First of all, read this from nerdygaymormon on Tumblr in its entirety. It's thoughtful and balanced, gentle and kind.
From the time I was baptized, there have been people who know nothing about the path I've had to walk giving me bad advice about how to make my journey through life/discipleship easier. However, they didn't know enough about me or my life to do it well. Whether these were lay members or church leaders, they were full of suggestions I would then have to judge for myself as to their usefulness.
Here's the thing about the word "suggestion."
It's the language of someone who is speaking for themselves, rather than for the Savior. A suggestion is not a commandment. The Savior does not give suggestions. At no point did we ever make a covenant to accept all the advice and suggestions anyone in a position of authority would ever come up with for us, or to conflate them with the commandments of God. This is further emphasized by the qualifying statement that his approach "works for him."
But even if we go beyond the superficial level with this, his advice isn't going to do diddly squat for a lot of people except to reveal the fallibility of prophets and apostles wherever they exist.
For example, let's look at some test statements.
Church leadership failed to give black people full fellowship until 1978 due to their own racism.
The Savior failed to give black people full fellowship until 1978 due to his own racism.
The Savior failed to give black people full fellowship until 1978 due to his own racism.
That second one gives me the ick. It is nonsense. Morally, historically, and spiritually. Nonsense. His suggestion produced a false statement, one even he would recognize is false.
This is an exercise in discernment. He's trying to teach, in a simple way, how people who are trying to do the right thing can figure out what the right thing is in a morally fraught situation. If what the Church is asking for is consistent with what the Savior would teach, the second statement won't give you the ick. If it does give you the ick, it's because what the institutional Church is asking for is not coming from the Savior.
The Church's policy of exclusion was temporary, but it was still harmful to many families.
The Savior's policy of exclusion was temporary, but it was still harmful to many families.
The Savior's policy of exclusion was temporary, but it was still harmful to many families.
See? Ick. The Savior doesn't hurt, reject, or exclude people. The math is never mathing when the institutional Church is doing something the Savior wouldn't do.
Elder Hamilton's suggestion doesn't create a framework by which young people (who were his primary audience) would soothe themselves into believing absolutely anything church leadership says to them. He gave them a tool that, by its very nature, will create cognitive dissonance any time church leadership contradicts the Savior in what they say or do.
The generation to whom he was speaking is the one I taught in Sunday School and Young Women. I don't think he was trying to fool Gen Z. But even if he does, whether by accident or on purpose, they'll see through it.
They're the first group in the Church taught by Millennials. I trust my own handiwork.
