mikbone Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 (edited) The only thing I can imagine is that there is some concern for dropping numbers of active members and hoping to bolster the numbers by having a media director that is more inclusive, loving, accepting, etc… I’m not concerned about the numbers. I greatly prefer quality to quantity. I miss Boyd K. Packer and absolutely love it when Dallin H Oaks give talks full of core doctrine and the disaffected members get all in a tizzy. Edited January 16 by mikbone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 10 minutes ago, Carborendum said: That doesn't really line up with what I said. In my post prior to the one you responded to I said 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. Okay. What do you imagine might humiliate the church then that he would say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 (edited) 1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said: 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. Sure. But in this case it's hard and confusing and muddles the issue. The very ideas that we have both continuing revelation...but doctrine never changes.... Those ideas don't really work together. Edit: I understand that this has been defined this way at the top levels of the church in cases. I just don't understand how it's helpful to do so. But...sure... not my purview. Just my thoughts. Edited January 16 by The Folk Prophet Just_A_Guy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carborendum Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said: Okay. What do you imagine might humiliate the church then that he would say? It would depend on whatever the big secret is that JAG alluded to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Carborendum said: It would depend on whatever the big secret is that JAG alluded to. Whatever comes, if he doesn't do his job well, they'll remove him (or not), and the gospel will roll forth. Satan will continue to do what he does and God will continue in His purposes until he puts Satan down. I don't know, really, what there is to be "concerned" with. I'm not just trying to be contrary. I really don't understand. Quote "And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" Daniel 4:35 Quote "What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints." Doctrine and Covenants 121:33 Quote "And from thence, whosoever I will shall go forth among all nations, and it shall be told them what they shall do; for I have a great work laid up in store, for Israel shall be saved, and I will lead them whithersoever I will, and no power shall stay my hand." Doctrine and Covenants 38:33 Quote "Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing." Isaiah 40:15 Quote "O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth." Helaman 12:7 I mean add these to the myriads of similar scriptures... The ones @zil2 shared on being still, the repeated "fear not" scriptures. The might and power of God scriptures. The one's about God's wisdom, and about His work not being destroyed...for example: Quote "I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil." D&C 10:43 Etc. Etc. I mean I could literally post a hundred here that have similar ideas. Why should we fear? This guy won't destroy God's work. We can have 100% confidence in that if we have even the slightest faith in the written word of God and His promises. Edited January 16 by The Folk Prophet Just_A_Guy, askandanswer, zil2 and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carborendum Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said: Whatever comes, if he doesn't do his job well, they'll remove him (or not), and the gospel will roll forth. Satan will continue to do what he does and God will continue in His purposes until he puts Satan down. I don't know, really, what there is to be "concerned" with. I'm not just trying to be contrary. I really don't understand. Now you're just rehashing old arguments. Yes, I agree with you that in the end all will be well. I just look at all the crap that will be in the middle and have to wonder. And that can be as little as rolling your eyes at the comments from the peanut gallery or as bad as a crap-ton of persecution. Again, alls well that ends well is a correct philosophy. But that doesn't really help me to handle all the crap on the way to the end. I wish I were better than that. I'm trying to be. But for now, I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 3 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Now you're just rehashing old arguments [truth]. Fixed. And I'm rehashing it because people keep harping on about being worried or concerned. 5 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Yes, I agree with you that in the end all will be well. I just look at all the crap that will be in the middle and have to wonder. And that can be as little as rolling your eyes at the comments from the peanut gallery or as bad as a crap-ton of persecution. Again, alls well that ends well is a correct philosophy. But that doesn't really help me to handle all the crap on the way to the end. I wish I were better than that. I'm trying to be. But for now, I'm not. Lest you think falsely of me, I fully understand. I wish I too had more trust in God about the middle stuff. It scares me a lot. And I wish I felt more naturally fearless. But God tells us consistently to Fear Not! (I won't post 20 more scriptures here. But, you know, I could. ) At some level we need to exercise faith. Faith isn't knowing. It's putting our trust in, believing in, and commitment to an idea despite not having complete knowledge. Accepting the concept of "fear not" is a matter of faith. Not a matter of natural feeling. I too wish I were better at it. My expressions here are, actually, me trying to be. Because, after all, faith is a choice we make to act on an idea despite misgivings. I choose, partially by posting these so-called rehashed arguments, to be better than my natural man is. And, for what it's worth, I'm not sure it's as hard as people make it out to be to choose that. Something happens that we don't understand and frustrates and confuses us and we have two choices before us. Murmur, or show confidence. Also, fwiw, this rehashed argument is the only one with which we really ought to be concerning ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Posted January 16 Report Share Posted January 16 3 hours ago, zil2 said: 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 probably wouldn't be a member if I hadn't heeded the advice to prayerfully act in faith and received a crystal clear answer. zil2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laronius Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 9 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. 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. And yet you understood what I meant. That is sufficient to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 (edited) 8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said: I don't know, really, what there is to be "concerned" with. I'm not just trying to be contrary. I really don't understand. I have close relatives, people whom I love more than anyone else in the world, who have left or are near to leaving the Church because of their perception that the Church does not stand strong and firm for the truth, but instead caters to those who love wickedness. At least two of them have pointed out that Catholicism, at least, has stood by the principles it proclaims even as society has shifted. Catholicism teaches that homosexual activity is a perversion of truth and is an evil action, and has not made any apparent concessions to homosexual groups to try to win their favor, other than repeat that people should be treated well. Catholicism teaches that using contraception is of a sinful nature, contrary to God's desires and a way of rebelling against God. Since about the time I was born, societal mores regarding childbirth have changed almost 180 degrees, yet the Catholics still stick to their guns. (The faithful ones, at least.) Some members would like to see the Restored Kingdom of God, the organization that was willing to let its men be imprisoned and their wives left to fend for the families rather than renounce the holy (as they considered it) practice of polygamy, show some of that same firmness when those in the great and spacious building point their fingers and mock. I confess that the thought has crossed my mind, as well. 8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said: Why should we fear? Clearly, we should not. We have been encouraged and even commanded not to fear. But you asked why people are concerned. And whether or not concern is merited, the reasons for concern seem obvious to me. Edited January 17 by Vort mikbone and Carborendum 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 8 hours ago, Vort said: Clearly, we should not [fear]. We have been encouraged and even commanded not to fear. But you asked why people are concerned. And whether or not concern is merited, the reasons for concern seem obvious to me. It seems like you're separating the ideas of "fear" and "concern", which has some validity if what one means by "concern" is, indeed, separate from having "fear". It's my perception that most of what's being expressed by way of "I'm concerned" is semantically synonymous to "I'm scared". Obviously we should be concerned about the well being of the church, the well being of family, the well being of friends, and so forth. But when that means, "I'm scared about what's going to happen" then I think it's legitimate to respond by suggesting that we need to remember that the Lord has said to fear not. Honesty dictates that we look at our feelings and consider the faith we're giving to the matter. That's all I'm suggesting. Otherwise, what you get, just as you've described, is that fear is leading people near to leaving the church for Catholicism or Orthodoxy or whatnot. That's a result of fear. It's a result of not trusting in God. Frankly, I find it a bit stunning that when I or others suggest that we should be at ease on the matter that there's so much resistance to the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikbone Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 (edited) 20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said: it seems like you're separating the ideas of "fear" and "concern" To me, the difference is between steadying the ark (fear) and keeping your oil lamp topped off (concern). One version is faith in the arm of the Lord. The other version is panic and alarms. It reminds me of one of my favorite comedians when retelling an event wherein one of his brothers breaks his arm going over a bicycle ramp (recognized by the wonky angle) and another brother yells “GET SOME LEAVES!” - A good example of panic Edited January 17 by mikbone askandanswer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carborendum Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 (edited) 23 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said: "I'm concerned" is semantically synonymous to "I'm scared". Words, words, words... Context matters. Even the word "fear" or "afraid" can have many different levels including respect or dislike. Did the client accept our proposal? -- I'm afraid not. Fear of the Lord is not (just) being afraid of hellfire and damnation. It also includes a "healthy respect" for something that is very powerful (much as a bullfighter has a "healthy respect" for the horns of the bull). I know that if I go too fast on the road I could get into an accident. So, I take precautions. All of these words have slightly different meaning depending on context. And multiple people here have given enough exposition and proper context to relay that it is a very different feeling than you are trying to shoe horn into the conversation. But you're not even allowing for the meaning which has been clearly denoted. If Sherinian ends up doing something to make the Church look bad, I'm sure that most of the faithful Saints will just roll their eyes and blow it off. But what if one of your children decided that this lampooning of the Church was actually valid and left the Church over it? All's well that ends well? Just shrug it off? I have some friends and relatives teetering. Some have already left because of this sort of thing. Will all be well? Sure, if you consider some people with weaker testimonies being shoved off the cliff as "all's well." Edited January 17 by Carborendum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old Posted January 17 Author Report Share Posted January 17 On 1/16/2024 at 1:35 AM, 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. Well you have definitely hit on something EXTREMELY important. "For one thing, it ignores the role of the reader in interpreting scripture." Exactly; which is why there are 64 thousand flavors of protestantism. It's why Dan McClellan has such a huge following. The LDS Church claims that the higher leaders of the Church have the ultimate authority to determine what the correct interpretation is of scripture. The problem with this idea is that again there is no firebreak. The LDS Church underlying it all as you have said can have one Prophet proclaim God has revealed that the sky really is green (picking something ridiculous) and the next Prophet can proclaim God has revealed that the sky is really red. The only firebreak is the collective belief that God would remove (i.e. cause to die) any man who attempted to lead the Church astray. Except that belief is not based in scripture, it is based in one of the men who flipped the switch on what was official doctrine and proclaimed that what he was saying was God's Word and then the members of the Church agreed it was. This was made 100% self-evident when during COVID, my Stake President got up and stated unequivocally that we could throw out the entirety of the Scriptures, we didn't need them, because we have a Living Prophet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old Posted January 17 Author Report Share Posted January 17 26 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said: Otherwise, what you get, just as you've described, is that fear is leading people near to leaving the church for Catholicism or Orthodoxy or whatnot. That's a result of fear. It's a result of not trusting in God. Frankly, I find it a bit stunning that when I or others suggest that we should be at ease on the matter that there's so much resistance to the idea. This is all stylish, academic and whatnot . . . .until it becomes real. When your kids start becoming indoctrinated at Church to love all things LGBTQ+. When transgender cabins at youth camps are a thing, when same-sex pick-ups occur at youth dances, etc. etc. etc. When it doesn't affect you or the kids you are raising, what you say is all wonderful. But then it does affect your kids, your ward is infected, the ward next to you is infected, this stake, that stake . . . at some point . . .the theoretical "trust God and STAY IN THE CHURCH" becomes "trust God and flee the Church to a place where your children will be raised to be Christian". The hardest things for traditionalist in the Church is to accept and recognize that many people leaving are not the people where left of yesterday. Many who previously left no longer believed in God, Christ, any Christian values. Many today are leaving precisely BECAUSE of Christian values, BECAUSE they believe in God, Christ, traditional values and see it is not being taught, preached or practiced in the Church and they are leaving for other locations that do teach it. The only thing left individuals have to say "you MUST STAY", why? "because the Church is true". Okay, sure, but why when my kids are being indoctrinated into all manner of false idols and false gods and perversion? "it doesn't matter, you must stay!". Okay, I hear you. Appreciate the input-walk a mile in my shoes before requiring me to sacrifice my children upon the alter of the LGBTQ+ woke god infecting the LDS church. Carborendum 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil2 Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 27 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said: Obviously we should be concerned about the well being of the church, the well being of family, the well being of friends, and so forth. But when that means, "I'm scared about what's going to happen" then I think it's legitimate to respond by suggesting that we need to remember that the Lord has said to fear not. Honesty dictates that we look at our feelings and consider the faith we're giving to the matter. That's all I'm suggesting. Otherwise, what you get, just as you've described, is that fear is leading people near to leaving the church for Catholicism or Orthodoxy or whatnot. That's a result of fear. It's a result of not trusting in God. The last time I read the book of Moses, I tripped over a very interesting sequence: Quote Moses 1:19 And now, when Moses had said these words, Satan cried with a loud voice, and ranted upon the earth, and commanded, saying: I am the Only Begotten, worship me. 20 And it came to pass that Moses began to fear exceedingly; and as he began to fear, he saw the bitterness of hell. Nevertheless, calling upon God, he received strength, and he commanded, saying: Depart from me, Satan, for this one God only will I worship, which is the God of glory. One would not be surprised at all if seeing the bitterness of hell invoked fear. But here we see that the fear came first and seeing hell came second! Now why would that be? I submit that it is a consequence of faith in Satan! I don't think Moses believed what Satan was saying, but rather, he believed that Satan had power to carry out implied threats, and the mere act of believing this increased Satan's power over him to the point that Moses saw the bitterness of hell. Now, I'm not suggesting that Satan doesn't have power independent of our belief in that power - clearly he does. But his power over us appears to be variable and limited by where we place our faith / trust / belief. Alternately, faith / trust / belief subjects you to the thing you believe / trust / have faith in. So, keep your faith centered on Jesus Christ - always. [We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.] The Folk Prophet and laronius 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 (edited) Is there any noise in Utah over his hiring, or has it been regulated largely to social media? Are people talking about this in wards, in the newspapers, with each other? Edited January 17 by LDSGator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old Posted January 17 Author Report Share Posted January 17 (edited) 8 minutes ago, LDSGator said: Is there any noise in Utah over his hiring, or has it been regulated largely to social media? Are people talking about this in wards, in the newspapers, with each other? I would imagine in person-no. Individuals are in general too afraid of expressing any type of dissatisfaction with significant decisions the Church makes. The significant amount of social pressure to follow your leaders and obey is tremendous. The only people you might open up to would be really close friends and even then you take a risk that you might lose that friendship if one is seen as disaffected. Online is a lot safer. Edited January 17 by old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 (edited) 14 minutes ago, old said: The only people you might open up to would be really close friends and even then you take a risk that you might lose that friendship if one is seen as disaffected. Interesting, thank you. People who struggle with their testimony/have doubts feel the same way-that they can’t express it to anyone because they fear it’ll damage the friendship. I’ve had several people reach out to me saying exactly that. I find it both chilling and very strange. If you can’t express feelings to your true friends go out and find friends who you can be yourself with. You’ll be much happier. Edited January 17 by LDSGator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laronius Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 There are no "mistakes" that the Lord can't fix and ultimately use to His advantage. This knowledge acts like the metal rebar inside reinforced concrete in our teaching of following the prophet. Are prophets perfect? No. And they don't have to be because the Lord can take their best efforts and make it work. So it really doesn't matter whether these types of decisions are the result of direct revelation or just their best attempt to make things work because the Lord can and will make things work. This includes any negative fallout that results from decisions, inspired or not. It might cause us some hand wringing in the meantime but that is a natural part of how we grow in faith. This is how the Lord works with us in regards to our individual stewardships so I don't know why we would expect it to be any different for those who have a larger sphere of stewardship. zil2 and The Folk Prophet 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old Posted January 17 Author Report Share Posted January 17 15 minutes ago, laronius said: There are no "mistakes" that the Lord can't fix and ultimately use to His advantage. This knowledge acts like the metal rebar inside reinforced concrete in our teaching of following the prophet. Are prophets perfect? No. And they don't have to be because the Lord can take their best efforts and make it work. So it really doesn't matter whether these types of decisions are the result of direct revelation or just their best attempt to make things work because the Lord can and will make things work. This includes any negative fallout that results from decisions, inspired or not. It might cause us some hand wringing in the meantime but that is a natural part of how we grow in faith. This is how the Lord works with us in regards to our individual stewardships so I don't know why we would expect it to be any different for those who have a larger sphere of stewardship. The answer to this is yes of course. An individual who murders someone else must pay the penalty, repent, etc. And the individuals who are affected by the murder must forgive. So yes, that is the beauty of Christ. He descended below all things, there is nothing that we experience or can experience that is below what He experienced. As such, He is able to take that which is horrible and turn it to His Glory. That said, if we look around and see a group of individuals who are threatening murder, we don't have to let ourselves be killed either. We can either fight back or we can leave the area and go somewhere safer. Standing around when options are available to take action and simply praying "don't let them kill me", isn't really a wise option. Now, if we are taken by surprise then that is the best course of action. But if we are looking out and seeing the dangers, then we have an obligation to act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 (edited) 14 minutes ago, old said: Standing around when options are available to take action and simply praying "don't let them kill me", isn't really a wise option. Now, if we are taken by surprise then that is the best course of action. But if we are looking out and seeing the dangers, then we have an obligation to act. You aren’t planning on doing anything crazy towards the church are you? Am I misreading this? Edited January 17 by LDSGator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old Posted January 17 Author Report Share Posted January 17 4 minutes ago, LDSGator said: You aren’t planning on doing anything violent towards the church are you? Am I misreading this? Huh??? Are you nuts? LDSGator 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 (edited) 1 minute ago, old said: Huh??? Are you nuts? Just making sure. Thanks. And yes. Edited January 17 by LDSGator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 1 hour ago, LDSGator said: Is there any noise in Utah over his hiring, or has it been regulated largely to social media? Are people talking about this in wards, in the newspapers, with each other? Not even our sister forum MormonDialogue.org, where they literally talk every topic like this to death, are talking about this guy. It makes me wonder - @old, your opening post was a thoroughly researched and documented post. Did you get this stuff from somewhere, or did you get it yourself? I'm not demanding answers, but I would be interested if the work is yours or someone else's. LDSGator 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts