The following was first published in the Mormonism Researched in November/December 2025. This is a free publication produced by Mormonism Research Ministry. To get a free subscription of the bimonthly newsletter, visit the website here.
In recent years, it seems that more Latter-day Saints want to hold on to beliefs that land outside the scope of traditional Mormonism and the teachings of their church’s current leadership. More than ever in evangelism, it is vital for the Christian to discover what that Latter-day Saint believes rather than just tell them what he or she believes.
For instance, instead of saying, “You believe that Jesus …” or “Mormons believe that grace is …”, it is better for the Christian to ask, “What exactly do you believe about Jesus?” or “When it comes to grace, how would you define that term?”
Doing so will go a long way in better understanding just what the Latter-day Saint holds to be true. It is too easy for the educated Christian who might be well-meaning to create a “straw man” fallacy—meaning, the outsider critiques an argument against a particular doctrine that this Mormon supposedly believes but may be rejected by that individual.
When I am talking to a Mormon on a doctrinal topic, I listen carefully to details that could not have originated with LDS scripture (the four volumes called the standard works) or what church leaders have taught. When I hear something from my conversation partner that sounds less than orthodox, I request additional information.
“Are you able to support that view with scripture or teachings of your leaders?” I might ask. And then I press them to provide support for their unique understanding of a particular doctrine rather than their personal opinion.
In recent years, certain LDS philosophers, YouTubers, and podcasters have become pied pipers to many members, especially those who belong to the Millennial and Gen Z generations. For example, philosopher Blake Ostler has a strong following among some thinking Mormons, even when his views may not coincide with the teachings of his leaders.
A polygamy denier such as Michelle Stone has also had a persuasive influence among some LDS laypeople, though church leaders have recently demanded that she stop espousing views that are contrary to LDS history and doctrine.
Which brings us to this question: In the past few years, who do the speakers at general conference appeal to in support of their views?
The April 2025 General Conference
Seventeenth President Russell M. Nelson passed away on September 27, 2025 at his home in Salt Lake City. He was 101 years old. His First Counselor in the First Presidency, Dallin H. Oaks, is the 18th president.
When we consider the 15 general conference sessions that took place from April 2018 through April 2025 led by Nelson, speakers were clearly citing Nelson more regularly as his tenure continued.
(When counting references, I refer to the endnotes in each address, though the general authority’s name may not necessarily have been mentioned in the talk itself; thus, those in the audience might not have known there were that many allusions to any particular leader.)
Let’s consider Nelson’s predecessor, 16th President Thomas S. Monson. In the October 2017 general conference—the last one before he passed away—Monson was cited 16 times in 11 different conference talks; meanwhile, Russell M. Nelson—the president of the apostles at that time—was referenced just 7 times in 6 different talks.
Then, in Nelson’s first conference as president in April 2018, there were 14 different speakers (out of 32) who referred to Nelson a total of 22 times, triple the references from the previous conference! (Monson was only mentioned twice at that conference, five times fewer than at the previous conference, begging the question: Did Monson become less relevant now that he was no longer living?)
A year later in April 2019, there were 29 references to Nelson’s teachings in 15 of the 30 different talks. Amazingly, this number almost doubled at the following conference in October 2019, as there were 54 references to Nelson in 24 of the 31 talks, three-quarters of all the addresses. The references to the current president at conferences before 2019 were never close to this many.
Through April 2025, this trend continued. In his last conference as the president, Nelson was mentioned in a total of 25 talks (from a total of 31 given) for a total of 71 references, close to three per talk, which is an incredible number for any leader of this church to be referenced in a single conference!
As a point of reference, church founder Joseph Smith was mentioned in just two talks! It’s almost as if there had been an internal memo sent out requesting speakers to cite the current head of the church. This was especially true for those who spoke in April 2025 holding an office lower than apostle.
Of the six talks not mentioning Nelson, three were given by apostles, two were by the two counselors of the First Presidency, and only one was in a position lower than the office of apostle. Is it possible that 17 of the 18 lower-ranked conference speakers were attempting to impress the top leader of their church? For a chart detailing the April 2025 talks, visit mrm.org/chart-newsletter.
The October 2025 general conference that took place October 4-5, 2025, took place too late for us to compare the citations of the general authorities. It should be noted that at that conference, Oaks had not yet been named the president.
Still, we will continue to watch if this trend of focusing on the teachings of the current prophet will continue while Nelson’s citations at conferences fade away.
Living Prophets Only? Or Dead Ones Too?
On February 26, 1980, 13th President Ezra Taft Benson gave his classic talk titled “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet.” His third point was that “the living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.”
Yet this certainly doesn’t mean these deceased leaders have ceased in importance in the minds of the current leadership. At the April 2025 general conference, speakers referenced dead leaders along with those still living, including the first three 19th century presidents of the church: Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor.
Meanwhile, modern deceased presidents referred to at the conference included Ezra Taft Benson (13th president), Gordon B. Hinckley (15th) and Thomas S. Monson (16th). Additional deceased general authorities were also cited, including eight members of the First Presidency and the apostles, several from the 19th and early 20th centuries.
In his talk “Divine Helps for Mortality” given during the Sunday morning session, Dallin H. Oaks—at that time, the First Counselor of the First Presidency—did not mention his good friend Russell M. Nelson once nor any other living general authority, for that matter. Yet he made it a point to give lengthy quotes from both Joseph F. Smith (cited in two other talks) and Joseph Fielding Smith (referenced in three other talks), two of the most conservative old-time doctrinal presidents from the 20th century.
If dead leaders no longer should be considered authoritative, as some Mormons argue, why did a current authority such as Oaks continue to cite these deceased leaders? And why is it that many Latter-day Saints—especially younger members—rarely (if ever) cite their leaders in support of their own beliefs?
At the same time, there are generally few to no references at general conference given quoting the most influential yet non-authoritative LDS apologists, philosophers and theologians—some of whom teach at Brigham Young University. Instead of referring to them, the four church’s standard works along with the teachings of the official leaders—past and present—are continually referenced. I highly doubt we will see this trend change anytime soon.
Even if Latter-day Saints disagree with their leaders on a variety of topics, these men are adamant that they alone are the official interpreters of truth. And while there is a special focus on the “living prophet” at conference, other LDS leaders are also considered authoritative, even if they are no longer living.
In conclusion, to whom are Latter-day Saints supposed to give their doctrinal allegiance? The standard works and the words of current leaders of the church? Or popular Mormon commentators who are not general authorities? It’s obvious what the speakers at general conference think the answer is.