We Have Not Drawn Swords

12604653_823899601053471_8656883557888553864_o“We Have Not Drawn Swords”

Sue Laurie on the pre-General Conference briefing in Portland, Oregon

January 24, 2016

As the discussions in Portland ebbed and flowed around the conflict within the UMC – a conflict that is abusive to LGBT people, sometimes it was deemed “uncomfortable.” For me it was far worse than “uncomfortable” to withstand another public beat-down. And please understand, it is not just the ones argue with us, we are also beaten down by all those who avoid real conversations and wish to look away.

One metaphor from the stage was that “both sides come to GC with swords drawn” and the audience tacitly agreed. I caught that guy later and said his image was not true. We do not carry swords – we do not ask for the annihilation of straight pastors and their families – calling for trials against pastors and marriages. While we have felt the harm of those swords of words and trials, my people come with band-aids, song and rainbow promises of a God who will not abandon us.

We have not drawn swords. We ask for our place at the table. (He did apologize, but only to me.)

Yet at that big UM meeting in Portland this week, a small, faithful cloud of witnesses gave body and voice, finances and passion to the cause of inclusion. We believe it is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I was grateful on the first morning that Rev. Steve Lewis and Rev. Fred Day of the Archives and History, both did break the silence and name gay and lesbian inclusiveness as part of their witness. Very helpful, but then they were the only ones.

Listen to me, these people, these gathered Methodist delegates and agency people, they know that homosexuality is not a sin, yet they avoid us and are “tired of talking about it.” Well I am tired too. And I am so thankful for every moment that Love Prevails strove to offer light and grace. We fought the good fight, we tried.

“Uncomfortable” – poor you. (Wow, that just feels bad today. But I will get over it.)

Meanwhile, I am home again. I am with Julie and Bailey and friends from Pennsylvania. Chicken and biscuits, football, cozy house …

Please pray that I do not become complicit with the institutions of Methodists that are doing harm! Just because I’m tired and I don’t enjoy fighting, please pray that I will not sink into my comfortable privilege and say, “I don’t need this.” Pray that I will stay in solidarity with those still being harmed by United Methodists. Pray that I will lean forward into General Conference and be spiritually fit – able to speak, apply band-aids and trust the rainbow of God’s promise for the full two weeks, with style and grace… even as we differ from others.

Lastly, thank you Love Prevails for stirring this pot for the whole quadrennium… by disrupting the usual dormant period, I can feel hope for integrity.
Thank you, Love Prevails.

Coalition Interview with Rev. Cedrick Bridgeforth of Black Methodists for Church Renewal (BMCR)

Rev. Cedrick Bridgeforth has been the chairperson of the Board of Directors of Black Methodists for Church Renewal (BMCR) for three years. As such, he has served as the representative to the Love Your Neighbor Coalition (LYNC) for that duration. He is an ordained elder in the Cal-Pac Conference who has served eight years as a district superintendent.

BMCR’s mission is to “Raise up prophetic and spiritual leaders who will be advocates for the unique needs of black people in the United Methodist Church.” (The organization’s mission, purposes and projects can be found at its website: http://www.bmcrumc.org/375206.)

BMCR supports legislatively the renewal of all resolutions about racism that need updating at General Conference 2016. Some resolutions were originally written at the founding of the denomination (1968). Some of those resolutions will be expanded with new language, bringing in a more contemporary voice about police and violence. In every case, BMCR urges the church not to be silent and complicit about racism. Bridgeforth commented, “Our original work is not done, so we are not changing that work.”

When asked about what BMCR brings to LYNC, Bridgeforth responded, “BMCR is a part of LYNC because the coalition helps us live out our mission, deepen our values and bring into view the great vision we have for a renewed, transformed and united body of Christ. We see the need for BMCR to be in relationship with the various partners of LYNC because each of us have issues and strengths that can benefit one another.”

Bridgeforth said that LYNC is still “learning the language and value of working in the intersections of who we are together.” In a speech at RMN and MFSA’s Gather at the River Convocation in San Antonio in August, Bridgeforth described this kind of learning in the following way:

When you invite me to your table, often I am expected or will at least try to conform to your rules, to your norms, to your language, to your agenda and any other thing that may aid in my inclusion at your table. The same is true when I invite to a table that is presumed to be mine. So, we see being a part of LYNC as bringing tables together. Each one brings their passions, interests, strengths, and norms and by joining tables together we are intentional about creating new and equitable space where no one is ridiculed for or forced to give up any unique perspective or principle. But, we join together and work from our common core and purpose. We see being together and working together not only as the best way, but as the only way to advance the greatest call to discipleship and care within and beyond the Church.

Coalition work has power because there is strength in numbers. But the numbers have more than strength, Bridgeforth said, when “within the Coalition we can understand that we are all broken at times, we learn to accept one another and work together to bring about as much wholeness as possible in each other.”

During the interview, Bridgeforth said the five racial-ethnic caucuses in LYNC bring a particular understanding of the intersections of work across differences. As Coalition partners, the caucuses “are uniquely positioned to see the inter-relatedness of all forms of oppression. We see that injustice in any form is an assault on all of humanity everywhere. As racial-ethnic caucuses, we tend to focus on racial injustice, but we see that injustice requires no preceding qualifier.”

Bridgeforth commented that he is personally coming to understand that while there are many factors in our lives and society that will not change—our sexual orientation, our race, our parents—yet “systems that are put in place to keep us apart can change; they must change, they will change.” He wants to live out a belief in that principle of institutional change and hopes it can be lived out “more and more within this coalition of justice and equity seekers.”

According to Bridgeforth, the greatest challenge to ending discrimination against LGBTQ persons in our denomination at this time is “the core fear that people have about what they would lose.” When Bridgeforth spoke of such fear, he referred not only to those who fear LGBTQ persons or changing The Book of Discipline to support gay people. He also highlighted the fear of change by LGBTQ persons themselves. Both sides need to address issues of fear.

He said that sometimes it is easier to set up the other side as the enemy. Both “sides” are concerned that “if we let these folks in, they are going to take something or make me something other than what I am now.” Bridgeforth believes that doing this kind of fear-confronting work “across camps” is helpful. He said, “We can stay amongst ourselves and that can be a very safe place and rewarding place and experience. Entering that dark place where there can be pain and anguish is a scary thing. But the only change that takes hold and matters is deep change. And deep change comes at a great price.”

How do we best work across these kinds of differences? Bridgeforth described his commitment to telling “soul stories.” These are stories that describe how we came to be who we are. He described his own upbringing. “I’m a Southern boy by trade and I come from a lineage of people who were not educated. We have spent a lot of time sharing stories. That’s how we got to know each other, our history, the land upon which we lived, and the expectations of us.”

In the telling of stories, we must “be as vulnerable as we can be, and refuse to demonize one another.” Bridgeforth believes that in the hearing and retelling of those stories, we may learn how to work together regardless of our stated or perceived differences. “If you share your story with me, I am bound to find connection in it somewhere. It requires vulnerability to share and listen.”

When asked to address the critique that the story-telling approach has been tried for forty years, yet failed to end the discrimination against LGBTQ people in the church, Bridgeforth responded, “That discounts that I have not been able to tell my story.” He explained that even though there are many people involved in various organization that have been telling their stories for 40 years, “not all of us have been around for forty years.”

He also countered the argument that we have told our stories for forty years to no avail. “Telling stories has had an effect. The work that Reconciling Ministries, MFSA and Love Prevails have done has made way for a whole new generation of voices to emerge.” There has been real work and change that has happened as a result.

From his perspective, “BMCR joined the Coalition as a result of that work. Black people in the UMC have fought against racism long before the inception of BMCR. So, the argument that 40 years is too long to tell our stories does not hold full strength with me because black people in this country has been raising up trying to combat racial injustice since the first slaves were brought here, but we cannot tire of that fight or of re-telling the narrative so no one every forgets how this came to be. BMCR eventually tackled sexism and gender discrimination. Both those fights continue within the Black arena for the purpose of creating equity at every level of the church and in society. The focus on full-inclusion and acceptance of LGBTQ persons has not been a top priority for BMCR, but it is a great concern for me personally. As one who does not have the liberty of separating my person based on race, gender and sexual identity, I do not believe any justice-seeking organization can either. There are times when we are called upon to focus on one or the other, but that does not mean the other pieces and parts of our struggles or ourselves go un-noticed or are without value. It only means we have limited capacity to fight on all fronts at all times.”

Therefore, we have to keep having these conversations and sharing of who we are and where we are now. All of it is important work. “We are all beneficiaries of all of the work that has been done around race and homosexuality.” It is important that new people to the movement understand themselves as beneficiaries to a long history of stories and activism. People who don’t see themselves as beneficiaries of a tradition often are not motivated to believe and invest in making change. Bridgeforth remains unwilling to discount that storytelling and dialogue remain central to efforts for change.

The Coalition would be stronger if there were more issues and actions that call us out of our comfort zones. The broader church thinks that LYNC is just about LGBTQ issues. “As a Coalition partner,” he said, “I’m clear that is not the only matter. For the Coalition to be stronger, it needs to go beyond its one issue. It needs to demonstrate to itself that it is a broad-based coalition with a broad emphasis that would demonstrate how really broad the Coalition’s reach really is.” The Coalition would be strengthened by making the connections among multiple issues that would be noticed by the broader public as well.

We’ll know the Coalition is working well “when we can see how what we are working towards really benefits the whole, when no group or issue gets pushed to the back of the room. Bridgeforth explained that the church wins when we work toward fulfillment of broader agendas. It may be slow and incremental. At many of their gatherings, BMCR sings, 40 Years On The Journey. He ended his comments by saying, “We have to recognize the incremental or subtle changes that we benefit from so we can continue to raise hell in whatever ways we choose about whatever affects us or our sisters and brothers.”

This is the sixth in a series of interview reports that Love Prevails is conducting with representatives of every member group of the LYNC as a part of preparing for General Conference 2016 in Portland, Oregon. We share what each group brings to the Coalition, their particular emphases and concerns for GC2016, and the challenges and benefits of working across various kinds of differences related to identity, opinion and action. While Rev. Bridgeforth officially represents BMCR to LYNC, the opinions expressed in this interview report are entirely his own.



November 2015 Letter to the Connectional Table

lp letterhead



November 10, 2015

Dear Bishop Ough, Rev. Dr. Valdez-Barker and Members of the Connectional Table:

Since the Connectional Table is meeting online this fall, we are not able to be with you in person. We imagine you do not regret this outcome, though we’d like to think you would admit that our presence does make your meetings infinitely more interesting.

We would like to be present for your online meeting. Since all Connectional Table meetings are open to all United Methodists, we request that you send us the dates, times and online access information. As you prepare for the meeting, we would like to share some of our thoughts that address a few of our ongoing concerns.

The matter of general church meetings is itself a concern. A mere six months ahead of the General Conference, there is no face-to-face meeting scheduled of neither the full Connectional Table nor the General Commission on the General Conference. The General Commission intends to attempt passage of an alternative legislative process for discussing matters of same-gender sexuality, same-gender marriage, and ordination of LGBTQ persons. Aside from the extremely vague description of this process in a #CTTalks video, we have heard nothing about how these plans are proceeding. There is not one general church-level meeting listed on the GCFA Church Calendar between now and General Conference 2016 (see http://www.umc.org/calendar-gcfa-staging/gcfa-meetings). At the most critical time of the church calendar it is curious that there is no exposure and disclosure of church gatherings. It would seem to us that communication and transparency seem like appropriate priorities for a denomination in crisis.

We are paying attention to the #CTTalks video series on the General Conference that the Connectional Table is putting out over the months leading up to GC. In particular, we are eager to hear the CT describe its “Third Way” legislation on LGBTQ inclusion and discrimination in UMC.

Love Prevails is not in support of this proposal, as it constitutes a “separate but equal” practice for queer folks in the United Methodist Church. At your May 2015 meeting in, Rev. Amy DeLong explained that, “Saying that there’s a Third Way on issues of oppression and discrimination says simply to me that there is some level of my discrimination that you all are comfortable with. That’s a hard place to stand, knowing that you are comfortable with my oppression. The Third Way.”

From our perspective, removing all of the anti-LGBTQ language from The Book of Discipline is the goal. We do not accept that the best and most just proposal is regional discrimination. However, since the CT passed this legislation and a majority of you believe it is the best way forward, Love Prevails would like to know how the members of the CT, particularly the human sexuality task force and legislation committee, are going to organize and advocate for the passage of this Third Way Proposal.

Even though we do not believe the “Third Way” is a faithful response to the categorical discrimination of LGBTQ people, we, nonetheless, would be pleased to see you put some intentional action behind this proposal and make a true effort to get this legislation passed.

We imagine, however, that the words of Bishop Arichea at the same CT meeting will prove true. He said, “[This proposal] has a very slim chance of passing. And it definitely has no chance of passing if you don’t implement any strategy to get it passed.”

As Love Prevails’ activism is largely responsible for the emergence of both the Third Way and development of an alternative legislative process for passage of such a proposal, we request that you communicate with us the status of these items.

We look forward to seeing many of you in Portland in January at the United Methodist Communications’ pre-General Conference briefing. Until then, we remain yours in Christ,

Love Prevails

Laci Lee Adams
Mary Anne Balmer
Rev. Amy DeLong
Glenn Duggin
Laura Ralston
Dr. Mary Lou Taylor
Rev. Dr. Julie Todd
Brenda Smith White
Rev. Wesley White
Alison Wisneski

Love Prevails Letter – November 2015 – PDF of letter


Response to Adam Hamilton – May 8, 2015

Love Prevails member Wesley White has written a paragraph-by-paragraph response to Adam Hamilton’s most recent blog post addressing “A Way Forward.” Please read below. Hamilton is regular font, White is italicized.

A year ago, with input from others, I wrote a blog post called, A Way Forward for a United Methodism?.  In it we offered suggestions for how the United Methodist Church might move forward as it relates to the divide over homosexuality.  It was written in response to some who were discussing dividing the denomination.  It was written in consultation with evangelicals, moderates and progressives across the country.  Over 2,000 pastors and hundreds of laity signed the document that you can read here.
It is of note that “A Way Forward for a United Methodism” is described as having been vetted by three theological categories, but not by those over whom some theoretical divide continues to harm. No number of “evangelicals, moderates, and progressives” can have an equivalent voice to that of LGBTQ persons and their family/community. No number of pastors can speak for those being harmed. Look again at the story of Greek widows being harmed in Acts 6.

In the year since, there have been a host of other proposals that have surfaced as a way of moving our denomination beyond the impasse over same-gender relationships.  I’ve been in dozens of conversations with various groups listening and looking for what might be a better way forward.  I’ve yet to see a proposal that would seem to have a reasonable chance of passing at General Conference.
There has not been a host of other proposals that move us forward. They all fall under the same difficulty—they are not in the voice of the LGBTQ community. The voice there is universal in simply ridding the church of the single, named people who, claimed by some, stand outside the gifts and call of God and Christ to life and ministry within the church. Again wisdom from Acts is pertinent here (see chapter 10).

My assumptions about any proposed changes at General Conference include the following:

  1. The more complicated the change, the less likely it will pass.
  2. The more places in the Discipline that must be changed, the less likely it will pass.
  3. The more radical the change, the less likely that it will pass.

Thank you for naming your assumptions. However, they are simply that and not particularly helpful:

  1. It is a dangerous beginning spot, to think that United Methodists cannot handle complications in life or thought.
  2. This is simply a particular application of 1).
  3. This continues a limited view of the heart of United Methodists.

It also seems to me that conservatives are underestimating the number of evangelicals, including many pastors of our largest churches, who have come to see this issue differently in the last few years.  Their changing understanding does not reflect a departure from theological orthodoxy or evangelical passion, nor does it reflect a reduced view of biblical authority.  Instead these persons recognize the complexity of scripture and see the Bible’s teaching on same-gender relationships as similar to the Bible’s teaching on slavery, violence in the name of God, the role of women in the church and a host of other things found in the Bible but which we no longer believe reflect God’s will for us today.
It is not particularly comforting to think how long it has taken some number of “evangelicals” to see what continued discrimination is doing to our ability to evangelize. Like it or not, theological orthodoxy, evangelical passion, and biblical authority are, historically, the last roadblocks to the expansion of expressions of God’s ability to be a Living God and Jesus to welcome the most outcast, live among them,  and witness God’s love through these acts. The Bible is no more or less complex than it was before. The slowness to see “God’s will for us today” is not helped with a continued slowness to wait for the last prejudiced person comes “to see this differently”. If you have come to see LGBTQ people differently, act on it.

It also seems to me that many of our progressives are underestimating the number of people in our denomination, and in most of our local churches, who are not ready to ordain persons in same-sex relationships, nor host same-sex marriages in their churches.  In most United Methodist churches there are a significant number of people who lean conservative on this issue. For conservatives the question of same-sex relationships is not about justice, but about faithfulness to Scripture, as they understand it.  To completely reverse the denomination’s position, even if progressives and moderates had the votes, would mean a significant loss of membership and vitality in many local churches, and across the denomination.
It seems to this liberal/radical that you may be underestimating the number of people in our denomination who ARE ready to ordain LGBTQ people gifted and called to ordained ministry and to see the marriage of their sons and daughters and nieces and nephews and friends duly celebrated in the church. As long as we leave this in the realm of “seems”, fears will always come to the fore. “Seems” always brings the worst speculation to the fore before we can look at the movement of Spirit through history and in our own time. We are a people who have added the gift of “Experience” to the previous trinity of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason to be an antidote to “seems” and present fears. When we separate “faithfulness” from “justice” we wound ourselves and the world around us.

Finding a way forward means we must see this issue through the eyes of the other.  Progressives must see the issue through the eyes of earnest, thoughtful conservatives.  Conservatives must see the issue through the eyes of earnest, thoughtful centrists and progressives.   Even the terms we use to describe our own position might need to change.  It is possible to be conservative on this issue, and still love justice and inclusivity.  It is also possible to be progressive on this issue and still be theologically orthodox and passionately evangelical.
Yes, let us look through the eyes of the other. Note, however, that the “other” needed here is not a Conservative/Progressive difference where we somehow catch enough of a glimpse of our self in that “other” and budge ever so slightly. The “other” needed here is for everyone who is not LGBTQ in orientation, to look through the eyes of those who are discriminated against, castigated, described as “incompatible”, shunned, and even beaten and killed. Both Progressives and Conservatives have been complicit in delaying a transformation of the church, much less the world.

I continue to believe that the best way forward is to allow United Methodist pastors to determine who they will and will not marry, while allowing local churches to determine their own wedding policies as it relates to the usage of their building.  This is currently how things are done for heterosexual marriages.  Pastors meet with couples and determine whether they will or will not officiate, and local churches develop wedding policies for the use of their buildings.
The issue of local control is but another delaying tactic that allows theological orthodoxy, evangelical passion, and biblical authority to keep us from experiencing again how unsurprising it is for God to call for renewal from the most unlikely of places and people. Patchwork discrimination keeps the battle between “progressives” and “conservatives” boiling and even heightens it as it moves into local settings.

Under this scenario the current language of the Discipline regarding homosexuality and same-sex weddings would become the “historic position” of the United Methodist Church and the default policy of each local church regarding same-sex marriage. The Discipline would allow local churches to adopt a more permissive policy towards same-sex marriage.  Only churches that felt compelled to change the default position would take a vote.  Conservative churches would continue as they are.  Moderates might spend several years in conversation before deciding whether to make a change to the default position. Progressives would vote right away to adopt a different policy.    Likewise, while a pastor would be bound by the local church’s policies for weddings within the walls of the church, each pastor would determine who they would and would not marry outside of the walls of their local church.
This imagined move to “historic position” does not become an historic position until there is a change in The Book of Discipline. Until that time it divides our Method of engaging the “Nature of our Theological Task” laid out in The Book of Discipline—2012 (¶105, pp. 79–80). There is a naïve assumption here that there are conservative congregations, progressive congregations, and moderate congregations. This model forgets how we need each other and further divides us. We are in the business of revealing a Jesus Way together or we are not. More could be said to demonstrate how flawed this approach is, but folks either get it or don’t.

I believe we can trust local churches to make this decision. Some have suggested that allowing local churches to make this decision will be the end of connectionalism and will signal that we have adopted a congregational polity.   But it is not our position on homosexuality that makes us a connectional church; rather, it is our shared ministry, our shared doctrinal standards, our appointive process, our episcopacy, and our trust clause that are the hallmarks of our connectionalism.
The trust clause is an indication of our lack of trust or it wouldn’t be there. The lack of leadership by the episcopacy in favor of some uniformity of response that reduces us to good-thoughts and prayers-at-a-distance has unconnected us from those we harm whether that be a recent statement about racism or lack thereof regarding orientationism. Doctrinal standards and ordination restrictions that are based on false witness are not places of connecting with one another.

If the General Conference (or under some proposals the Annual Conference) continues to adopt a one-size-fits-all policy forced upon local churches and pastors we can anticipate that this issue will continue to be our focus for the next twenty years, with continuing conflict year after year.
One size does fit all if we are talking about love and grace. No amount of tinkering with one or another proposal from strengthening the current sin of casting our family out and dividing ourselves, one from another, to more modest forms of the same will honorably heal us. The fault is in ourselves.

Regarding ordination, decisions are largely made at the Annual Conference level.  Let’s let annual conferences make decisions regarding the ordination of married homosexual* candidates for ministry.  Conservative conferences will not ordain married homosexuals.  Progressive conferences will ordain such persons.  Moderate conferences may come up with creative new solutions.  These solutions are more likely to be developed at an annual conference than during the two weeks of General Conference meeting once every four years.   Again, it seems that trying to create a one-size-fits-all policy for the entire denomination does not take into account the vast differences in different regions across the denomination.
Ordination decisions are to be made in the Annual Conference, except for those removed from them by The Book of Discipline. Playing the “married” card is but a variation of “fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness” game-playing that its authors have confessed to being code language for “keep the gays out”. It sets the bar at the wrong place—appearance rather than the call and gift of Spirit. How many of these appearance games have we already come through—dancing, smoking, divorce, etc.—and how many more are we going to have to go through before we are willing to submit our denomination to the Covenant Service we currently limit to individuals. John Wesley was right that reform of the nation begins in the church.

We are a denomination divided over how we interpret the scriptures regarding same-sex relationships; most of our congregations are also divided. Any possible solution must allow room for differences of opinion.  What seems clear to me is that a viable long-term strategy cannot be found in a one-sized-fits-all policy imposed upon every church in every region and nation by the 800 delegates to the next General Conference.
Yes, our congregations are made up of many opinions. This is evidence that the conservative, progressive, moderate congregation argument above really doesn’t hold water. Intentionally harming LGBTQ people with our current legislation is a one-size for all and is imposed with many different rationales. Whether those rationales are conservative or progressive, they pale in the face of a Living God.

*I mention married homosexuals as opposed to “practicing” homosexuals as the Discipline calls for celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage.
*There is no cute, linguistic way out of the corner into which we have painted ourselves. We are ever reforming or we end up on the dust heap of history.

You can download a PDF of this response in a side-by-side printout here: Hamilton Response.

Mary Lou Taylor Reflects on Cherokee Removal for Love Prevails Native American Study

In the epilogue to The Cherokee Nation and the Trail of Tears, the authors conclude: “The Trail of Tears is their (the Cherokee) story, but it is also an American story. And if it is a story we are not proud of, we should make sure that its lesson is well learned: Racism, greed, and political partisanship can subvert even the noblest American ideals.”

While reading the book, I could not help but make parallels, not just to what is happening in the United States today (where racism, greed and political partisanship seem even worse than ever), but to what has been happening over and over around the world. The American government’s treatment of Native Americans in the United States, especially its policy of removal, was our Holocaust. White Christian Europeans assumed that the native tribes were lesser than fully human, that because their civilization was different, it was uncivilized, and because they worshipped in a different way, they were heathen. While there were no gas chambers and no grand design of extermination, the United States government forced thousands of men, women and children to march over 1,000 miles barefoot, with little clothing, almost no tents, inadequate food and literally none of their belongings. Everything they owned had been taken from them. Many died.

In the last paragraph, I have written “the government,” but in truth I should say “we.” Though we were not alive at the time of the past atrocities against Native Americans, we currently sit in our living rooms and watch as people around the world are suffering a similar fate. Trails of Tears continue.

I pray that understanding what the Cherokee Nation suffered, and what all of the First Nations peoples suffered, will help me get out of my living room and really commit to working for safety and dignity of all people. I look forward to the next six weeks of study, and to going to participating in continuing Acts of Repentance and Healing towards Indigenous People through the United Methodist Church.

Open Invitation to Study

Join the Love Prevails 2014 Native American Study as we engage in larger resistance to oppression within the United Methodist Church. For more information check out the tab above and please read the letter sent to the Council of Bishops and Members of the Connectional Table below for more information.

Open Invitation to Native American Study with Love Prevails-page-0

Help Love Prevails!

In honor of our one year anniversary on Facebook, Love Prevails is running a campaign to try to reach 2016 likes in anticipation of General Conference 2016. Check out our Facebook page for more details on how to win a Love Prevails t-shirt and watch Will Green explain why he likes Love Prevails below: