LDS Church's New Managing Director for Church Communication

[zil2]

30 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

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).

I have never understood how people can make this correlation.  There is zero, absolutely zero logic to it.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

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.

In which case, God was tacitly supporting the so-called Priesthood ban by not revoking it, for whatever reasons he had. Thus it was divinely supported, whatever the circumstances of its original implementation.

I know you don't want to go down the rabbit hole, but I find the reasoning you described above completely unconvincing. We belong to a Church that we claim is the Restored Church of Jesus Christ. We claim that God the Father himself and the risen Jesus Christ physically stood before the founding prophet when he was but 14 years old. We claim that Joseph was given square plates made out of gold (!!) along with seemingly magical stones that allowed him to translate or somehow render the otherwise undecipherable characters engraven on these gold plates into English. We claim that each of us may receive revelation to the degree we prepare ourselves. We claim not only that we do ordinances through the very power of Jesus Christ, but that we can do them by proxy in behalf of dead people, and that such ordinances are acceptable to God and will be honored if the person being proxied receives the ordinances.

But we are to understand that the same all-knowing, all-powerful God responsible for such marvelous, miraculous institutions was too afraid to let black people hold his Priesthood until the late 20th century?

Nonsense. Remember, Joseph Smith ordained at least two black men of African ancestry to the Priesthood, one of whom stayed faithful throughout his life and reared a faithful posterity, and was apparently honored by those Saints who knew him. (At least, I've never read evil words about Elijah Abel*.) The very idea that God would cause all these miracles upon the earth and among his people, restoring his gospel and his very Priesthood, but then would chicken out from one particular instance of these radical changes because too many of the white members just weren't ready to accept black folks into fellowship, rings completely hollow. Remember, these are the same people who were willing to practice plural marriage, a far more reviled idea than that black people could be in fellowship with white people and others. It is my opinion that the only people such an explanation would possibly appeal to are those who have already decided that the Priesthood ban was wrong and evil, and thus are thrashing about, searching desperately for any explanation that might fill the obvious logical hole without abandoning LDS beliefs altogether.

*By the way, and apropos of nothing in particular: Given the old traditional explanation of African blacks being denied the Priesthood because they inherited through their ancestry the curse of Cain, I've always found it entertaining that the most famous example of a black man holding the Priesthood early in the restoration was a man named Abel.

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

In which case, God was tacitly supporting the so-called Priesthood ban by not revoking it, for whatever reasons he had. Thus it was divinely supported, whatever the circumstances of its original implementation.

 

1 hour ago, Vort said:

But we are to understand that the same all-knowing, all-powerful God responsible for such marvelous, miraculous institutions was too afraid to let black people hold his Priesthood until the late 20th century?

I think one of the most compelling things that I got out of Paul Reeves "Let's Talk About Race and Priesthood" was when Br. Reeves drew a parallel between the priesthood and temple ban and the problem of evil. I have long observed that part of the problem of evil is whether or not God causes or just allows evil to occur.

God could have prevented the holocaust, but He didn't, so somehow He must have tacitly approved it.
God could have prevented the wars that are currently raging in the world, but He didn't, so He must tacitly approve them.

One of the never ending issues that gets brought up in the problem of evil is whether God causes evil or simply allows evil. Because we usually assume that God is all-powerful so He could intervene, I often see an implicit conclusion that God somehow approves of the evil that occurs in the world, including human on human evil.

You are correct that God intervened in some remarkable and powerful ways to restore His church to the Earth. I'm not sure why He chose to allow the church to adopt and perpetuate this particular policy, but I don't believe that He wanted it. Somehow, just as with other evils that exist in the world, He chose not to intervene as the saints adopted some awful beliefs and practices. I don't have an answer for why He would do that, just as I don't have an answer for why God allows other evils to exist in the world.

[LDSGator]

18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

God could have prevented the holocaust,

I believe in God, but I totally understand how someone could lose their faith if they lost loved ones in world war 2. Atheism in Europe is skyrocketing, and if we had two world wars in under 50 years in Kentucky, Utah, and Alabama it would probably skyrocket here too   

[Vort]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

God could have prevented the holocaust, but He didn't, so somehow He must have tacitly approved it.
God could have prevented the wars that are currently raging in the world, but He didn't, so He must tacitly approve them.

The Jewish holocaust and the wars currently raging are not the very kingdom of God on earth. The two classifications are not comparable.

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Paul Reeves "Let's Talk About Race and Priesthood"

I'm sure Brother Reeves is a wonderful man. I bear him no ill will on a personal level. I find his arguments biased and utterly unconvincing. His book reads like that of a man who has made up his mind on the issue and is now looking to justify his position.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

One of the never ending issues that gets brought up in the problem of evil is whether God causes evil or simply allows evil. Because we usually assume that God is all-powerful so He could intervene, I often see an implicit conclusion that God somehow approves of the evil that occurs in the world, including human on human evil.

True enough, and this is certainly a fallacy. But we're not talking about evils in the world. We're talking about supposed evils within God's restored kingdom—and not just the expected evils of an imperfect membership, but evils of official administration and literally the doctrines taught in the Church for well over a century.

That's a pretty important claim. Such a claim should be established by a lot more than some philosophical armchair reasoning and fault-finding of supposed shortcomings of the early prophets and leaders of this dispensation, disguised as a simple and affectionate recognition of imperfection.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not sure why He chose to allow the church to adopt and perpetuate this particular policy, but I don't believe that He wanted it.

I appreciate your candor. Are you willing to consider that maybe God actually did institute that policy? Are you willing to grant that you do not know the mind of God well enough to base your opinion on what you believe God must think? Are you willing to concede that it's possible that the God who ordered his chosen people in the past to kill men, women, and children, the being who is the master and creator of life and death and who literally gives and takes life as suits his purposes, that same divine man who ordered Abraham to sacrifice his own son Isaac, may very well have good and sufficient reasons to give his Priesthood to whom he will and withhold his Priesthood from others as he sees fit, even if you don't now and probably never will (in this life) fully comprehend the reasons why?

I frankly don't care very much whether or not you agree with me on this. I'll like you either way. In fact, I freely admit I may be wrong. Strange that I have never found those on the other side of the issue willing to say the same about themselves and their opinions, though. They seem to have an urgency to encourage others to adopt their particular views. I don't understand this attitude, and when I perceive it I find it unpalatable.

Other than the fact that it seems distasteful, politically incorrect, and more than a bit embarrassing to you that the Church long had a policy of excluding black men of African descent from holding the Priesthood, do you have any particular and solid reason for doubting the divinity of the policy?

I mean, you can believe what you want, and I won't excoriate you for it. I enjoy our conversations, and don't harbor any ill feelings against you, either for this opinion or for any other that I'm aware of.

But I have had the experience more than just once or twice of being, in effect, taken to task by those who call themselves my brothers because THEY want to preach a version of restored truth that names early prophets of our time as "racist" and claim for themselves supposedly enlightened views on what they call "an erroneous and unfortunate policy". This they have done during Church meetings dedicated to teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Saints. When I have dared to object to the characterization of our prophets and opine the view—taught in the kingdom of God for over 130 years—that the policy was established by God for reasons known to him, they have reacted condescendingly and with barely concealed contempt and have rushed to point out that the long-accepted teaching I espoused is "just an opinion". Funny that, to my recollection, they have never bothered to mention that their own revisionist history is "just an opinion", as well.

[Vort]

12 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I believe in God, but I totally understand how someone could lose their faith if they lost loved ones in world war 2. Atheism in Europe is skyrocketing, and if we had two world wars in under 50 years in Kentucky, Utah, and Alabama it would probably skyrocket here too   

On my birthday earlier this week my Alsacian (French) mother-in-law died, less than a month shy of 91.  She was a survivor of the invasion of Nazi Germany, and her life was influenced strongly and, needless to say, very negatively by the occupying Nazi regime. She was a young girl at the time of the invasion. The spiritual cost to her family was enormous. The effect of those early experiences on her own marriage and children, indeed on every human connection she ever made for the rest of her life, was incalculable, something that will never be cured by anything but the atoning blood of Christ.

I understand why Europe in general and France in particular have slid into atheism over the last century. I don't understand why such an evil had to happen, but I count Europe's current irreligious state as an unfortunate effect of two devastating and horrific world wars.

Edited January 14 by Vort

[Vort]

As long as I had to delete this dupe, I'll use the space to post something I found concerning. Here, Sherinian celebrates a SC ruling that is not only bad law, but is literally directly counter to the Church's not-so-long-ago efforts in California in support of Proposition 8. Note his hashtags: "LoveisLove" and "MarriageEquality". Sherinian appears to be announcing to the world that homosexual unions are exactly the moral equivalent of heterosexual unions.

This is the man who now heads efforts to represent the Church to media and the world.

I trust in God, and I support my leaders. That I find it most incongruous and concerning that a man with these openly stated social beliefs was hired essentially for Church PR does not negate my trust in God or support of my leaders. But make no mistake, it's incongruous and I'm concerned.

Edited January 14 by Vort

[LDSGator]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

count Europe's current irreligious state as an unfortunate effect of two devastating and horrific world wars.

Same. 
 

Sorry for the loss of your MIL. 

[laronius]

13 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

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

Be still and know that I am God.

[laronius]

15 hours ago, MrShorty said:

What do we thing God wants us to do with our disagreements with the institutional church?

This is a worthwhile question.

My response would be take up personal concerns with leadership but do so in private. Publicly questioning Church policy only causes doubt in those who faith is weak and emboldens the enemies of the Church.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, laronius said:

Be still and know that I am God.

Quote

Exodus 14:13 ¶ And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will shew to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever.

Quote

2 Chronicles 20:17 Ye shall not need to fight in this battle: set yourselves, stand ye still, and see the salvation of the Lord with you, O Judah and Jerusalem: fear not, nor be dismayed; to morrow go out against them: for the Lord will be with you.

Quote

Psalm 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

Quote

Doctrine and Covenants 5:34 Yea, for this cause I have said: Stop, and stand still until I command thee, and I will provide means whereby thou mayest accomplish the thing which I have commanded thee.

Quote

Doctrine and Covenants 101:16 Therefore, let your hearts be comforted concerning Zion; for all flesh is in mine hands; be still and know that I am God.

Quote

Doctrine and Covenants 123:17 Therefore, dearly beloved brethren, let us cheerfully do all things that lie in our power; and then may we stand still, with the utmost assurance, to see the salvation of God, and for his arm to be revealed.

We do what we can righteously do, and then we stand still and see the salvation of God as he fights our battles, shows to all that he is God, provides means for our continued action, comforts us, and reveals his arm.  God is able to do his own work.

[MrShorty]

16 hours ago, Vort said:

Are you willing to consider that maybe God actually did institute that policy?

I like to think I'm open minded (but who doesn't like to think they are open minded?). For me, I think this particular issue falls in line with similar issues like slavery in the Bible or genocide in the Bible where the scripture/prophet(s) claim that God commanded/approved of something and we only have the scripture's/prophet's word that God said or did something. As noted, I would like to think that I am open to the possibility that God said or did things that seem so immoral to me. However, in cases like these, something about the immorality of the practice -- something about how the practice seems so anti-thetical to my understanding of the gospel and goodness and the nature of God and man -- demands a higher burden of proof than the explanation that God did not do what fallible prophets and errant scripture claim of Him.

I think I have mentioned here before that, IMO, Ben Spackman captures the real problem of the priesthood and temple ban in his blog post about slavery in the Bible: https://benspackman.com/2019/11/gospel-doctrine-lesson-40-colossians-and-philippians-but-mostly-philemon/

Spackman writes,

Quote

Scripture simply doesn’t reflect the eternal ideal, as we understand. How do we account for this? What model of scripture, revelation, and prophets allows “God’s word,” God’s prophets, and Jesus himself to do or allow something so… inhuman?

Spackman writes in the context of slavery, but I find the same thing can be said of allegations that God commanded genocide or that God commanded/approved of a race based ban on priesthood ordination and temple ordinances (I think it is important to remember that this wasn't just about who could officiate priesthood ordinances, but also who could receive ordinances that we claim are necessary for exaltation).

Even if I ever find myself convinced that God caused or approved of these "evils," I expect these issues to still end up under the problem of evil umbrella, as we then have to wrestle with the whys and wherefores and such of God who can and does inflict (or allow to be inflicted) practices on His people that seem so contrary to what we believe is right and good and true.

Adding as a hedge against "presentism" or some other "maybe we in the 21st century don't or can't understand God's moral calculus on these things. I think it is pretty solidly accepted in LDS circles that a major purpose of our mortal experience is learning to judge good and evil, right and wrong. IMO, if we are too quick to simply write this sort of thing off as "God's morality is inscrutable to mere mortals," then I think we are failing in some way to pursue our purpose in this life and learning how to judge right and wrong. Perhaps at the end of the day, I can begrudgingly accept that I just don't understand right and wrong the same way God understands right and wrong, but I am going to be uncomfortable with an inscrutable morality until the moment I can stand before God and ask Him to help me understand it.

[LDSGator]

32 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

but who doesn't like to think they are open minded

As a naive 20 year old I also thought that most people wanted to be thought of as open minded, but now I know better. People don’t want to be open minded, and they don’t care about being thought of that way. Instead, they want constant reassurance of their already held views. 

I pride myself on having friends who I disagree with. I had a two and half hour religious debate yesterday with  a friend on our way to and from a Gators basketball game. 

But I’m guilty of this too of course. 

Edited January 15 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

By the way, read this. It’s AWESOME.

 

And we won. Arkansas got spanked. 

Edited January 15 by LDSGator

[The Folk Prophet]

14 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I think it is pretty solidly accepted in LDS circles that a major purpose of our mortal experience is learning to judge good and evil, right and wrong

I can only speak for myself. And I can't say for sure whether this is solidly accepted by others or not. But I can say that in my current view, I don't think this is the purpose of our mortal experience. Rather, I think it's perhaps more of a benefit/blessing than a concrete purpose. And as with all blessings, to some it is given, to some it is not.

But even IF that is one of the major purposes of morality, then the question of HOW still needs to be considered.

It seems like you're suggesting that the how of it is that we need to learn to exercise our own mortal intelligence to figure it out. Therein lies destruction.

The purpose of life is stated as a proving grounds. But the test wasn't stated as "see if they will learn good from evil", but rather to "see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them".

It seems to me that the how of the matter lies therein. We learn good from evil by doing what the Lord commands.

After all, what's inscrutable to one seems plain to another. Believing that anything I find inscrutable is the end-all control for morality is such an arrogant and prideful idea.

[old]

Looks like he and his wife are also financial contributors/donors to the Gay Men's DC Choir.

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, old said:

Looks like he and his wife are also financial contributors/donors to the Gay Men's DC Choir.

Wonder if they are any better than the San Fran Gay Choir

 

[Just_A_Guy]

On 1/14/2024 at 7:53 AM, laronius said:

This is a worthwhile question.

My response would be take up personal concerns with leadership but do so in private. Publicly questioning Church policy only causes doubt in those who faith is weak and emboldens the enemies of the Church.

I generally agree, but will point out in partial response that the enemies of the Church are *already* emboldened by the mere appointment of a man whom they see as one of their own.  In their paradigm, all they need to do is usurp a few high-profile positions, and then the Church membership like sheep will quietly do the bidding of the libertines.

I don’t want to unduly embarrass the Q15, but part of me also wonders if maybe it isn’t a bad thing for the libertines to know that they’ll never be able to wholly do our thinking for us no matter what positions—or even quorums—some of their allies manage to infiltrate.  

[Just_A_Guy]

47 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Wonder if they are any better than the San Fran Gay Choir

 

Didn’t it turn out that 4 or 5 of those guys did indeed have convictions for doing bad things to kids?

[old]

18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Didn’t it turn out that 4 or 5 of those guys did indeed have convictions for doing bad things to kids?

And that surprises anyone? 

I am convinced that eventually the whole sick, twisted underbelly of this "movement" will one day be exposed and it will knock the socks off of any "MeToo" like movement.   Two homosexual men adopting children together . . . . one day society will look back at this with horror like lobotomies and all sorts of other horrible experiments done...  

[mikbone]

6 minutes ago, old said:

one day society will look back at this with horror like lobotomies and all sorts of other horrible experiments done...  

Yup, same thing with abortions.

Within the next 100 years science will prove that human fetuses are the same as babies.

And then we will have to recognize that we had our own home grown holocaust right here in the promise land.

[Just_A_Guy]

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Adding as a hedge against "presentism" or some other "maybe we in the 21st century don't or can't understand God's moral calculus on these things. I think it is pretty solidly accepted in LDS circles that a major purpose of our mortal experience is learning to judge good and evil, right and wrong. IMO, if we are too quick to simply write this sort of thing off as "God's morality is inscrutable to mere mortals," then I think we are failing in some way to pursue our purpose in this life and learning how to judge right and wrong. Perhaps at the end of the day, I can begrudgingly accept that I just don't understand right and wrong the same way God understands right and wrong, but I am going to be uncomfortable with an inscrutable morality until the moment I can stand before God and ask Him to help me understand it.

I don't think we have to go so far as to say "golly gee willikers, no one knows what the will of God really is; so I guess we're all just the moral kings of our own individual universes!"  (Not saying that's your position; just waxing hyperbolic for argument's sake.)

On the other hand, I think Spackman would likely point out that we, too, approach scripture and history and morality and God Himself with our own set of cultural expectations.  Our own perceptions on gay marriage and race-and-priesthood are heavily influenced by--if not exclusively 21st-century--certainly post-Enlightenment Western notions such as liberty, democracy, equality, power (and who should wield it), culture, race, ethnicity, the modern nation-state, cross-cultural sensitivity, the tension between universal ethical standards versus allegiance to one's own identity group, the relationship between individualism and collectivism and between duty and personal fulfillment/happiness (both in society as a whole, and within the constraints of one's own "clan"), covenant, child-rearing, and relatively unique constructs of "love" generally and "romance" in particular.  In the absence of modern prophets speaking authoritatively for God, we're on extremely tenuous ground if we assert that these particular values and notions are morally/ethically superior to those that rooted earlier civilizations; or if we purport to know God's will about any particular topic any better than any other person at any other point in history.  

It's especially perilous for us as Latter-day Saints to make projections about what kind of behaviors (or, for that matter, doctrines) will become en règle in the future; because the whole notion of living prophets presupposes that God has information to give to future generations that He didn't give to past generations--that He will expect actions of future generations that He did not expect of past generations.  We can't say for sure that divine ratification of same-sex marriage is impossible; any more than we can rule out the banning of the color cyan, the mandating of eating fish on Fridays, a proscription on home solar arrays, the restoration of plural marriage (including concubinage), or a re-institution of a race/lineage-based priesthood ban.  For all we know, tomorrow night President Nelson will get a revelation that the Savior of the World was actually an overweight pipefitter with a heart condition named Earl who died in Chicago in 1954. 

We conservatives have to concede that in theory, as far as the future goes, nothing is completely off-the-table.  (Obviously, there are eternal truths and divine absolutes and there are indeed things that will never be permissible, worlds without end; but our ability to "know" precisely which parts of the Gospel as we understand it are truly immutable, is somewhat malleable.)  All we can do is take a proposed doctrinal innovation and weigh it against the body of revelation and practice the Church has already received, and make sometimes-tentative and sometimes-pretty-darned-confident declarations about how "this could actually fit and solve a lot of problems" versus "this would be a radical departure from everything we have known and done in the past".  (And then, of course, comparing that necessarily-subjective conclusion to the whisperings of the Spirit and the pronouncements of the current Church authorities.)

When dealing with these kinds of questions, I think it's also easy to fall into an overly simplistic discourse about "what God wanted."  The fact is, human motives aren't that clear-cut, and I don't know that God's are either.  I don't want to eat my vegetables, or get up and go walking at 5 AM, or discipline my kids for misbehaving in a particular way.  But I do it, because I'm playing a longer game, and I know that distasteful actions in the here-and-now are necessary to attain a particular goal over the longer-term.  

In that sense, I have no problem agreeing with @MrShorty that God probably didn't want to impose the priesthood ban.  It's not how He got his kicks and giggles.  But for some reason, He found it necessary.  That reason could be any one of a myriad of things.  Maybe it was due to the prejudices of Church members.  Maybe it was necessary for the sake of PR for a church operating in a hopelessly prejudiced region.  Maybe it was, as Elder McConkie stated after the fact, an extension of God's practice of dispensing the Gospel to different peoples at different times.  Maybe it was strategically necessary as a guide for the Church to focus first on growing in the areas where Church growth would prove most sustainable while avoiding areas where Church efforts would be undone in coming decades due to political or cultural upheaval.  Maybe a blanket ban nipped in the bud the pretensions of designing, predatory men (William McCary, perhaps, or others) who, if they could claim authority via priesthood ordination, may have led thousands astray or even precipitated a race-based schism in the Church.  Maybe President Young (as interpreted by Reeve) was actually right that there really is something to the idea of Africans having common descendancy from Cain or some similar ancestor, and it being improper to allow that ancestor to have priesthood-bearing seed under the Patriarchal Order for a period of time.  Maybe there were factors going on in the pre-existence that we know nothing about.  We've been asked not to hitch our wagon to any particular speculative explanation, and so I try not to.  But that doesn't mean that no such explanation in fact exists.  

On the other hand, stripped of 21st-century cultural baggage, the theological argument against divine origin of the ban seems to me to boil down to the protestation that "the God I worship just wouldn't do such a mean thing!"  The trouble with this argument is that, as @Vort points out, Prince's biography of McKay cites multiple witnesses to illustrate persuasively that God did do such a mean thing, as recently as the 1950s.  Which pretty much eviscerates the argument that He could not also have done such a thing in the 1850s.  (And of course, Jews in the spirit world awaiting their redemption who happen to have died during the Holocaust, continue to suffer under a current race-based temple ban vis a vis proxy temple work; and that happened within the last twenty years.)  

Probably inevitably, arguments over the priesthood ban don't really revolve around the question of whether it was a divinely-instituted necessary-evil.  Instead they tend to jump to the assumption that President Young, President McKay, and the other pre-McKay prophets instituted or maintained a spurious discriminatory practice against God's instructions and due to nothing more than their own unquestioning adoption of broader cultural discriminatory mores and oppressive power dynamics.  Because the modern political ramifications of such a position are fairly obvious:  If the GAs were hateful fun-sucking old doodie-heads once upon a time, then they probably are again; so we'll just wait for their moral judgment to catch up with ours, and in the meantime bring on the sexy time!!!  

But, with regard to gay sex and gay marriage vis a vis the priesthood ban:  Reeve himself, in a podcast interview with Gospel Tangents around 2018-2019, pointed out that there is a distinction between that and the priesthood ban; as gays do have the option to govern their behavior in such ways as to make them eligible to receive priesthood and temple blessings.  It's also worth noting that there was a very early LDS tradition of ordaining at least a few black men to the priesthood, and that even when the ban was imposed Young foresaw that it would someday be lifted.  By contrast, there is no precedent in LDS history for permitting or solemnizing gay sexual relationships at any point in its history and no authoritative suggestion by a GA that such unions will ever be permissible.  

Like I mention above, when talking about future Church policy we can probably never say "never" with one-hundred percent confidence; because we simply don't know everything and we do believe that the Restoration is ongoing.  But as many have shown in a variety of contexts, it's always tempting to trip all over ourselves trying to pre-emptively follow what we fancy the prophets will be saying in 50 years, to the point that we forget to follow what they're saying right now.  The current Church position is the one that keeps us safe, leads us to Zion, and ultimately introduces us into the Divine presence.

And if a person's going to prattle on about how someday the Church will allow gay sealings in its temples, I feel like I have a right to prattle on about how someday both society and the Church will allow the children of apostates and outsiders to be sold into slavery.  My prediction, having the value of scriptural precedent behind it, would be just as well-founded as theirs is.  And if @mikbone or @old or @The Folk Prophet tells us all that we should start praying to Pipefitter Earl the Corpulent on the basis that that's what all the Mormon cool kids will be doing as of 2124--I suppose we don't have have much of a basis to prove them wrong, either.   

Edited January 15 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

41 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We can't say for sure that divine ratification of same-sex marriage is impossible; any more than we can rule out [a bunch of other stuff]...that the Savior of the World was actually an overweight pipefitter with a heart condition named Earl who died in Chicago in 1954. 

Kinda playing it fast and loose with that underlined word there I think.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And if a person's going to prattle on about how someday the Church will allow gay sealings in its temples, I feel like I have a right to prattle on about how someday both society and the Church will allow the children of apostates and outsiders to be sold into slavery.  My prediction, having the value of scriptural precedent behind it, would be just as well-founded as theirs is.

Your prediction would be better founded.  All scripture makes it clear that same-gender sex and marriage will never be approved by God - indeed, logic itself dictates the same.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We conservatives have to concede that in theory, as far as the future goes, nothing is completely off-the-table.  (Obviously, there are eternal truths and divine absolutes and there are indeed things that will never be permissible, worlds without end; but our ability to "know" precisely which parts of the Gospel as we understand it are truly immutable, is somewhat malleable.)

"Nothing"  "Completely". 

These two words are where the liberals have a point.  But the prick of that tiny point is somehow magnified into a ballistic missile of LGBTQ justification/rationalization that MUST be accepted and imposed upon the backwards conservative dinosaur who is too steeped in ancient superstition and tradition to understand God's "true" motives.  So say the woke prophets who deign to speak to us from their protected positions of authority.

No.

Religion by its very nature is conservative.  Without that trait, it would not be a religion.  It would be a fad political movement.  If religion is to change so wildly with every generation, the purpose of any religion in society would be completely untenable.

Religion codifies "acceptable behavior" in a manner that it would be tyrannical for government to do.  But is required to be stable if it is to have any benefit.  Only slow, gradual changes across several generations even have a chance at being a credible movement.

Any major changes in religion requires prophecy (not a social movement) to justify a sudden change.

The trans movement?  It was so far off the radar that neither Obama nor Hillary were willing to allow trans to use the bathroom of the opposite sex.  And pundits were touting the fact that it would never be pre-operative transexuals.  Only post-op.  And it would be ridiculous to believe the movement would go that far.

Well, here we are about 8 years later, not even a full generation, and it is being shoved down our throats without a consideration for all the harm it is doing to our children.  It isn't even allowed to be debated in public forums open to the lay person.  Parents are arrested for addressing a school board or a PTA meeting about how their daughters are being raped by a male pretending to be a girl.

And virtually all liberal Latter-day Saints are trying to claim this is the road that the Lord wants us to go down as a Church?

Back to the original point, Yes, almost nothing is off the table.  But we obviously need to keep things that are absolutely core beliefs as sacred and undeniable.  The Atonement of Christ is central.  There is no substitute.

But when we consider some things so close to the core that most of the rest of our belief system simply wouldn't make any sense without it, we need to pause for just a moment to consider.  How close to the core does it need to be for us to require and truly demand of the Lord that we receive a divine manifestation on the order of the First Vision?

Sealing, eternal families, the roles of father and mother, husband and wife.  With the past 150 years of understanding how important these are, and to change to beliefs that have been condemned throughout all of human history, without any explanation other than, "Hey society is saying so, and we need to get with the program" do we not have a right to demand such a manifestation if we are expected to go along with it?

Where is the doctrinal and theological basis for such change?

All I've ever heard is "Society says so.  Therefore, the Church will have to change to catch up."

Is this where we are?  Society (not God) tells the Church which direction to go?  I thought the whole purpose of the Church was for us to influence society -- not the other way around.  God's law is to stand as immutable as possible.  And we don't change our values, only our priorities based on the needs of that generation.

If we choose to go along with gay marriage and trans ideologies, it is to the destruction of the family and the death of the human race.  We do this to the detriment of our eternal destinies and our utter destruction.

Edited January 16 by Carborendum