LDS Church's New Managing Director for Church Communication

[old]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I suppose we don't have have much of a basis to prove them wrong, either.   

I look at trends and underlying foundations of beliefs.  And with homosexuality it all goes back to a very simple concept.

Is sexually and or romantically desiring the same-sex missing the mark?

Is sexually and or romantically desiring an opposite sex individual who is not one's spouse missing the mark?

Is sexually and or romantically desiring an opposite sex individual while one is single missing the mark?

-------------------

What we indulge in, or allow to be indulged in our hearts and minds eventually becomes enacted in the world.

Sadly, the LGBTQ+ individuals have a significant and very important point. They are absolutely not treated like everyone else; that much is very, very true. And that inequality in treatment regarding matters of the heart and mind is exactly what is driving this and unless stopped will lead to a very logical, rational, theological change. It does not take a prophet or one with special gifts to see exactly where this is headed.

Will it get there? That depends on a multitude of factors; the fact remains the trend ain't looking good in the least bit.

 

Edited January 16 by old

[old]

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. 

And the statement above is exactly why it will go down the route it will go down. There is no firebreak whereby the collective body understands and knows . . .this thing is off the rails.

Now, growing up it was taught many, many, many times to judge whatever the prophet says against Scripture. If it is in alignment with Scripture then it is fine, if it is not in alignment with Scripture then you know the leaders are speaking not from revelation but from the wisdom & knowledge of man.

That understanding seems to have long, long been tossed out the window; or maybe it was never really believed but just said.

[old]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

"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.

Excellent comment.

"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."

Absolutely!!! There is a reason why the major faiths have been around for 1000s of years. The Ancient Faith of Christianity-2000 years, Judism 4000, Muslims (which are really heretical, defiled Christians . . .did you know Muslims believe in the virgin birth and ever-virginity of Mary??? wild) 1400 years.

Major changes in dogma result in splits; or wars to vanquish the infidels who do not believe in the new changes of dogma.

This type of major change in dogma is causing splits across many denominations . . .and it isn't finished yet.  As time progresses you'll end up seeing the consequences of the heretical beliefs as they are played to their natural consequences.  The Muslims were Christians that split from mainline Christianity in the 400s and then Muhammed came and took them over.  Over centuries one can see the similarities, but the differences are so great that they are not Christian. The same will happen with this issue.  

Those who want to indulge in this passion and those who do not have a strong enough backbone to resist it being taught will be part of a religion that will teach it is acceptable.  It will become self-evident over time that whatever new religion it becomes it most certainly won't be Christian-regardless of whether it takes that name or not.  

Will this new religion stand the test of time? Only time will tell. 

For me, I think I'd rather rely on the Christian values that have stood the test of time rather than some new fangled idea regardless of who teaches it.

[Just_A_Guy]

5 hours ago, old said:

And the statement above is exactly why it will go down the route it will go down. There is no firebreak whereby the collective body understands and knows . . .this thing is off the rails.

Now, growing up it was taught many, many, many times to judge whatever the prophet says against Scripture. If it is in alignment with Scripture then it is fine, if it is not in alignment with Scripture then you know the leaders are speaking not from revelation but from the wisdom & knowledge of man.

That understanding seems to have long, long been tossed out the window; or maybe it was never really believed but just said.

Fundamentally it depends on whether the modern prophets and apostles are what they say they are.  If so, then we can trust them to act as the “firebreak” when necessary.

Insofar as the Church ever really taught that “scripture always trumps prophets”, I’m not sure that’s really an ideal paradigm.  For one thing, it ignores the role of the reader in interpreting scripture.  For another, scripture can often be cited for both sides of a particular controversy.  For yet another, sometimes the scriptures are incomplete or silent or (most often in the case of the KJV) just plain wrong.  And for yet another:  sometimes God gives different instructions tailored to people in different times and places.  

“Scripture always trumps prophets” might be a useful generality to teach primary children; but at a certain point the exceptions become glaring enough that we start looking for more useful paradigms.

[Vort]

On 1/14/2024 at 4:30 PM, MrShorty said:

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.

Let me make sure I understand you correctly.

In your mind, telling a black man that he may be baptized, that he may enter into fellowship with the Saints and be one of them, he may eventually gain the celestial kingdom, and that, if faithful, he will receive all that God has as a fellow heir with Christ—but that he may not hold the Priesthood at this time—is morally the same as (or at least morally similar to) slavery and genocide.

Do I have that correct?

[Vort]

10 hours ago, mikbone said:

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.

Let us be clear. Few pro-abortionists actually believe that fetuses aren't human. They dismiss the issue with a wave of their hand. They don't even consider it. They use terms like "clump of cells" and "parasite". These people, for the most part, are deep in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity. Some younger, more naive, and (if we're honest) more foolish and weak-minded people probably do get sucked into this and simply accept the Satanic gospel of abortion rights without ever actually considering what they're saying. But everyone has to account for what he or she says and does, even the foolish. And I do not for a moment believe that the majority of the leadership in the pro-abortion movement have never considered these elements.

The praise of men is of more importance to many of them than the things of God. They have made their choice, and if they do not repent, they most assuredly will reap the fruits of their efforts.

[Grunt]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

Let us be clear. Few pro-abortionists actually believe that fetuses aren't human.

And those who are "pro-choice" use backwards logic as well.   "I wouldn't kill a baby, but it's not for me to tell someone else what they can't do"

[Carborendum]

50 minutes ago, Grunt said:

And those who are "pro-choice" use backwards logic as well.   "I wouldn't kill a baby, but it's not for me to tell someone else what they can't do"

Timcast once made a pro-abortionist eat his words.

Abortionist: A woman can control her own body.  The fetus is part of her body.  There's no denying it.
Tim: Well, what if a pregnant woman decided to take drugs throughout her pregnancy?  It's her body.  So can she do that?

A: Well, no, because at that point she's trying to kill the baby.
T: OK.  I don't really know what your position is anymore.

I was rather surprised.  The great majority of those who are all gung-ho on abortion would absolutely say she could do that.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 1/13/2024 at 2:05 PM, Anddenex said:

Please DM the insider scoop.

 

On 1/13/2024 at 5:02 PM, mikbone said:

@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.

I'll DM you if/when it becomes public; for now, it's probably a little too sensitive to go into detail about.   

[Carborendum]

On 1/13/2024 at 12:21 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

... 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.

Unfortunately, for me, I tend to worry that maybe this will allow Asherinian to "publicly humiliate the Church" rather than defend it. Can he be trusted to state the correct position and offer the complete information?

[laronius]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Fundamentally it depends on whether the modern prophets and apostles are what they say they are.  If so, then we can trust them to act as the “firebreak” when necessary.

Insofar as the Church ever really taught that “scripture always trumps prophets”, I’m not sure that’s really an ideal paradigm.  For one thing, it ignores the role of the reader in interpreting scripture.  For another, scripture can often be cited for both sides of a particular controversy.  For yet another, sometimes the scriptures are incomplete or silent or (most often in the case of the KJV) just plain wrong.  And for yet another:  sometimes God gives different instructions tailored to people in different times and places.  

“Scripture always trumps prophets” might be a useful generality to teach primary children; but at a certain point the exceptions become glaring enough that we start looking for more useful paradigms.

A distinction needs to be made between doctrine and policy. Doctrine does not change and we generally look to the scriptures, with assistance from the Holy Ghost, for this to be established (though living prophets certainly have a role in establishing accepted interpretation of the scriptures). But policy does change and has always been viewed as the prerogative of living prophets. So the question becomes where does doctrine end and policy begin? It's not always so clear. And the Church is always having to go out of it's way to remind members when changes are made that they are changes to policy not doctrine.

Policy as a rule should be the vehicle that helps implement doctrine. Whether it's three hour church or two hour church, the doctrinal purpose of attending church hasn't changed. But the policy did change to help emphasize the doctrinal role of the home in gospel learning. Likewise the policy about baptizing children of same-sex couples was in flux for a time but the Church was always clear that it's beliefs, doctrinally speaking, never changed.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, laronius said:

Doctrine does not change

I've always found this such a strange claim to make. It's applying meaning to a word that the word doesn't mean.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/doctrine

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/doctrine

"Doctrine" means what is taught and accepted by an organization. Obviously, by definition of the word, doctrine changes in the Church. And it's strange to me to try and define "doctrine" as something it is not. There are many things that have been taught and accepted by the church that are now no longer taught or accepted.

It would make more sense to add an adjective to the word. Eternal doctrine doesn't change. Core doctrine doesn't change. God's doctrine doesn't change. Or the like. But just "doctrine" obviously changes.

[mikbone]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It would make more sense to add an adjective to the word. Eternal doctrine doesn't change. Core doctrine doesn't change. God's doctrine doesn't change. Or the like. But just "doctrine" obviously changes.

https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-17-no-3-2016/doctrine-models-evaluate-types-sources-latter-day-saint-teachings

Here is the original article.  

I got it bookmarked.

[askandanswer]

On 1/15/2024 at 10:00 AM, MrShorty said:

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 think its important and helpful to have the kind of faith whereby you can say, after an appropriate degree of analysis, that I don't understand this particular issue, so I'm going to put it in the too hard basket for now, and move onwards, unperturbed, with an undivided focus on the final destination and the things that matter most.

[zil2]

8 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I think its important and helpful to have the kind of faith whereby you can say, after an appropriate degree of analysis, that I don't understand this particular issue, so I'm going to put it in the too hard basket for now, and move onwards, unperturbed, with an undivided focus on the final destination and the things that matter most.

I know one young man who, on his mission, received a vision in a dream in answer to his prayer to better understand Joseph Smith's first vision.  He had done all he could prior to this prayer to understand - lots of study and discussion and prayer, obedience and service.  In the vision/dream, he was told he now had a duty to bear witness of what he'd been given (which is how I heard of it - in sacrament meeting).

I'm not saying everyone will always get this kind of experience, but those willing to work hard, those who already believe God and whatever answer God will give (before receiving the answer - see Ether 3:11), those who are faithful and will continue forward no matter what, just might receive such a gift, if they work hard enough.  And in this case, probably, if they're the sort of person willing and able to keep their mouth shut - in the previous example, it's something already testified to over and over - in this case, the Lord has chosen to remain silent.  So if one wants personal revelation regarding it, one had better be prepared to keep it entirely to oneself to death (and that's no easy burden to bear).

[Vort]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Unfortunately, for me, I tend to worry that maybe this will allow Asherinian to "publicly humiliate the Church" rather than defend it. Can he be trusted to state the correct position and offer the complete information?

I doubt this will be a concern. My hope is that Brother Sherinian will grow from this job and perhaps reconsider some (many) of his endorsements. In any case, I have faith that Christ heads his Church and Kingdom, and that the leaders he has put in place will keep their hand on the tiller and will not lead us to ruin.

Edited January 16 by Vort

[Carborendum]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

I doubt this will be a concern. My hope is that Brother Asherinian will grow from this job and perhaps reconsider some (many) of his endorsements. 

I certainly hope so. But that hope is coupled with concern.

[zil2]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

Asherinian

Aaron Sherinian (Just FYI)

[Vort]

23 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Aaron Sherinian (Just FYI)

I knew that. I think I spelled his name correctly before. But I don't pay attention. I'll go back and correct myself.

Edited January 16 by Vort

[zil2]

Just now, Vort said:

I new that. I think I spelled his name correctly before. But I don't pay attention. I'll go back and correct myself.

It's all @Carborendum's fault - you were responding to his post where he did the same (username rather than name). (Just teasing, Carb!)

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

I think its important and helpful to have the kind of faith whereby you can say, after an appropriate degree of analysis, that I don't understand this particular issue, so I'm going to put it in the too hard basket for now, and move onwards, unperturbed, with an undivided focus on the final destination and the things that matter most.

The older and wiser I get, the more I realize that we don't understand much of anything, and in reality, it all ultimately needs to go in that basket.

[The Folk Prophet]

43 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I certainly hope so. But that hope is coupled with concern.

What do you think'll happen? Sherinian will put out an unauthorized statement like "Homosexuality isn't a sin any longer", and the Prophet and Apostles will just let it stand?

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I've always found this such a strange claim to make. It's applying meaning to a word that the word doesn't mean.

To be fair, in the Church we do sometimes take ordinary words and assign them very specific, theologically-loaded definitions that would seem foreign to outsiders.  

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

It's all @Carborendum's fault - you were responding to his post where he did the same (username rather than name). (Just teasing, Carb!)

No, it was my fault.  I noticed that as soon as you "corrected" Vort.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What do you think'll happen? Sherinian will put out an unauthorized statement like "Homosexuality isn't a sin any longer", and the Prophet and Apostles will just let it stand?

That doesn't really line up with what I said.

In my post prior to the one you responded to I said

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I tend to worry that maybe this will allow Sherinian to "publicly humiliate the Church" rather than defend it. Can he be trusted to state the correct position and offer the complete information?

Telling everyone the Church now endorses gay marriage is not "humiliating" the Church.

I also wonder about the big secret that JAG has to keep under wraps for now.  He said that once all the information is out, it will exonerate the Church.  But will he provide all the information in a manner that bodes well for the Church?

One cannot serve two masters.  When push comes to shove, which one will he choose?  That is a candid question.  I don't know.

I've known liberals leave because the Church wasn't accepting enough of gay rights.  I've known conservatives leave because the Church obeyed the law regarding masks, distancing, and getting the jab.

I've also known those on both sides who humble themselves in spite of disagreements and continue in faith.  I don't know which way he will go when all the chips are down.