Purple At Church, Coercion? Members React To LDS Abortion Letter

Does the Church Really Not Care About Abortion? The Idaho letter kicked the hornet's nest, and the backlash is coming from inside. President Oaks, compromise, and where the line is on abortion "I Got Revelation to Vote Yes on Prop 1 Agency Doesn't Mean the Right to Kill

 Raw Transcript:

Some members of the church are giving a very strong push back in their stance on abortion in regards to the letter that was sent out by the area presidency to
Idaho members on Proposition 1 and now on Nevada in question number six. I think it is. It's very strange to me that we have these types of loud voices.
It's not a surprise to me, but strange in the sense that this has been the position of the church all along. And
all of a sudden now because there is more of a progressive type of thought process with many of the members in the
church there seems to be a much stronger cry whether it's well it's both by numbers and by volume against the
position of the church in saying hey yeah it is okay to kill babies it is okay to do this because of choice. Now,
we've already talked about this previously, but I want to bring up the reaction to this and talk a little bit about some of the comments in
justification for protest and wearing purple, which some of you may have experienced today with some members of
your ward. Uh I doubt that most of you did, but some of you may have experienced this where it there was a cry to
uh the women in the church especially to wear purple to their ward and in in protest for the church's position.
Imagine uh crazy crazy world. But we're going to talk primarily I want to go into what has really triggered a lot of this which
is uh Gabrielle Blair's essay on Substack and and the responses to this.
She gives a number of points and so I think they're good to use even though not everybody's response is to her on this and it's directly to the church.
But I want to talk about this. The letter went out uh Dece and in earlier this month from the area presidency
which certainly had a a a look and a stamp of approval from the first presidency. You just don't do
omething like that and has was to be read twice over the pulpit. That was last week and today, right? And we are
at September 27th, 2026 in uh preparation for the is it november
3rd, I think is when the the vote is for this proposition.
And there's just been a push back from a number of members of the church where where they're all of a sudden saying, "Okay, we grab onto this." Now, I talked about this before, but there's a lot of
members of the church that have moved to the left. There are more members of the church that have been converted, fantastic, that have more of a
progressive bend to them. And and so you're going to get a lot more of this in the church. We've taken even the church has moved, you might say, a
little bit to the left and in the sense that it doesn't move, I think, on its core principles, but it has not been as
loud against certain things on the left like it used to be back in the 70s and 80s and previously. So there is a little
bit more of a it's almost like an allowance that that or permission to be able to take some of these positions and
that sometimes results in people thinking that the church has changed their position that that ultimately
their position on doctrine has changed for LGBTQ in the temple for example or on abortion and these things have not
changed policy has changed I mean you can see the church supporting the fair fairness for all, for example, that that
President Oaks is very uh adamant to bring out to everybody in in in Utah in 2015 with the RFMA later federally. This
is something that that he's really pushed and continues to push. That's policy. That is not a position or a
change on the doctrine of things in the church. But what it has changed is within the church because there are members that have become more
4 minutesprogressive or because there is uh the youth has especially become more progressive. You adopt all of the
progressive positions or several of them uh including abortion, including killing babies. And so that's where we're at.
And so you get the backlash where it used to be mostly, not all, but mostly outside of the church and now we're getting a lot more inside of the church.
Now, before I go on, this episode is brought to you by Go and Do Travel and the Gospel on the Nile tour. This is something that I love to do. You're
going to learn more about the temple than anywhere else except for in the temple itself. It is incredible what you see on the walls. You see a lot of what
we do in the temple on the walls of Egypt. You understand the history of the temple a lot better. You understand the book of Abraham and how it fits into the
tradition of of our temple. How going back four 5,000 years there was a knowledge of these things. So much of
our heritage is Egyptian in terms of the brass plates, the Book of Mormon, Abraham, Joseph, Jeremiah, Joseph and
Mary and Christ. And we cover all of that. Incredible sites cruising down the Nile. I would love to see you there. Our
October trip this year is sold out, but February 16th to 26th, 2027 and March 2nd to 12th, 2027. It's an incredible experience. Here we go.
So, let's talk about some of this push back. Starting with Gabrielle Blair's Substack. She says that the letter is
inappropriate even though it's legal and because churches are expected to stay out of politics in exchange for tax
6 minutesexemption. Okay, this is not completely true. If if a point if an issue is political, it can also be moral, very
moral. And when it crosses those lines, the church gets involved. Proposition 8 is an example of that. Now, they've
changed their policy on how they approach that because it has now become same-sex marriage has been put into law.
So, now they've changed their policy on how they work with it. But the doctrine doesn't change and they have every right to go out and talk about these issues.
This has nothing to do with their tax exemption. And then she says that reading this letter from the area presidency at the pulpit will function as coercion.
Even though it isn't technically a demand. Yeah, it's technically not a demand because it's not a demand. And we are told to vote our conscience. It does
suggest that those in Idaho, those members of the church in Idaho, that they raise their voices in opposition to the proposition.
That's what their suggestion is for this. And that's okay. They can do that.
They can give guidance and then you can decide whether you're going to follow it or not. To say it's coercion is ridiculous.
The church has certain guidelines and doctrines that it tries to follow and policies that that it tries to follow.
You can agree with them or disagree with them, but it is certainly not coercion.
It is it is saying, "Hey, this is what we believe you should do. We believe in this because this is how it's related to
the doctrine of the church. Now, you can dismiss it. Fine, dismiss it. But the church has never changed his position on
abortion in terms of of whether it is positive or negative, whether it is a a part of the commandment, thou shalt not
kill. It's never changed its policy on or its doctrine on killing babies. That
has not changed. What has changed in this instance is that they're actually speaking up about it because they do
usually don't say anything about abortion. They have in the past. They've said some very strong things, but they rarely, in fact, this is the first time
that they have ever got invol gotten involved in a specific political action suggesting to members that they I mean,
they don't say vote, but they're implying to vote in a certain way on on a piece of legislation.
And so, that's what causes the frenzy.
It's like kicking the hornets nest. And of course, abortion is the sacrament, the sacrament of radical feminism
because it represents everything that takes independence and career away. And whether you like it
or not, that's what sits fundamentally squarely at the core of the issue.
9 minutesBecause when you take away that choice or their pro-choice move, you're saying,
"Oh, you don't want women to you you don't want women to have careers. You don't want them to have independence.
You want them to be mothers or even maybe saying that they would you would force them into being mothers."
Now, of course, they chose to have sex in most of those cases. And where they haven't, the church says, "Yeah, that's not an issue. That's our policy that
that we should not uh uh that abortion is okay and some of you agree with this or disagree with it but the policy is it
they they say it's okay in in instance in instances of rape and the mother's health and incest.
Okay. So they don't they're not all they're not absolutists in this policy even though some of you I
think would probably want that right but saying it's coercion is is preposterous absolutely preposterous you join certain
groups are are are you is it coercion for a political party to ask you to vote a certain way or to suggest that you do
something is that coercion it's ridiculous. Another point that she makes is that it's an unforced error by
the church because Prop 8 cost the church so much, right, with their members, with their reputation,
and that conservatives have lost the culture war on abortion at this point.
And and I don't think that's true.
Honestly, I I don't think that that's true. I mean, you just had the change of going against Roie Wade. How can you say that right now? that that is not true.
And there are louder and louder voices of those that are pro-life that are out there. They're gaining a lot of traction. So, I think that's a ridiculous statement that the
conservatives lost the culture war. In terms of their reputation, I do think the church really cares about their
reputation. I mean, wow. I mean, like at a very, very high level, this is true.
And so when you make this comment about the church's reputation being uh uh hurt, I I I understand why you're saying
that because the church really really cares, right? Salt Lake really really cares about the reputation, but I don't think they'd take it as far
as to say we're going to go against doctrine in this case, right? I I don't think that they would they're going to
do that. So, I understand where you're coming from, but I will say personally to say that the reputation for of the
church is more important than going against doctrine and killing babies, I I think that's that's a big
mistake. That's a real problem. So, I I I don't really understand that point very much. She also said that the church doesn't actually care about abortion.
This is a really interesting take that she has on this that that the church doesn't really actually care about abortion that its stance is pure theater
to win favor with the evangelicals and Christian nationalists. Do you know how much the church has talked about Christian nationalism? I mean they they
imply it. They may not use that full term, but I promise you the church is concerned about radical Christian nationalism
and and and many of the evang many of those are coming from the evangelical world. That that thought process, that
worldview is coming from the the evangelicals. So I understand that, but that is not at all what they've done. They're not trying to appease anybody.
You think they've always been abort against abortion. So you think that they've always been trying to appease the evangelicals in that stance?
I I I think that's preposterous. I mean, if anything, the church has actually been distanced from the evangelicals in the last several years because of the
idea of this compromise. I have spoken to many many uh uh high and how do you
what would I say very popular and influential pastors in the Christian evangelical world.
and and if anything they're like what is going on with the Latter-day Saints, you know, why why are they not following with us in these in these things? So, I
don't that I think that's another bad point. I think that's silly. I think you are stretching Gabrielle so much to try
uh and and push your own agenda through on this. I mean, if you've got to if you want to argue for pro-choice,
fine. put down your reasoning and see how it does in the public. But to throw these accusations out there, they're silly. They're baseless.
Right? And then I love this next one, right? Men, this is the the biggest silliest thing of all. Men run the
church and men don't care about abortion because they don't experience pregnancy.
And she goes beyond this also. She talks about how as if they don't experience their own
the the the is their child, Gabrielle. It's their child.
So to say that they have no involvement, there's no emotional attachment to this type of thing. I understand it's not quite the same as the way it would be
maybe with a woman uh who who's going to go if if she's going through pregnancy and she creates a bond with the child within her.
But I to say that that men have no sense about this or that they aren't really emotionally involved or that it's all men making these decisions is silly.
There there there's a a a very significant portion of women percentage of women in the United States that are
pro-life. And in fact, they're the loudest voices in the US. They're women.
So, it's not the patriarchy that that is pushing this. Another very silly thing.
That's what you're trying to set up. I I don't quite understand that approach whatsoever.
She also brings up that the handbook proves the church doesn't care. She makes six different claims here. She says one, the exceptions make the church pro-le abortion.
Yeah. In those instances, it does. It does. Okay. And and and honestly, the
the law currently in Idaho is stronger than the church's position. And that is true.
So I if if they were following something more similar to what church policy is, it would be relaxed and the exceptions
would be stronger in the current law in Idaho, right? That that's true, but they're still not going to go as far as
what Proposition says, Proposition One says, and allow for these types of abortions to happen. It's it's insane.
16 minutesIt is insane that we have gotten to a point where this becomes part of mainstream culture. It's disgusting. It
really is. Her second point about the handbook is that abortion isn't classed as murder. It's not. Right. So, you can
look at uh you know the the policy in terms of getting baptized into the church and if you've had an abortion previously, it
requires more vetting, right? It does require more vetting is when there are baptismal
interviews. Uh it it's different from murder in that case. This is all true.
This is all true. However, that doesn't, you know, that doesn't mean it's okay. So So I don't understand that point.
Women are directed to doctors, not bishops. Sure.
Sure. They're directed to doctors in terms of of of what should be done in the case of okay what if the women's health is involved
but they they are still going to be speaking to a bishop if they've got a decision to make. I mean they may that's
up to them uh and the church and and the bishop's going to repeat the church policy in that case and in and and it may be that
the bishop is uh experienced with these things or not experienced with these things. It might be a good idea to talk to the bishop, it might not be a good
idea to talk to the bishop, but the church policy is what it is, right? What what regardless of what a bishop is
going to say. So I I again I I don't see a whole lot of strong argument here on this.
Uh serious Jeopardy and convenience can be read to cover nearly any case. No, it's it's pretty it's pretty specific on
on on exactly what it's going to allow and what the exceptions are. And the overall message is don't ask don't tell.
I that that's silly. That's that's absolutely silly on that. Um she talks about other things kind of
stating that abortion isn't a crime. Um a and because she thinks this isn't really about abortion, she's going to go
exactly to the critical theory and post-modern approach that this is all about money and power. Yeah, the church
wants money and power. So it is going to control the women by saying abortion is bad
and that is so expected in your world and in your world view.
It's all about money, but especially about power and control. And by somehow
going against uh abortion and saying that it's bad, it it's men trying to control women in their choices.
And it's it's like, okay, well, let me let me just give two things here. First of all, if men are all about just men,
19 minuteswhich they're not. I mean, men sacrifice greatly for their wives and for their children. Most men,
why why would they what what is what is the point of of saying, for example, oh, it's okay or
why would they say it's okay for to abort a female, a daughter?
Would it be okay to to abort your daughter then? And and and if it's a man, are they saying, "No, no, but don't abort the man."
And if men are do care just about men, wouldn't they be caring about the men that are going to be aborted?
Do you do you think that women don't care that that would never get an abortion? Do you think that they care if
it's a boy and they say to themselves, "Well, I'm going to get an abortion since this is a guy or or because because really, I just
want to bring women into the world." Uh it's that that is a that is actually a real thing. A real
thing that many people who want to go to population control talk about. Give us about 10% men.
We need about 10% men. That's all we need because they can impregnate so many different women and and then we'll just
let women run the world and and and it'll be mostly a female. You know, the future's female. Those are those are real thought processes that happen. So
abortion, if you care about women, well, half of the babies that are being aborted are women, right? Just remember
that you are stopping the life of of of women. You're never even getting them a chance to be born, to grow, to learn, to
experience this world. Just just keep that in mind, right? and and gender
selected abortion throughout the world has typically been against girls, India, China especially. Yeah, it's it's not
helping you a whole lot. And ultimately, again, the argument, any argument isn't wrong because of the sex of the person
that is making it. There are moral absolutes and and whether you're male or you're female, they're true or they're not. many of the
pro-life, if not most of the pro-life movement is run and pushed by females.
Now, having said that, the trend is that there is a gap that is growing. And so, for those that are pushing for
pro-choice, pushing for more abortion in the world, because that's what you're doing, is is because of the younger women that
have adopted uh a position of advocacy for abortion.
That's that has drifted. They those women have drifted much much further left. The guys haven't drifted his right
yet. Not even close to how far the young women of of Gen Z especially, but millennials as well have of young women
who have moved to the left, further and further to the left. So maybe it will become a man versus woman type thing.
Maybe that's where it will end up. But that's not where it is right now. Now I want to go through a couple of other things here. This is a Salt Lake Tribune
article that was written by Brad Price coming out on the 27th. So that's today this morning. And let's just look at a
couple of the points that uh he is trying to make here. He says, "I am deeply disturbed by the recent news that general authority," he goes through the
three members of the area presidency have issued an official letter telling Idahoans that the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints opposes Proposition One on the November ballot. Okay. And the letter will be read over congregations over the next two weeks.
Okay? So, yes, I guess it was updated.
This was put out a little over a week ago. The directive conflicts with several of my core convictions. All
right. First, it advocates using state power to enforce a particular belief system on others.
I believe that people shouldn't be murdered.
Am I am I pushing my belief system on someone else? You could say that in a sense, but what would you say about that? What about stealing from others?
Do you believe that people that that that creating a law that people should steal from others is pushing people's
belief system on others? It's really weak. What What about immigration? Is is that pushing a belief system on others?
Are is there any law where someone's beliefs are not being used in how they vote? Silly. And then this is not
surprising. He says, "Just days ago at the Washington National Cathedral, church president Dalon H. Oaks spoke to
this exact principle of pluralism." This is so interesting because remember this letter from the area presidency
24 minutescame out the day after that address, hours after the address that was given at the National Cathedral by President
Oaks. He warned that believers should be careful not to seek total dominance over our positions.
I I think the author here has a point.
It's look, are you going to compromise on everything? I I'm just being honest.
Are you going to compromise on everything? I think that in some cases there isn't a choice and you're trying to move some things forward, some things that don't matter
as much. In another case, it really matters. And and if you're going are you going to compromise more on this? Now you can say that there's already been a
compromise made by the church on the three exceptions that they give for the women's health, for incest, and for rape. Okay? But are you are you going to
compromise further? What other you know what if you already have five kids and you don't want anymore? I mean, you've done your job, right? So maybe you
houldn't be allowed to do that. I mean, you're going to you're going to see more and more things like this popping up.
There was a story recently about a a woman that wanted didn't want her sixth child because she already had five and how horrible this was that this woman
had to have a sixth child uh because the abortion law in her state didn't allow for her to get an abortion. So do you compromise with that? Is that part of
compromise so that we can get the best thing done possible? I
what what if the law what if the law in all and these are just scenarios that I think we need to think about. What if
the law in the entire United States is pro-choice again? Right. Roie Wade comes back and and and it's available everywhere again.
Do you compromise to try and pull that back a little bit? It's different when you're in a position of strength where Idaho currently would be if you are
pro-life with their current law in that state.
Do you compromise to keep something there? Well, if this passes, the legislation actually has the
ability. It's not an amendment to the Constitution in Idaho. The the Congress has a way of making changes. Well, how
will that happen? Well, they've got a conservative majority there. However, there may be compromise that would be
made between both sides of the aisle on this.
So maybe there will be compromise that will work through that. And I I just wonder, okay, what is the principle here?
Where is the line in making a compromise on something? And sure enough here the author of the
article says the US central area presidency letter ignores the this council of compromise. Instead of seeking balance among competing rights
as Prop One attempts to do, it demands the dominance of one legitimate ethical system over others.
Now it's not an ethical system. You're trying to say that the system is the religious system and that it's the
dominance of the Latter-day Saints. That is not true. There is an alliance in those that are trying to fight Proposition One. It is mostly religious
individuals. So, you could say that the system is religion, I suppose.
But there are plenty of people that are not religious that are pro-life.
So, that that doesn't really quite work with what you're saying and impose, right, or demands a dominance of one
legitimate ethical system. I What what what does that mean? I mean, is is murder again, does murder have a a dominant position?
I is I think there are examples where they don't go to murder. You could have manslaughter,
but there's a crime. There's still a crime there. And then here we go again.
The letter also violates a second profound conviction of mine, which is our doctrine regarding
unrighteous dominion. While the church frequently affirms its strict political neutrality, which it does,
reading a letter like this over the pulpit is jarring and ali an alienating departure from that stance. No, it's not. No, it's not. All things are
ultimately political and we need to understand that the Book of Mormon is the most political book you're ever going to read. I believe
or right up there. And as we move forward, you know, it's going to become more and more front and center politically. marriage, the family,
abortion, gender, identity, school, things about uh uh teaching your
children. It's all political and it will all become more and more political. And if you ask me, based on the church's
current policy, they're going to have to get more involved politically as the way is termed, because these
things are going to become more and more and more political and and moral. There there's a moral basis, a very strong
moral and core doctrinal basis for these things. And Brad here agrees with Gabrielle saying that a letter from the
70 over the pulpit undeniably creates spiritual coercion whatever and a division in the pews.
Yeah. So does keeping the same sex mar uh against same-sex marriage in the temple for example. That creates division in the pews. And I'm sure you'd
love you know both of you would love to have that change because then it wouldn't create a division even though it does. the division you're talking
about just is the division that doesn't favor you.
That's all the difference is that that if you if you allowed for samesex marriage in the temple, there would be a massive exodus and there I mean bigger
than anything else you can think of and and there would be division within the church on that stance. The division
argument on all of these things is preposterous because it it cuts much bigger and deeper the opposite way. And then here we get again to peacemaking.
And this is why there needs to be so much clarification on these things. Our leaders frequently advocate for peacemaking.
Now notice that peace almost always has a slant toward the left because it currently, not always, but
currently. And why is that? The reason is because of agreement and affirmation and tolerance. And what I mean by that
is there are certain orders in our culture, an order of family, for
example, an order of of theft and order an order with these policies and and and laws that we have that the left still
does not have a majority in because it wants to eventually loosen all of these things.
And look, the right has its own problems. I'm not saying this is all against the left. This issue is a left-right issue in terms of world view.
It just is. And and one wants to favor and give the move the compassion from
the baby and the plan of salvation and move that all over to the mother in terms of her independence and choice.
It's a conflict. The question is which value is higher? It's a conflict. We believe in liberty. We believe in choice.
But but we don't believe in a choice that is made against what is im what is moral.
We don't believe that there are options given to people sometimes for that within law and
without within certain circumstances that they have to make certain decisions that are immoral. It happens all the time. That doesn't mean that we believe
in it. It doesn't mean that we we believe that it should happen. But peace is a tool often used to say, "Hey, you
in the majority on this situation here with traditional families, for example, if you want to be peaceful, you need to
compromise with us so that we have more of our agenda going through the the order of the family and we can change it
somewhat." And of course we have we've done this with same-sex marriage. We've done this with our school system.
Uh we've done this with the economy that we have now set up in the West where it's almost not impossible but it's more and more difficult for a woman to stay home and rear her children.
We do this all the time and in in and attacking this and moving toward this.
And now, of course, we're in a position where where it's it's so accepted. This is just the way we live. This is just the way it is.
And careerism for women is a right. And therefore, we need to advocate for it.
Just like with abortion, it's her right to choose this. So, so we're going to advocate for it.
Peace means following the commandments. It does not mean just getting along. That is not peace. That's not shalom.
That's not mahat in Egyptian.
That that is it's not what is beautiful and complete in in uh nefair in Egyptian
or or in Nauvoo for example in beautiful. That's not what it is.
peace has to be brought into order and then have everybody live in that order, which is truth. And then we get to the
agency argument here at the bottom because I believe in defending moral agency over state compulsion.
No, you don't. No, you don't.
Because you you you you believe in the compulsion of abortion to a baby.
you're not you're not giving the right of choice to the baby because they have no voice.
Which value is higher? And then this hatred toward men again is
that comes up from Gabrielle here on on all of this. The top one here says, "I I'm a mother of six and a Mormon." She
says, "I have a good understanding of arguments surrounding abortion, religious, and otherwise. been listening to men grandstand about women's reproductive rights. Have you listened
to women grandstanding about reproductive rights? She says, "And I'm convinced men actually have zero
interest in stopping abortion. Here's why." Right? If you want to stop abortion, you need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Well, you think that men
also as well as women don't believe in in uh um curtailing in and removing promiscuity.
She says men are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies.
What fantasy world are you living in?
No, for real. She says they are. Perhaps you are thinking it takes two. And yes, it does take two for intentional pregnancies, but all unwanted
pregnancies are caused by irresponsible ejaculations of men. I'm sorry, that is not true.
Women have sex all the time even though they don't want to get pregnant. And if you think that that
separation doesn't exist, I I don't know what to tell you.
I don't know what to tell you. She doesn't want a pregnancy doesn't mean she's not going to have sex.
To say that that is men's fault and that it's all because of rape or coercion is ridiculous.
And then lastly, I want to give this option here. You always love to hear this one.
What about those members that have a personal revelation to vote yes on Proposition One? You
know, it it's a great thing to put in there because you don't want to argue with someone about their personal revelation, but if you're receiving
personal revelation to kill a baby and and 97 to 99% of the time it is for convenience.
That's it.
Then then you might want to rethink where you're getting that revelation from is what I would have to say.
This is this is a a unfortunately this is not going to get better.
I mean look at Prop 8 and where the church church stood on that and where it has had to change its policies and approach to how it works.
And to think that abortion is going to be different. I I don't know that it will be because it's going to become more and more popular. You say, "Well, Roie Wade was overturned." Yeah, that
was overturned by by a group of nine people and I think it was a five to four decision. Might be five people that overturned that entire thing.
So I I don't think now I do think it should be at the states. I think that's the right thing to do. But to think that this is all, you know, hey, this has
been fixed, this has been changed is is naive. It has not been changed. And we have a moral duty. I mean, you have to
go back to the plan of salvation. We we sometimes don't think right about these things as members of the church. You make your own decision. There's no coercion here.
But our father in heaven has spirit children that need to come to earth.
And you have the opportunity to have that responsibility and that stewardship to bring them up to rear them to take care of them and to share joy in them.
That's the bottom line. And so the question is is are you going to do something irresponsible and immoral to stop that?
because 97 to 99% of the time it is simply for convenience.
I think that most of these arguments are are unggrounded. They don't have a strong fundamental truth behind them.
You should just argue from the point of I want women to have their choice. And then you don't hear this as much.
They're trying to add all of this other garbage around it because they they've lost that argument to some degree. and certainly in the in the church. Their
last argument that they're hanging on with there is agency.
We believe in agency. So women should have their choice. Well, of course, yeah, you've got your agency
to murder someone. You've got your agency to steal from someone. That doesn't mean that we don't put laws in place to to help stop that and to be a
consequence for a society that doesn't want to see immoral things happen. and and and so they put laws in place. And
I'm just telling you right now, last comment on this is that this is the sacrament for radical feminism because
it it destroys what they really want out of out of out of women's independence.
Not that women all want that. They don't. But radical feminism definitely does. and they they've permeated our
society, our culture, our world views so much that it's hard to be honestly
optimistic about where all of this is going. I hope that there is a change in the polls in Idaho and that this can
turn and that the church can make a difference in this because it's saving lives. Thanks for listening.