of the ten is certainly believed by some Mormons, including Viegas-Haws.  Unfortunately that is no defense for being quite wrong on every count.  It all goes back to the silly notion of infallibility of the Brethren, to false versions of Mormon history, and lies told about what the Brethren have and have not done.  She has the right to believe anything she wants, and to make any false claims that she wishes, but that is no justification for poor journalism and rush to judgment.  She has no depth or sense of perspective, which are frequent accompaniments to apostasy.

You aren't actually saying what she has wrong on those ten points.  I responded to each one... some are factually correct, some are an accurate reflection of church culture (past or present), and some are just her lived experience (which you can't declare to be wrong).

If you were to listen to her Mormon Stories interview, I think you would find that she has not rushed to judgement at all.

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not sure you understand the modern political left at all.

All I know is that the left is not the right.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

I think you have a very narrow Utah-centric view of the American Left. Sunday morning is still the most segregated time in America.

Anyone who wishes may join the LDS Church and attend without repercussions.