NOM

I am sure many of you have seen the current trend/uproar on Reddit over Christofferson saying in his talk that "out-of-wedlock births" are some of the "bitter fruits that grow out of the ongoing sexual revolution."

Clearly the criticism has been heard as he already has a footnote in the talk (not shared from the pulpit) that says:

In giving this example, I am speaking of potential adverse consequences to children as “bitter fruit” and not of the children themselves. Every child of God is precious, and every life has priceless value regardless of the circumstances of birth.

I don't really know if this is really a great job at damage control or makes what he said seem all that much better honestly.

At least they didn't make him re-dub his talk and edit it out of existence. Yet.

I hadn't seen that (I didn't watch much of conference), but am surprised he would phrase it that way. The problem with his statement is that bitter fruit is always bitter, it can never turn sweet. A child born out of wedlock may have some challenges (e.g. support from only one parent), but those challenges can go away (e.g. if the parent got married later). It seems like Christofferson was more concerned about making his language ornate than actually addressing the topic or showing concern for children.

Seems he could have said that "the ongoing sexual revolution can have many bitter fruits, including children growing up without support from two parents", but it doesn't sound as smooth and isn't as firm ("can have" means not everyone will experience it).

Now that's what I call throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Hate the conception of the child but not the child. Yeah right, hatred of one spills over unto the other. Best to not be a hater.

Wow, a footnote. Well that helps everyone who he offended feel better, I am sure.

I think Elder Christofferson was a pretty big jerk about it. It was a horrible thing to say in the first place. And if he didn't realize it when he said it (and he should have), but did later, if he were sincerely sorry the appropriate response would be a public apology to the people he publicly hurt. A footnote on the talk hardly anyone will ever see smacks of nothing but CYA rather than any kind of real attempt at setting things right or making anyone feel better.

Be a big enough person to admit you done wrong and apologize accordingly. Coward.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:07 pm Wow, a footnote. Well that helps everyone who he offended feel better, I am sure.

I think Elder Christofferson was a pretty big jerk about it. It was a horrible thing to say in the first place. And if he didn't realize it when he said it (and he should have), but did later, if he were sincerely sorry the appropriate response would be a public apology to the people he publicly hurt. A footnote on the talk hardly anyone will ever see smacks of nothing but CYA rather than any kind of real attempt at setting things right or making anyone feel better.

Be a big enough person to admit you done wrong and apologize accordingly. Coward.

Agreed. Church officials feel that they never need to apologize, no matter how hurtful their messages sound. Not a very Christ-like attitude.

Wait a minute....

Weren’t Mary and Joseph not married at the time of Jesus’ birth? I know Joseph wasn’t exactly the baby Jesus’ baby daddy and all, but it sure looks like “bitter fruit” to me!

If God impregnated Mary, we would have to assume they were married according to God’s own law. Yet Mary doesn’t seem to remember attending her own marriage or who even came to the reception in the gym on the basketball court.

Perhaps his talk was meant to showcase the economy centered around world trade and e-commerce.

According to Joseph Smith, bitter fruit is just a synonym for pineapple? Everyone knows pineapples grow wild in the Middle East. Doesn’t the Book of Mormon talk about Jerusalem as once being the center of the old world pineapple trade and a great port city for wooden submarines? Make Pineapple Great Again!