LDS Church's New Managing Director for Church Communication

[Carborendum]

1 minute ago, askandanswer said:

coloUr

FREAKING AUSSIE!!!

[askandanswer]

5 hours ago, old said:

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.
 

The Stake President's actions here are entirely consistent with one of my all-time favourite talks, given by President Benson at BYU in 1980 when he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

Here is part of that talk:

Second:The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: “You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.”

When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.” [In Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19]

It always surprises me that people are more willing to give heed to the words of prophets from thousands of years ago in totally foreign cultures, than they are to the words of prophets living here and now. 

[old]

52 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I remained active in the church because in my mid teens I prayed for and received a spiritual assurance that the church was true. I like to think that it would take a similar experience for me to leave the church - not a change in teaching or doctrine or leadership or communications directors - but a spiritual experience, as clear and as reliable as the experience that first led me to continue coming to church.  Anything less would be open to questioning and doubt.

I agree. I have had many spiritual experiences with LDS. And I have also had spiritual experiences outside of LDS. I wouldn't have served a mission had I not had a spiritual experience from God in which I knew it was what I needed to do. While tremendously hard, I loved my mission, I still do.  I wouldn't change a thing about it.

However, over time it became self-evident to me that my spiritual well-being and those of whom I am in charge of providing for were being damaged by the faith of my youth. This wasn't a "I am so desperate to leave", this was "I/we are doing everything we can to stay".  Eventually the quantity and quality of negative spiritual experiences overrode the positive spiritual experiences and we came to the point where we know that God was directing our paths outside the LDS Church. This is just as powerful of an experience (if not more so) than what it took to stay or as an experience gained to serve a mission.

And now after the quantity and quality of positive spiritual experiences elsewhere that are tremendously positive-we feel God is calling us elsewhere.

[NeuroTypical]

16 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

I see that bet and raise you with this: 

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear.  You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted."
   - Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1956, 3:203-4"

"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.
 - President Harold B. Lee, The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973"

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)
 

Also, folks who think prophets and leaders are perfect, need to spend more time reading scripture.  From my "I used to argue with Christians a lot on this topic" file: 

Quote

Could a prophet...

Kill? Jg 14:19 (Samson); Ex 2:11-16 (Moses).

 Lie? Gen 12:10-29 (Abraham); Jer 38:24-28 (Jeremiah); 1 Ki 2:8-9 (David); 2 Ki 8:10 (Elisha); and Mt 26:69-75 (Peter).

 Get drunk? Genesis 9:21 (Noah).

 Boast? 2 Cor 11:16 (Paul).

 For a small fee, use his supernatural powers to tell where to find lost animals? 1 Sam 9:6-8, 20.

 Prophesy of an event which fails to occur? Jon 3:1-10; Jer 18:5-10.

 Gamble? Jg 14:12-20.

 Be angry at God? Jon 4:1, 9.

 Believe something unscientific? Lev 11:6; Deu 14:7 (the hare does not chew the cud).

 Curse children? 2 Ki 2:23-25 (Elisha).

 Want vengeance? Ps 137:9; Jer 18:19-23.

 Contradict a former prophet? Mt 19:3-8 compare Deu 24:1-4 (divorce); 2 Sa 24:1 compare 1 Ch 21:1 (who caused David to sin?); Ex 34:7 compare Ez 18:20 (are children punished for the sins of their fathers); Ex 23:7 compare Ro 4:5 (does God justify the ungodly?).

 Fail to understand a revelation? Ac 10:3, 17; 1 Cor 13:9-12.

 Advocate divorce? Ezra 9, 10:3, 11, 19, 44.

 Institute strange sounding rituals? Ex 29.

 Give counsel not approved by the Lord? 2 Sa 7:1-5 (Nathan).

 Worship false gods? 1 Ki 11:9-10.

 Accept a position as the chief of magicians, astrologers, and soothsayers? Dan 5:11.

 Break God's moral law? Jg 16:1 (Samson visits a prostitute); 2 Sa 11 (David and Bathsheba).

 Give two contradictory prophecies? 1 Ki 22:14-18?

 Lie to another prophet in the name of the Lord? 1 Ki 13:11-32.

 Accuse God of deception and betrayal? Jer 20:7.

Go out in public naked? Is 20:1-6 (Isaiah); 2 Sa 6:20-22 (David); Mic 1:8 (Micah).

Attribute doubtful characteristics to God? 2 Sa 6:6-7 (God kills in anger); Ex 7:3 (God hardens Pharoah's heart); 2 Sa 24:1, 10 (God punishes David for a sin he "moved" him to commit); 1 Ki 22:9-23 (God causes prophets to lie); Ez 14:9 (God deceives prophets); Am 3:6 (God is the cause of evil in a city); Ez 20:25-26, 31 (God gave laws and judgments which were not good, including child sacrifice); Hos 9:15-16 (God hates and curses); Deu 20:10-11, Lev 25:44 (God commands and condones slavery); 1 Sa 16:14, 18:10 (God sends evil spirits to influence men); 2 Th 2:11 (God will delude men); Ex 32:14, Deu 28:68, Am 7:3, 6, Jonah 3:9, 10, Jer 26:13; 2 Sa 24:16 (God changes his mind).

Be wrong about what God wants?  1 Chronicles 17, verses 2-5:
1 NOW it came to pass, as David sat in his house, that David said to Nathan the prophet, Lo, I dwell in an house of cedars, but the ark of the covenant of the LORD remaineth under curtains.
2 Then Nathan said unto David, Do all that is in thine heart; for God is with thee.
3 And it came to pass the same night, that the word of God came to Nathan, saying,
4 Go and tell David my servant, Thus saith the LORD, Thou shalt not build me an house to dwell in.

Teach doctrines which contradict earlier scriptures or were totally unknown to earlier prophets?   Peter's revelation concerning the consumption of unclean animals (Acts 10:9-20) contradicts earlier revelations given to Moses (Leviticus 10:10-11; 11:4-47; 20:22-26; Deuteronomy 14:1-20). Paul received a revelation that the Gentiles would be heirs with Israel through adoption in Christ. He taught that this information had been hidden from earlier generations (Romans 11:25; 16:25-26; Ephesians 1:5, 9-10; 2:11-13, 19; 3:3-6, 9; Colossians 1:26-27).

Basically, if anyone loses their testimony over what current prophets do with how our alphabet friends fit into things, they should understand that the whole of Christianity is denied them as long as they demand inerrancy and 100% correctness.

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, old said:

I agree. I have had many spiritual experiences with LDS. And I have also had spiritual experiences outside of LDS. I wouldn't have served a mission had I not had a spiritual experience from God in which I knew it was what I needed to do. While tremendously hard, I loved my mission, I still do.  I wouldn't change a thing about it.

However, over time it became self-evident to me that my spiritual well-being and those of whom I am in charge of providing for were being damaged by the faith of my youth. This wasn't a "I am so desperate to leave", this was "I/we are doing everything we can to stay".  Eventually the quantity and quality of negative spiritual experiences overrode the positive spiritual experiences and we came to the point where we know that God was directing our paths outside the LDS Church. This is just as powerful of an experience (if not more so) than what it took to stay or as an experience gained to serve a mission.

And now after the quantity and quality of positive spiritual experiences elsewhere that are tremendously positive-we feel God is calling us elsewhere.

I hope you and your family find peace. 

Edited January 17 by LDSGator

[zil2]

8 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

The Stake President's actions here are entirely consistent with one of my all-time favourite talks, given by President Benson at BYU in 1980 when he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve.

I love that talk and the story it recounts.  I whole-heartedly agree with it.  IMO, when someone teaches in this vein (whether the SP in question or back in Joseph Smith's day), it is because the people within their stewardship are not giving heed to the living prophet, and the teacher in question feels the need to address this failing with strong emphasis.  It is not because scripture is of no worth.  If someone is trying to use scripture to justify themselves in ignoring living prophets, they understand neither the scriptures, nor the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Lord values the written scriptures - significantly.  He wants us to have them and learn from them.  He does not ask us to pick one (living prophets) or the other (scripture) - he gives us both.  Further, I have yet to encounter the teaching of any prophet that is contrary to scripture.  Expands them? Yes.  Alters my understanding of them? Sure.  But contradicts truths* they teach? No.

*As opposed to recounting the cultural norms of the people of the time.

If someone really needs me to provide the evidence of how much the Lord values written scripture, just let me know, I'll compile some examples (but it seems like anyone familiar with scripture would know them already).

[old]

26 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

The Stake President's actions here are entirely consistent with one of my all-time favourite talks, given by President Benson at BYU in 1980 when he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

Here is part of that talk:

Second:The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: “You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.”

When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.” [In Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19]

It always surprises me that people are more willing to give heed to the words of prophets from thousands of years ago in totally foreign cultures, than they are to the words of prophets living here and now. 

At the end of the day it comes back to what is a prophet.

I absolutely believe in modern day prophets.  I do not believe that just because an individual has outlived everyone else in a group of people and that a another group of people proclaim that he is a prophet that THAT is what makes a prophet.

The scriptures provide a pattern for prophets. 

[NeuroTypical]

3 minutes ago, old said:

Eventually the quantity and quality of negative spiritual experiences overrode the positive spiritual experiences

Out of curiosity, what's a "negative spiritual experience"?  I was under the impression that it's either a genuine spiritual experience, witnessed to by the Holy Ghost, or it's something else.  

 

(And I hope you and your family finds peace too.)

[old]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Basically, if anyone loses their testimony over what current prophets do with how our alphabet friends fit into things, they should understand that the whole of Christianity is denied them as long as they demand inerrancy and 100% correctness.

Except you have it backwards.  The rest of Christianity does not demand inerrancy and 100% correctness.  They have the freedom to call out their leaders for evil, wicked or wrong acts, wrong doctrine.

All one needs to do is take a look at this thread to see that is not the same for LDS.  People in LDS culture are afraid, yes afraid of calling a spade a spade.  It is tremendously sad.

[old]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Out of curiosity, what's a "negative spiritual experience"?  I was under the impression that it's either a genuine spiritual experience, witnessed to by the Holy Ghost, or it's something else.  

 

(And I hope you and your family finds peace too.)

If we only thing that spiritual experiences can be positive then we aren't seeing the full range.

Negative spiritual experiences are things when a religion indulges in the passions and allows the passions to run free.

Positive spiritual experiences are things when a religion advocates for, teaches and practices the virtues and helps individuals bridle their passions.

Emotions MAY be a part of that-however confusing emotions with the Holy Spirit is a huge, huge mistake.

[old]

19 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I love that talk and the story it recounts.  I whole-heartedly agree with it.  IMO, when someone teaches in this vein (whether the SP in question or back in Joseph Smith's day), it is because the people within their stewardship are not giving heed to the living prophet, and the teacher in question feels the need to address this failing with strong emphasis.  It is not because scripture is of no worth.  If someone is trying to use scripture to justify themselves in ignoring living prophets, they understand neither the scriptures, nor the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Lord values the written scriptures - significantly.  He wants us to have them and learn from them.  He does not ask us to pick one (living prophets) or the other (scripture) - he gives us both.  Further, I have yet to encounter the teaching of any prophet that is contrary to scripture.  Expands them? Yes.  Alters my understanding of them? Sure.  But contradicts truths* they teach? No.

*As opposed to recounting the cultural norms of the people of the time.

If someone really needs me to provide the evidence of how much the Lord values written scripture, just let me know, I'll compile some examples (but it seems like anyone familiar with scripture would know them already).

Yes, I'm sure that when my Stake President used this talk to browbeat the entire Stake into getting an untested, unproven, medical procedure that the evidence now shows is tremendously detrimental to an individuals heart, that he was doing it b/c the Stake had a moral failing. Never a word about the LGBTQ+ infiltration, same-sex slow dancing, transgender cabins . . .but he can read everyone the riot act to fall in line and get the shot.

I'll call it what it was.

It was spiritual abuse.

I told my wife afterwards, we should just stop the charade and put up a sign outside the building what the Church really is:

"The Church of the Living Prophet" . . that's how spiritually abusive that talk was from the Stake President.

I had a great buddy of mine who called me up after GC and this Stake talk-he was anti-vax prior, afterwards whole hog.  He was trying to push me to get the shot.  I told him, look brother I appreciate your concern for me.  We have taken this matter seriously, we have prayed, we have taken it to God and we feel very strongly that we should NOT do this.

He wouldn't talk to me for 9+ months later.  

That's a negative spiritual experience.  Talk about anti-Christ man . . . for real.  Literally, my family and I were ostracized, shunned and lost friends because we prayed to God, He told us not to do it and now the religion we belong to and go to Church to every Sunday has made us outcasts?

For real? Seriously, this is Christian? Over a stupid, idiotic shot...you are going to throw away a friendship b/c I said no to a shot?  SMH.

Yeah, no thanks man...that's a religion that is in need of serious reform.

Edited January 17 by old

[old]

I will not mention the SP any more as I know that's a no-no here.  But I stand by what I said.

Spiritual Abuse.

[Carborendum]

5 minutes ago, old said:

All one needs to do is take a look at this thread to see that is not the same for LDS.  People in LDS culture are afraid, yes afraid of calling a spade a spade.  It is tremendously sad.

I don't believe this is a fair accusation.  I also find it interesting to recognize that this statement is the polar opposite of that lurker saying we're "losing it" over a pride supporter getting this position.

Why exactly would we "call a spade a spade?"  What did you expect us to do?  Denounce the Prophet because he made an appointment for someone to be communications director for the Church?  Why would we do that?

For me, this person in a position as a communications director is not a spiritual matter.  It is an administrative one.  I can have an opinion.  It may be correct, it may be incorrect.  But is there some reason for me to openly declare that I disagree with the prophet on this one?  Why would I bother?  I expressed my opinion that it is fraught with risk.  But who knows if that risk will turn out well or not?  And if it turns out poorly?  Then what?  Is that supposed to destroy my testimony?

So, please explain what you mean by 

Quote

People in LDS culture are afraid, yes afraid of calling a spade a spade.

[LDSGator]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

on't believe this is a fair accusation.

Yup. It’s totally uncalled for. LDS are the most wonderful people out there.  
 

I still hope he finds peace, but my fear is he’ll have the same issues no matter where he goes. 

It’s getting clear to me that it might be a problem with him, not the LDS church.  

Edited January 17 by LDSGator

[old]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't believe this is a fair accusation.  I also find it interesting to recognize that this statement is the polar opposite of that lurker saying we're "losing it" over a pride supporter getting this position.

Why exactly would we "call a spade a spade?"  What did you expect us to do?  Denounce the Prophet because he made an appointment for someone to be communications director for the Church?  Why would we do that?

For me, this person in a position as a communications director is not a spiritual matter.  It is an administrative one.  I can have an opinion.  It may be correct, it may be incorrect.  But is there some reason for me to openly declare that I disagree with the prophet on this one?  Why would I bother?  I expressed my opinion that it is fraught with risk.  But who knows if that risk will turn out well or not?  And if it turns out poorly?  Then what?  Is that supposed to destroy my testimony?

So, please explain what you mean by 

Lol . .well you know I'm not the one that posted on reddit!!!

I don't expect anything, my apologies I might have gone a tad overboard 🙂

What I mean is that it is very, very hard for in-the-boat traditional LDS members to even admit there is a problem and a serious one with LGBTQ+ doctrinal and practical (i.e. day-to-day ward and stake) activities.

[NeuroTypical]

18 minutes ago, old said:

Negative spiritual experiences are things when a religion indulges in the passions and allows the passions to run free.

You and I have different definitions of what "spiritual experience" means.  Witnessing humans making mistakes or sinning or being wrong isn't a "spiritual experience" from where I'm standing.  

[old]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't believe this is a fair accusation.  I also find it interesting to recognize that this statement is the polar opposite of that lurker saying we're "losing it" over a pride supporter getting this position.

Why exactly would we "call a spade a spade?"  What did you expect us to do?  Denounce the Prophet because he made an appointment for someone to be communications director for the Church?  Why would we do that?

For me, this person in a position as a communications director is not a spiritual matter.  It is an administrative one.  I can have an opinion.  It may be correct, it may be incorrect.  But is there some reason for me to openly declare that I disagree with the prophet on this one?  Why would I bother?  I expressed my opinion that it is fraught with risk.  But who knows if that risk will turn out well or not?  And if it turns out poorly?  Then what?  Is that supposed to destroy my testimony?

So, please explain what you mean by 

Is there or is there not a problem in the LDS Church with LGBTQ+ support?

Is there or is there not a problem in the LDS Church with LGBTQ+ theological shift?

[NeuroTypical]

Just now, old said:

Is there or is there not a problem in the LDS Church with LGBTQ+ support?

Is there or is there not a problem in the LDS Church with LGBTQ+ theological shift?

What do you mean by "the LDS Church"?  If you're talking about members being blown about by shifting cultural winds, I'd say yes.   If you're talking about "Church leadership hired this guy who has said supportive things about those winds, and therefore there's a problem with church leadership", I'd say no.

And I'd like to point out site rule #1: 

Quote

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachings, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

 

If this becomes an exit story, the mods'll shut it down.  That's why we have reddit/exmormon.

If it becomes a thread criticizing church leadership, we'll shut it down.  That's why we have mormondialogue.org.

[askandanswer]

31 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I see that bet and raise you with this: 

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear.  You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted."
   - Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1956, 3:203-4"

"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.
 - President Harold B. Lee, The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973"

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)
 

Also, folks who think prophets and leaders are perfect, need to spend more time reading scripture.  From my "I used to argue with Christians a lot on this topic" file: 

Basically, if anyone loses their testimony over what current prophets do with how our alphabet friends fit into things, they should understand that the whole of Christianity is denied them as long as they demand inerrancy and 100% correctness.

Delete

[old]

Just now, NeuroTypical said:

You and I have different definitions of what "spiritual experience" means.  Witnessing humans making mistakes or sinning or being wrong isn't a "spiritual experience" from where I'm standing.  

It depends on how it is handled.

Witnesses another human being sin, ask for forgiveness, humbly come before others and seek reconciliation can be a tremendously uplifting spiritual experience.

Witnesses another human being sin, browbeat others into saying they are right-simply because they hold the authority, no persuasion, no attempt to understand, simply "do what I say b/c I say it" can be a tremendously destructive spiritual experience.

Was there ever any message provided saying STE we should have love and compassion for those who don't follow these words? 

Literally man . . . when you've got an entire religion shunning those who don't get a medical procedure-you've got a problem. That's a systemic problem.  That's a revelatory experience.

I almost felt like asking a leader-"when did getting the vaccine become part of the Temple Recommend?"

[old]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

What do you mean by "the LDS Church"?  If you're talking about members being blown about by shifting cultural winds, I'd say yes.   If you're talking about "Church leadership hired this guy who has said supportive things about those winds, and therefore there's a problem with church leadership", I'd say no.

And I'd like to point out site rule #1: 

 

If this becomes an exit story, the mods'll shut it down.  That's why we have reddit/exmormon.

If it becomes a thread criticizing church leadership, we'll shut it down.  That's why we have mormondialogue.org.

The members ARE the Church.  That's exactly what the Scriptures state. 

The members ARE the Body of Christ.

To me it's irrelevant to make a dividing line between the two.

[old]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

What do you mean by "the LDS Church"?  If you're talking about members being blown about by shifting cultural winds, I'd say yes.   If you're talking about "Church leadership hired this guy who has said supportive things about those winds, and therefore there's a problem with church leadership", I'd say no.

And I'd like to point out site rule #1: 

 

If this becomes an exit story, the mods'll shut it down.  That's why we have reddit/exmormon.

If it becomes a thread criticizing church leadership, we'll shut it down.  That's why we have mormondialogue.org.

I'm doing my best here 🙂 While trying to answer the questions and comments posed.

[Carborendum]

2 minutes ago, old said:

Lol . .well you know I'm not the one that posted on reddit!!!

No, I was not saying you were.  I don't know how you got that out of my post.  What I was referring to is that 

• One exmormon says we're reacting so badly to this that we're "losing it."
• Another one (you) say we're not objecting enough.

That's what I meant by polar opposite.

2 minutes ago, old said:

I don't expect anything, my apologies I might have gone a tad overboard 🙂

I appreciate the apology.  And I mean that.  In many ways you remind me of an exmo friend of mine.  I'm pretty sure you're not him.  But you still remind me of him.

2 minutes ago, old said:

What I mean is that it is very, very hard for in-the-boat traditional LDS members to even admit there is a problem and a serious one with LGBTQ+ doctrinal and practical (i.e. day-to-day ward and stake) activities.

Not at all.  Virtually everyone on this board has said something along those lines at some point.  I think that you're getting a tainted sample from what used to be your stake.  I have extended family all over.  And none of them have seen the level you're describing from your former stake.

All of us are quite aware that it is happening.  And we don't like it.  But based on my data points which cover about 40 stakes and wards (I have a very large extended family and friend network) it is fairly low and kept in check over much of the Church.

When we see some things happening, we do express concern.  But it has to be pretty extreme to have it destroy our testimony.  I'm sure you'd understand why if you'd realize that our experience has not mirrored yours.  Perhaps the reality is somewhere in the middle.  And maybe you consider me naive to "the reality."  But what if I am?  Maybe it is worse than my many data points indicate.  But I'm worried mostly about me and my family.

And one fact is that I do believe that if it ever got as bad as you were describing in your ward, I would do everything I could to preach to them and tell them that they are violating the laws of God.  It may be as futile as Lehi preaching the the people of Jerusalem.  But I'd do it just as passionately as I'm certain he did.

And if I am cast out, I know that the Lord would find me a promised land to set down in.

[NeuroTypical]

4 minutes ago, old said:

Literally man . . . when you've got an entire religion shunning those who don't get a medical procedure-you've got a problem. That's a systemic problem.  That's a revelatory experience.

You and I have a different definition of what "shunning" means too.

And probably "browbeat" as well.

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, old said:

The members ARE the Church.  That's exactly what the Scriptures state. 

The members ARE the Body of Christ.

To me it's irrelevant to make a dividing line between the two.

The members are without question the kindest and most caring people out there. They usually feel guilty for the littlest things. These are people who, 90% of them, are more Christlike than anyone else alive.