LDS Church's New Managing Director for Church Communication

[old]

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

This will be the ultimate battle for the church members in the future. The near future. The Catholics have been dealing with the “liberalism” of Pope Francis, and now it’ll come to Salt Lake City. 
 

I have a ton of conservative Catholic friends, and they said “Shut up and obey the pope” when Benedict was in office. Now, the squirm and wiggle because “Shut up and obey the pope.” doesn’t work when they disagree with the Pope. I’m almost certain the same kind of thing will happen shortly here.    
 

It’s a taste of their own medicine, and boy do they dislike it. 

It ultimately boils down to dissimilar value structures that cannot be reconciled together.

[zil2]

Lots of things I could say.  The one that seems best is: I trust the Lord Jesus Christ.  He leads the Church.  This is outside my stewardship, so I will trust the Lord to deal with it properly in his own due time.

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, old said:

It ultimately boils down to dissimilar value structures that cannot be reconciled together.

Understand fully. 

[Just_A_Guy]

18 hours ago, laronius said:

A good communications director knows how to keep personal opinion out of how they represent their employer. Time will tell if he is good at his job. It sounds like he works pretty close to the brethren. If there were multiple levels of separation, personnel speaking, between he and them I would be more concerned. But regardless I doubt this was an uninspired decision so I'm not worried.

Time will tell.  My misgivings are that his expressions go beyond standard disagreement; it’s a fundamental loyalty issue.  Plus, it’s frankly a little galling—at the behest of Elder Holland and others, many of us spent a lot of time and effort defending the Church and its teachings from the criticisms of people like Sherinian. Many of those who did so under their own name continue to face stigma, discrimination, and career stagnation; while the buffoons they were defending the Church from wind up getting Church money, Church public recognition, and Church confidence.  It kind of makes some of us apologists wonder what the #%$@! we’ve even been doing this for over the last couple of decades; and feeds into a sneaking suspicion that the Church leadership doesn’t have our backs the way we’ve tried to have their backs.  I hope and trust that I’m wrong, but it’s hard to make those niggling doubts completely go away. 

One of my comforts (other than knowing that the Lord is in charge, yada, yada, yada); is that for professional reasons I’m fairly confident that some things are going to come out in the next 2-3 months that will cause the Church’s PR guys quite a few headaches.  The full facts, if known, would tend to exonerate the Church—but few will be willing or legally able to provide any public statement that might independently collaborate the Church’s response.  (Incidentally:  buckle up, folks.  Take your vitamins, eat your Wheaties, say your prayers and read your scriptures and do all those things the prophet has been telling us to do.  I may well be wrong, but think it’s going to be an interesting year.)  If Sherinian is the snake in the grass that I rather suspect he is, he just won’t hold his job for very long under those circumstances.  He’ll either say something so stupid or off-base that the Q15 will have no choice but to distance itself from him—or the professional need to back the brethren when every fiber of his being revolts against it, will just plain make his head explode.

And a potential silver lining here is that if he is indeed good, he’s probably very good.  I believe his wife Emily was the originator of the “I’m a Mormon” campaign from 10-15 years back, which I thought was extremely well done.  

Edited January 13 by Just_A_Guy

[mikbone]

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Incidentally:  buckle up, folks.  Take your vitamins, eat your Wheaties, say your prayers and read your scriptures and do all those things the prophet has been telling us to do.  I may well be wrong, but think it’s going to be an interesting year.

[laronius]

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Time will tell.  My misgivings are that his expressions go beyond standard disagreement; it’s a fundamental loyalty issue.  Plus, it’s frankly a little galling—at the behest of Elder Holland and others, many of us spent a lot of time and effort defending the Church and its teachings from the criticisms of people like Sherinian. Many of those who did so under their own name continue to face stigma, discrimination, and career stagnation; while the buffoons they were defending the Church from wind up getting Church money, Church public recognition, and Church confidence.  It kind of makes some of us apologists wonder what the #%$@! we’ve even been doing this for over the last couple of decades; and feeds into a sneaking suspicion that the Church leadership doesn’t have our backs the way we’ve tried to have their backs.  I hope and trust that I’m wrong, but it’s hard to make those niggling doubts completely go away. 

One of my comforts (other than knowing that the Lord is in charge, yada, yada, yada); is that for professional reasons I’m fairly confident that some things are going to come out in the next 2-3 months that will cause the Church’s PR guys quite a few headaches.  The full facts, if known, would tend to exonerate the Church—but few will be willing or legally able to provide any public statement that might independently collaborate the Church’s response.  (Incidentally:  buckle up, folks.  Take your vitamins, eat your Wheaties, say your prayers and read your scriptures and do all those things the prophet has been telling us to do.  I may well be wrong, but think it’s going to be an interesting year.)  If Sherinian is the snake in the grass that I rather suspect he is, he just won’t hold his job for very long under those circumstances.  He’ll either say something so stupid or off-base that the Q15 will have no choice but to distance itself from him—or the professional need to back the brethren when every fiber of his being revolts against it, will just plain make his head explode.

And a potential silver lining here is that if he is indeed good, he’s probably very good.  I believe his wife Emily was the originator of the “I’m a Mormon” campaign from 10-15 years back, which I thought was extremely well done.  

A thought I had while reading your post is how, from the beginning, the Lord has involved in His kingdom those who would ultimately fall away if not completely turn against His Church. Whether it's Lucifer, Judas or many of the early brethren who disaffected the Lord does not seem to fear disloyalty. And I think this aspect of building the kingdom is only going to get magnified with time. He will strengthen and use their talents until they decide on whose side they are really on. And I think we may be surprised by which side some choose both bad and good. But what we do know is that all things will be made to work to accomplish the Lord's purposes. That may make it a bit uncomfortable for us but there is purpose to that too.

[Carborendum]

15 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm sure you have a point. I'm just not sure what it is. Care to elaborate?

You had asked why there was a cause for concern.

I provided an example why there may be valid concerns even though the Lord still has overall governance of the Church.  At the same time, that very example gives a warning that our "concerns" shouldn't take us down the wrong path.  The warning being that we shouldn't use this concern as an excuse to leave the faith or stop listening to the Prophet.

• One cousin (and her household) left the Church because of one bad bishop who was later called to be stake pres.
• Another cousin (and her household) left the Church because Pres. Nelson required missionaries to get the jab.  And no one in her house was a missionary.

The thing about sifting is that the method of sifting is determined by the One in charge.

****************

I remember a general conference talk where the speaker (whom I believe to be one of the children of the household that he spoke of) told of a family who were verbally abused by the bishop in public because of something that the father had done.

The family went home feeling completely shamed and angry.  They were ready to leave the Church over it.  But when they got home, the father had them gather in the family room.  They all knelt and waited as the father seemed to be praying.

After a while the father opened his eyes and began to speak. 

(...to the best of my memory...)

"Children, this is not the bishop's church.  This is the Lord's church.  And we will do what the bishop is asking because the Lord wants us to, not because the bishop wants us to."

They eventually came back to full fellowship and all was well.

Edited January 13 by Carborendum

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You had asked why there was a cause for concern.

I provided an example why there may be valid concerns even though the Lord still has overall governance of the Church.  At the same time, that very example gives a warning that our "concerns" shouldn't take us down the wrong path.  The warning being that we shouldn't use this concern as an excuse to leave the faith or stop listening to the Prophet.

 

Maybe it's a gap in my knowledge. I really don't know what point you're trying to make.

I'm saying we shouldn't be concerned because God leads the church. God's plan is just. It'll all work out as it should. Etc.

And you're....I think....pointing out a time when there was concern from the people of the church....?? Meant as justification for and indicative that we should be concerned? Is that your point?

What's the actual fear here? Someone who deserved to be exalted now won't be?

God's plan is just. Those who should be exalted will be. Those who should be condemned will be. And in EVERY case that will be according to the agency of the individual.

The rest is interesting to watch and discuss. It's not worth "concern" though.

[Carborendum]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm saying we shouldn't be concerned because God leads the church. God's plan is just. It'll all work out as it should. Etc.

Yes, I got your point.  Let me put you into a situation.

You know that God is in charge.  At the end of all the tribulation of the end times, you know that the result is that the good guys win and the bad guys lose.  Then knowing that ahead of time means that we shouldn't have any worries or concerns, right?

Well, in a general sense, yes.  But the fact remains that during those times of tribulation, many people will still go through tremendous difficulty.  Some Latter-day leaders have said that the persecution of the end times will be more horrible than any we've seen in the history of the world.  Considering some of the horrors of history, that is pretty frightening.

With that in mind, is it a total, complete comfort that "all will be well in the end?"

Even Christ asked if there were any other way to do this.  Yes, He submitted to the will of the Father.  But He did "shrink that (he) might not drink the bitter cup."

Now, if you can keep your eye on the prize firmly enough that you can look forward to all the stuff that comes before it, you're a better man than I am.

I hope I can endure it.  But I know I certainly won't enjoy it.

[The Folk Prophet]

Addendum to my previous post to @Carborendum

I realize that read a certain way that what I wrote might come across as "all's well in Zion" or, "am I my brother's keeper" or the like. And I did not intend that messaging in it.

We should be concerned with our brother, and we should worry and fret over that. I just don't think it's useful to take broader church actions, policies, etc., and publicly fret over them.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, I got your point.  Let me put you into a situation.

You know that God is in charge.  At the end of all the tribulation of the end times, you know that the result is that the good guys win and the bad guys lose.  Then knowing that ahead of time means that we shouldn't have any worries or concerns, right?

Well, in a general sense, yes.  But the fact remains that during those times of tribulation, many people will still go through tremendous difficulty.  Some Latter-day leaders have said that the persecution of the end times will be more horrible than any we've seen in the history of the world.  Considering some of the horrors of history, that is pretty frightening.

With that in mind, is it a total, complete comfort that "all will be well in the end?"

Even Christ asked if there were any other way to do this.  Yes, He submitted to the will of the Father.  But He did "shrink that (he) might not drink the bitter cup."

Now, if you can keep your eye on the prize firmly enough that you can look forward to all the stuff that comes before it, you're a better man than I am.

I hope I can endure it.  But I know I certainly won't enjoy it.

And I'm not saying that the concern others have isn't natural. I'm suggesting a choice of determination in response. It's something I've had to consciously do in the past 5 years or so. I am naturally GREATLY concerned by these sorts of moves. But I choose to put that aside and trust in God. That is my response, rather than my natural instinct. If that makes sense.

[Grunt]

I reserve the right to be respectfully vocal about whatever I want to be respectfully vocal about.  I think it is a bad move to hire someone who is publicly in support of things that run contrary to Heavenly Father's order.  It makes me really question what is going on over there.   It doesn't affect my faith or obedience and to be honest I don't give it any thought.

Edited January 13 by Grunt

[mikbone]

I’m not one to complain much about the decisions of the machine that is the Church of Jesus Christ.  I may be baffled at times.  Or curious as to what the intentions are of the Lord - Brethren - or executives / administrators.

Anytime tithing funds go to pockets that appear to be fighting against the Lord makes me uneasy.

I am much more concerned about the faculty @ BYU than a communications director though.

Personally I’m not a big fan of marketing.

[MrShorty]

16 hours ago, zil2 said:

This is outside my stewardship, so I will trust the Lord to deal with it properly in his own due time.

This probably goes way deeper than just who is filling what job posting in the church, but I am a bit unsettled by this attitude.

For example (please focus on this as an example of a principle and let's not get bogged down in the specifics of the history), I think I've mentioned in this forum that I am often more troubled by the perpetuation of the priesthood and temple ban until '78 than its implementation back in the mid-19th century. As Pres. Oaks illustrated in his remarks at the Be One Celebration in 2018, this kind of "silent loyalty while not having a testimony" of whatever teaching or practice or policy or hire seems to be a part of what perpetuates false doctrines, practices, teachings, and bad hires. But, the church would descend into chaos if every member had to "vote" on each and every choice the church makes.

At the end of the day, I think @Grunt has the right idea. We ought to feel we have the right to be vocal about things we find problematic at church. But, we also have real trouble with questions of "activism towards the church" (as Elder Corbett taught us) and anything that even vaguely resembles it.

A single PR professional hire is probably relatively low on the priority list, so I doubt this specific scenario is going to have much impact. Even so, I find myself still troubled by the idea that we as church members need to quietly accept whatever the leadership throws at us without ever expressing concerns or doubts or contrary opinions.

[Anddenex]

14 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

One of my comforts (other than knowing that the Lord is in charge, yada, yada, yada); is that for professional reasons I’m fairly confident that some things are going to come out in the next 2-3 months that will cause the Church’s PR guys quite a few headaches.  The full facts, if known, would tend to exonerate the Church—but few will be willing or legally able to provide any public statement that might independently collaborate the Church’s response.  (Incidentally:  buckle up, folks.  Take your vitamins, eat your Wheaties, say your prayers and read your scriptures and do all those things the prophet has been telling us to do.  I may well be wrong, but think it’s going to be an interesting year.) 

Please DM the insider scoop.

[Vort]

25 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

For example (please focus on this as an example of a principle and let's not get bogged down in the specifics of the history), I think I've mentioned in this forum that I am often more troubled by the perpetuation of the priesthood and temple ban until '78 than its implementation back in the mid-19th century. As Pres. Oaks illustrated in his remarks at the Be One Celebration in 2018, this kind of "silent loyalty while not having a testimony" of whatever teaching or practice or policy or hire seems to be a part of what perpetuates false doctrines, practices, teachings, and bad hires. But, the church would descend into chaos if every member had to "vote" on each and every choice the church makes.

The problem with this illustration of principle is that the so-called Priesthood ban was of God. This is absolutely sure, at least to the level that God refused to rescind it as recently (at least) as David O. McKay. We may importune God as we see fit, but God is not required to do anything just because we ask it of him.

If there is a principle of the gospel of which you do not have a testimony. silent loyalty to that principle is your very best option until you gain a spiritual conviction of it.

[zil2]

32 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

...

You're making assumptions without sufficient detail, at least as regards me.  But if you don't want to go into specifics, then there's nowhere to go.  So all I can say is that you are falsely accusing me.

[mikbone]

Jesus Christ, during his ministry, didn’t have a marketing team.

Mark 7: 36 And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it;

But then again Jesus is way ahead of everyone and probably knew that his charge would be violated.  

Hence he may have been using reverse psychology as a means to his ends of a marketing program.  But I doubt it.

I hope that there are way more saints out there whom Christ healed that cherished his gift and heeded his words.

[Ironhold]

On 1/12/2024 at 12:47 PM, LDSGator said:

This guy worked for Phillip Morris? A company you can say, without hyperbole, is accountable for millions of deaths. We all need to feed our families and they can say whatever they want now about anti smoking, but that’s repulsive. 

At one point Phillip Morris owned a number of legit companies as a way of white-washing their image. I would need to check his resume to see if he was there at the time they owned these companies as he might have come up through one of these companies. 

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

You're making assumptions without sufficient detail, at least as regards me.  But if you don't want to go into specifics, then there's nowhere to go.  So all I can say is that you are falsely accusing me.

My apologies. I wasn't intending to accuse any individual of anything. My intent was to explore this idea that, when we find something uncomfortable in what the church is doing that we as LDS tend towards "silent loyalty," and whether that is a good thing or not.

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

The problem with this illustration of principle is that the so-called Priesthood ban was of God. This is absolutely sure,

I'm finding a growing number of faithful LDS who are much less than "absolutely sure" that it was of God. That's a big part of why the priesthood and temple ban is such a prominent issue for the church. Some are convinced that it came from God, others aren't, and nobody seems to have clarity to support their certainty. Certainly, Pres. McKay's experience is one data point in the overall analysis, but I'm unconvinced that it "absolutely" proves that the ban was of God.

However, my intent is not to dive into that rabbit hole. I find it interesting that the church's preferred answer to any of this hand-wringing over choices that the church makes is to have us choose to just trust them, that they are accurately representing God's will in everything they do, and that we as lay members are not responsible for the church's choices or doctrines or policies. What do we thing God wants us to do with our disagreements with the institutional church?

[mikbone]

@Just_A_Guy cc that DM with the inside info to my inbox as well.

Need to know how many bottles of Vitamins I need to stock up in the bunker.

Edited January 14 by mikbone

[Vort]

21 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I'm finding a growing number of faithful LDS who are much less than "absolutely sure" that it was of God. That's a big part of why the priesthood and temple ban is such a prominent issue for the church. Some are convinced that it came from God, others aren't, and nobody seems to have clarity to support their certainty. Certainly, Pres. McKay's experience is one data point in the overall analysis, but I'm unconvinced that it "absolutely" proves that the ban was of God.

However, my intent is not to dive into that rabbit hole. I find it interesting that the church's preferred answer to any of this hand-wringing over choices that the church makes is to have us choose to just trust them, that they are accurately representing God's will in everything they do, and that we as lay members are not responsible for the church's choices or doctrines or policies. What do we thing God wants us to do with our disagreements with the institutional church?

To clarify (and my apologies if this goes further down the rabbit hole, but the response of my inner twelve-year-old would be "You Started It!"):

What I said (or was attempting to say) is that, accoring to Greg Prince*, President McKay wanted to change the Church's policy with respect to who can receive the Priesthood. But in sincerely and repeatedly asking of God, he reported something like "the heavens were a brass ceiling over my head". While I realize that nothing a prophet says makes a particle of difference to non-Latter-day Saints, I would think that any faithful and believing Saint would interpret an utter lack of divine response to a Church President's direct, sincere, and repeated petition as just that: Silence from God. The man was literally asking God, "Can I ordain black men to the Priesthood", and God wasn't answering. If the policy of the Church was to avoid ordaining men of sub-Saharan African descent, how else could such silence from heaven be interpreted other than a negative?

*Not that I find Greg Prince to be a particularly credible source, but I see no reason to disbelieve this.

In contrast, when President Kimball asked that very same question of the Lord a decade or so later, he eventually received a clear spiritual response. When he presented the revelation to the Brethren, all testified that they received the same spiritual response. As a believing Latter-day Saint, I see no other reasonable interpretation except that God did not want LDS Church policy changed in the 1950s or 1960s or early 1970s when his prophet asked back then, but he did want it to change in the late 1970s when his prophet asked at that time. And if God specifically did not want a policy to change, then that is at the very least a tacit endorsement of said policy. Thus, at least to that degree, we can be completely sure the continuation of that policy was of God, regardless of how, why, or by whom it was instituted.

Edited January 14 by Vort

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, zil2 said:

You're making assumptions without sufficient detail, at least as regards me.  But if you don't want to go into specifics, then there's nowhere to go.  So all I can say is that you are falsely accusing me.

Yeah. Since when does, "I trust in God" mean "Just shut up"?

[MrShorty]

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

President McKay wanted to change the Church's policy with respect to who can receive the Priesthood. But in sincerely and repeatedly asking of God, he reported something like "the heavens were a brass ceiling over my head".

 

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

In contrast, when President Kimball asked that very same question of the Lord a decade or so later, he eventually received a clear spiritual response. When he presented the revelation to the Brethren, all testified that they received the same spiritual response. As a believing Latter-day Saint, I see no other reasonable interpretation except that God did not want LDS Church policy changed in the 1950s or 1960s or early 1970s when his prophet asked back then, but he did want it to change in the late 1970s when his prophet asked at that time.

I don't think it's a question of the historical happenings, but the interpretation. In a couple of podcast/youtube videos, Scott Woodward made the observation that, the very first time that the combined quorums of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 approached God, unitedly prepared to receive and accept the direction from God to extend priesthood to all, God granted the revelation. (See the race and priesthood series of the church history matters podcast at doctrine and covenants central). The implication that I see in this is that maybe Pres. McKay received no answer because the Q15 and the rest of the church writ large was unwilling/unable to receive and accept the revelation that God wanted to give. The revelation to extend the priesthood had to wait until the top quorums of the church and a threshold of the lay membership had prepared themselves to receive and accept that revelation.

I think I've said before here that the history of the priesthood and temple ban is a solid case study in what we believe about how God reveals things to the church. Perhaps in some future day, we will have a similar conversation about LGBT issues (and the hiring of brother Sherinian will be one data point in that larger narrative).