Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

What are we to make of it, if/when the Church leaves Brother Wilcox in his calling and he continues to speak to congregations as a counselor in the General Sunday School Presidency --- without issuing a condemning statement? 

What should be read into that?

Well, in this case, he's been saying these things for decades, he's even apologized a time or two, but the Church has done nothing. Read into that what you will.

[Robert F. Smith]

25 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Like all gifts priesthood is meant to bless others and only when blessing others is the priesthood holder blessed. Certainly women are meant to be blessed through priesthood conferred to men, but the priesthood isn’t meaningless in situations lacking women. Consider as an example a sacrament meeting at a YM encampment. 

We teach that women in the church work through priesthood authority now. So would you consider women’s use of priesthood meaningless without men? 

1 Cor 11:11, "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."

A man cannot be a bishop without a wife, and this applies as well to other LDS leaders.  A man cannot be exalted without a wife.  His priesthood is meaningless without his female companion -- who is described as being his equal in Genesis.  Indeed, the man merely exercises priesthood authority -- acting on behalf of God, at God's behest, something which women do regularly in the temple (without men present).  How can a woman perform priesthood ordinances without a man if they have no priesthood authority?  How is it that women can serve missions and other callings?  Because they are exercising priesthood authority.  Pres Oaks explained that in detail.  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, rongo said:

I was thinking: Brother Wilcox would say, "the girls."  

He probably would have.  Hopefully he won't anymore.

Quote

 

No one "wants" false doctrine to be preached in any setting, let alone formal settings. I agree with Brigham Young that real false doctrine will "die on the vine," because the Saints will reject it (it doesn't sit well on the stomach, something doesn't seem right about it, etc., as BY said). This is the real reason why prophets can't lead astray (there were several discussions about this in Journal of Discourses). It isn't because God will have to smite or remove them; it's because each individual person has the light of Christ, the Holy Ghost, their own discernment, and their own agency. 

We have moved into a phase where some people want views they don't agree with to not be able to be said, ever, period, full stop. This includes areas where their own views aren't the official view of the Church, either. What I'm saying (and what Brigham Young was saying) is that we don't need to be paranoid or terrified of this. 

 

From your perspective, are we seeing this work today?

I've gotten the impression that you believe that the prophets have gone astray on a few things over the last few years, and the number of members who are upset or see any problem with it are few, and will probably grow fewer as the years go by.  Besides that, we have had plenty of members leaving the church to follow after people preaching their own brand of the gospel as well, unable to recognize false doctrine when they hear it, despite the light and knowledge that they possess.

From my perspective (considering the things that we taught about Blacks during the priesthood ban that members latched onto as gospel truth), I don't think that it worked all that well in BY's day either.  

Quote

And, as far as what Brother Wilcox said over the pulpit, I think 90% of the reaction is how he said it, not the content itself at its core. I think the phrases "the blacks" and "the girls" is behind more of the outcry than the content of the message. He didn't teach anything that is "forbidden" by the priesthood essay, for example (no explanation of race based on the pre-existence). People might not care for him invoking the limitations of the Levitical priesthood, or God's timing in dispensatory priesthood, but what he taught wasn't actually false and out of line with the limited, correlated stance.

It wasn't actually truth either, though it was presented as such.  And that's the problem. 

It was an opinion (one that has some deficits, as people have pointed out) that was presented as fact, and have we learned nothing about how badly doing that can go?  Haven't we learned yet how much we screw people up when we preach "the gospel according to ___________" in a formal setting?  If he had said "hey, this is just my opinion or my way of understanding this topic. I could be way off base" I don't think people would be nearly as concerned with the content.

But, I think that 90% of people's reaction is that he's presenting his opinions to youth as authoritative answers to tough questions that we have no official revealed truth on, and he's doing it in a way that can reasonably be interpreted to be demeaning and insensitive to Black people, women, and non-members.  So it's a bit of a one-two punch that is getting him in trouble with most people.  He's not giving very good answers to begin with, and then he's doing it in a way that causes hurt beyond the iffy answers.

Quote

It's just that some people don't want Church officers (or anyone else, for that matter) to attempt to explain the priesthood ban in any way other than by admitting that it was all a big racist mistake. Had he done that, the same outraged people would be dancing in the streets, even though that isn't the official stance of the Church, either.

I don't think the bold would be necessary.  But acknowledging that a lot of the teachings that BY and early church leaders espoused were obviously racist, and teaching our youth how someone can have some racists ideas (or other serious flaws) and still be a prophet of God, would serve the kids a lot better, in my opinion, than trying to argue that what happened to Black people was no different than what has happened to white people, except that it lasted longer for them.

Quote

He didn't teach anything that is doctrinally out of line with women and the priesthood, either. What some people disliked was that they don't like these sorts of explanations. They would rather that Church officers forever throw up their hands and say "We don't know." 

He didn't teach anything that was doctrinally in line either though.  There is no doctrine on why women don't have to be ordained to be endowed.  He took a fact and made up an explanation for it that doesn't exist doctrinally in the church.  That's never great to do when you are teaching youth.  It's rarely works out well with adults.

If God hasn't revealed something to the church, then when speaking to the church yes, please say "we don't know".  That's better and does less damage than a wrong answer every day of the week.

Quote

I think he was clumsy and unsavvy in how he went about it, and his "pretending" analogy, but what he was trying to teach was the absolute necessity of authority. 

I agree.

[Paloma]

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your analysis. I would simply like to point something out that I think is often missed by my LDS friends in their generalizations about non-LDS Christians. In this case, what I am specifically speaking to is the huge diversity of beliefs about the priesthood, priesthood authority, and authority in general among non-LDS Christians. The variations in beliefs transcend the reductionist distinction between Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox. In the first place there are many non-LDS Christians who do not consider themselves either Protestant or Catholic/Orthodox. So in a simplistic delineation, they get lost between the cracks. They are a rapidly growing group, so the consideration of their beliefs is ever-increasingly important.

For example, for some years I was a professor and dean at a college that had a very large population of Messianic Jews. We had an undergraduate major in the subject. Some scoffed that our Messianic Jewish students were neither Christian nor Jews. So, my LDS friends are not the only ones often denied Christianity! This Messianic Jewish community is an oft-maligned group that is vibrant and alive and quite fervent in their beliefs. I had many of them in my homiletics classes. That was a first for me!  There are wide variances in the core concept of the "priesthood of the believers." This is not a simple or united category either. There are very narrow categories of priesthood believers and some that are very expansive. All or most, carry some kind of authority, either administrative, spiritual, or both. Some sit in a circle in worship services to highlight their equality. Some worship is majority silent to diminish the professional revelation and accent the personal revelation. Of course revelation is a whole other category on which there is wide variation in belief. Some believe that preaching is a very specific gift of the Holy Spirit and that only those set apart with that gift have the authority to teach or preach. That is very different from LDS beliefs, isn't it? When I was ordained I was set aside by elders who laid hands on me granting me authority to use my gift of preaching and teaching in an authoritative sense.

Of course variation in belief does not require or indicate conflict. This Brad Wilcox phenomenon has perhaps highlighted the variance in beliefs among the LDS about certain issues. Most of the time, these variances simply are tolerated. Then, when occasions like this arise - something really stirs the pot, the varying beliefs among the LDS arise to the surface and may be debated, some rather vigorously. Some years ago, I observed this in the uproar over the concept of the "New Mormon History." Entire books were written on that subject. This forum is testimony to the diversity within the LDS church.

I Peter 2 and most of the book of Hebrews are interpreted with many variations among non-LDS Christians. The idea of a general and a specific priesthood is varied. Lutherans, Baptists, Brethren, The Society of Friends, Pentecostals all hold widely varying beliefs. It is evidence of the rich tapestry of the non-LDS Christian community, whose individual threads provide color and variability, just as does the rich diversity among my LDS friends. Thanks for reading this.

I was going to write a response that expressed something along the lines of your post, Navidad, but not as detailed.  I do love all the historical and contextual content you provide.

However, I've just dropped my husband off at the hospital for a potentially very serious condition (bowel obstruction).  I'm unable to stay with him at the hospital due to covid restrictions.  

Now I'm not able to focus on writing that reply I thought of earlier.  I've just sent out a request for prayer to my local church and friends. 

Though we don't know each other as participants, it brings me comfort to share this with you as well.  I strongly believe in Christian community, and I do feel a sense of community here.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

And women’s priesthood whatever it is (delegated, innate, temple endowed) is meaningless without men and much more so it would seem, at least at this point. 
A man may be single and be able to perform the sacrament for other men and baptize with no women present. 
A woman cannot perform any of the usual temple ordinances performed by women if one of the temple presidency is not in the temple that day, whether or not she is married, whether or not the temple matron is there. 
There are solely female branches in Hong Kong that meet every day of the week to accommodate the many female workers who can’t get off on Sundays, but there is a branch President who oversees and performs the Sacrament for them (though iirc the women then pass it out.)

https://www.deseret.com/2014/4/11/20539188/lds-church-meetings-held-every-day-of-the-week-in-hong-kong

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/12/24/mormon-congregations-in-hong-kong-unlike-any-others-theyre-virtually-all-women-and-they-dont-just-hold-services-on-sundays/

The exceptions prove the rule.  We saw this with the Relief Society under Joseph and Emma.  Why?  Because God can make whatever arrangements He wants in his Church, even authorizing women to be prophets if need be.  The most telling point is that none of us can be gods without both male & female being exalted together.  Why?  If men have all power alone, that just would not be true.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

What are we to make of it, if/when the Church leaves Brother Wilcox in his calling and he continues to speak to congregations as a counselor in the General Sunday School Presidency --- without issuing a condemning statement? 

What should be read into that?

I'm still wondering, was he speaking to congregations as a counselor in the YM's general presidency (not sunday school, right?)?  Because he's been giving these kinds of talks long before he was called as a general officer.  And as far as I know, previous counselors in the YM general presidency did not do the fireside circuit, so it doesn't appear to be a responsibility of the calling.

It seems that he was giving these talks because of who he is (and more like a book tour or FSY guest speaker), and not because of his calling.

But, if he does continue to give firesides (which I don't think will happen because I don't think he'll get many more invitations from Stake Presidents), the only way it would not be a huge scandal would be if he used that opportunity to apologize and restate his positions to one's more in line with official church teachings.

[Navidad]

25 minutes ago, Paloma said:

I was going to write a response that expressed something along the lines of your post, Navidad, but not as detailed.  I do love all the historical and contextual content you provide.

However, I've just dropped my husband off at the hospital for a potentially very serious condition (bowel obstruction).  I'm unable to stay with him at the hospital due to covid restrictions.  

Now I'm not able to focus on writing that reply I thought of earlier.  I've just sent out a request for prayer to my local church and friends. 

Though we don't know each other as participants, it brings me comfort to share this with you as well.  I strongly believe in Christian community, and I do feel a sense of community here.

I am so sorry for your and your husband's situation. Be assured that my wife and I will pray for his recovery and your peace of mind and heart. I am just as sure that many of your LDS friends who read this will offer similar prayers for both of you. Take care.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Navidad

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

1 Cor 11:11, "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."

A man cannot be a bishop without a wife, and this applies as well to other LDS leaders.  A man cannot be exalted without a wife.  His priesthood is meaningless without his female companion -- who is described as being his equal in Genesis.  Indeed, the man merely exercises priesthood authority -- acting on behalf of God, at God's behest, something which women do regularly in the temple (without men present).  How can a woman perform priesthood ordinances without a man if they have no priesthood authority?  How is it that women can serve missions and other callings?  Because they are exercising priesthood authority.  Pres Oaks explained that in detail.  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

I think that Buckeye would probably say that women are able to do those things because they are given priesthood authority by a man who has been ordained and received keys.  But that men are do not have to depend on receiving anything from a woman to do those same things.

Thus, in the bolded examples, women are dependant upon a man for their authority but men are not dependant upon a woman for theirs.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, rongo said:

Your suggestion above is just as speculative (with no Church position) as the disfavored ones are (from a nailed down, non-speculation standpoint).

The problem is presenting any as authoritative imo or as applied to a group of people rather than on an individual basis. 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Paloma said:

I was going to write a response that expressed something along the lines of your post, Navidad, but not as detailed.  I do love all the historical and contextual content you provide.

However, I've just dropped my husband off at the hospital for a potentially very serious condition (bowel obstruction).  I'm unable to stay with him at the hospital due to covid restrictions.  

Now I'm not able to focus on writing that reply I thought of earlier.  I've just sent out a request for prayer to my local church and friends. 

Though we don't know each other as participants, it brings me comfort to share this with you as well.  I strongly believe in Christian community, and I do feel a sense of community here.

I'm so sorry Paloma!  Prayers for you and your husband!  I have had two close friends who have had bowel obstructions in the last year and they have both pulled through, though it was very serious of course.  I hope that can offer some hope for you in your situation.   

I'm so sorry that you can't be with him either.  That would be so difficult.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

something which women do regularly in the temple (without men present). 

But not without a man presiding somewhere in the temple. A member of the temple presidency must be in the temple. 
 

Quote

How is it that women can serve missions and other callings?  Because they are exercising priesthood authority.

But they serve under the authority of a mission President, not the MP’s wife. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

The problem is presenting any as authoritative imo or as applied to a group of people rather than on an individual basis. 

Exactly.  It's one thing to talk about this stuff on a message board or among friends, or even offer it as a possiblity in a sunday school class.  It's completely different for a GO to teach it over the pulpit.

[Navidad]

Quick question - Is a managing director of a church organization a general officer? I have had the privilege of having known and had extensive chats with several church managing directors, both at conferences and here in my home. How does a managing director fit into the hierarchy of the church? I have tremendous regard for one gentleman who left his managing director position to become a Mission President. Is that considered a promotion, or just a different type of calling?

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Quick question - Is a managing director of a church organization a general officer? I have had the privilege of having known and had extensive chats with several church managing directors, both at conferences and here in my home. How does a managing director fit into the hierarchy of the church? I have tremendous regard for one gentleman who left his managing director position to become a Mission President. Is that considered a promotion, or just a different type of calling?

I haven't ever heard of a managing director, so I really have no idea where they fit in.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

How would someone not of the tribe of Levi qualify for the priesthood when the Old Testament says it was taken from all the other tribes?  And if just being a prophet somehow qualifies you to receive the priesthood, what about the women in the Bible that were prophets?  Wouldn't they qualify for the priesthood because they were prophets also?

Called directly by God as far as I can tell from the Bible and Book of Mormon. I don’t remember how it is taught in church and not intending to research for the moment. If anyone can share what they have heard, I would be interested. 

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Quick question - Is a managing director of a church organization a general officer? I have had the privilege of having known and had extensive chats with several church managing directors, both at conferences and here in my home. How does a managing director fit into the hierarchy of the church? I have tremendous regard for one gentleman who left his managing director position to become a Mission President. Is that considered a promotion, or just a different type of calling?

Only these groups are GOs:

Quote

General Officers include the General Presidencies of the Relief Society, Primary, Sunday School, Young Women, and Young Men organizations.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/global-leadership-of-the-church?lang=eng
 

My guess is the others are considered purely administrative positions and not spiritual leadership positions.  They wanted to call my dad to one of the physical facilities types of work and he said no thanks, I retired so as not to have to be doing that stuff. While there was some pressure of accepting to contribute to the Lord’s work, nothing spiritual was ever attached to it.  Same thing as far as I could tell with the calling of my brother in law’s father who was over church building for all the church iirc a couple of decades ago. He never spoke based on that work (he was a prisoner of war and did a few firesides with that as a central theme iirc).

Edited February 10, 2022 by Calm

[morgan.deane]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was offered at first as a simple correction that, with one or two exceptions,  instead of being accepted in the spirit offered was mocked, ridiculed and marginalized. It was met with absurd assertions that required further correction, such as “It’s a distinction without a difference” or “The difference between them is almost non-existent.” How would you expect a normal person to respond to such behavior?

You say that nobody has claimed Brother Wilcox was “a member of the 70, quorum of the 12 or the First Presidency.” Do you not understand that, by definition, to falsely call a man a General Authority and then to double down on it when corrected is tantamount to claiming that very thing? 
 

To me, the calling of General Authority is very sacred. I don’t like to see the definition of it blurred, so when I see it happening, I’m apt to speak up. 

 15 pages of discussion here, and countless comments elsewhere about what almost everyone agrees are tone deaf and often derisive comments about "the blacks," "stupid" critics, shrill "girls," and other Christians "playing church," from a leader in the church, and the real problem for you was that a few people failed to note a distinction in rank that you think is sacred, but doesn't change or address any of the above problems in his talk and possibly church culture and society that led to them. I've been in the church for decades, granted that isn't as long as many on this board, but I've still never seen anyone obsessed with rank like you are (to the point that you lob "less than impress[ive]" personal insults when I explain why its meaningless in addressing any of the above problems.)

I marvel at someone who can look an outrageous talk in the face, which substantively attacks several groups of people and then complain that he is the victim, even as he shows more regard for the rank of GAs than the groups actually being attacked. Maybe you could think and behave like doing unto the "least of these" is sacred as well. Show some umbrage for fellow Christians that try to live a godly life and get told they are pretending. Care about ministering with good, personalized answers to black people who wonder about comparatively recent church policy that excluded them and the feelings that they still aren't fully heard or understood by the dominant culture. I don't think any of the above is outrageous, and they certainly aren't less important than pettifogging rank. 

But nope, you care about rank. Your point is noted. Thank you for the clarification. For the 4th time just in this post and the 20th time on this thread, it still doesn't address any of the meaningful issues at hand. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by morgan.deane

[juliann]

35 minutes ago, rongo said:

What are we to make of it, if/when the Church leaves Brother Wilcox in his calling and he continues to speak to congregations as a counselor in the General Sunday School Presidency --- without issuing a condemning statement? 

What should be read into that?

It wouldn't surprise me if he continued to speak on other topics...being very careful to not get near the sexist/racist stuff. However, I don't know who would invite him given other choices, at least for a long time. 

I suspect higher ranking church people are only surrounded by approving people. As in, they aren't going to go to a "street smart" feminist/Black member to vet their talks. Someone who is familiar with hot topics could point out the problems and give alternatives in minutes. It is so blasted easy. I hope Wilcox will never again call women girls or say "the blacks" for starters, but I'm not encouraged by his nonapology followed by his wife's reaction to the criticism. 

[Robert F. Smith]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that Buckeye would probably say that women are able to do those things because they are given priesthood authority by a man who has been ordained and received keys.  But that men are do not have to depend on receiving anything from a woman to do those same things.

Thus, in the bolded examples, women are dependant upon a man for their authority but men are not dependant upon a woman for theirs.

Would you say the same of exalted men and women who happen to be husband and wife?  Note that the man could not be exalted without the woman.  He cannot exercise his priesthood power on his own.  The same for a man who is bishop.  He could not be a bishop if not married.

[juliann]

43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

1 Cor 11:11, "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."

A man cannot be a bishop without a wife, and this applies as well to other LDS leaders.  A man cannot be exalted without a wife.  His priesthood is meaningless without his female companion -- who is described as being his equal in Genesis.  Indeed, the man merely exercises priesthood authority -- acting on behalf of God, at God's behest, something which women do regularly in the temple (without men present).  How can a woman perform priesthood ordinances without a man if they have no priesthood authority?  How is it that women can serve missions and other callings?  Because they are exercising priesthood authority.  Pres Oaks explained that in detail.  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

None of this addresses the day to day restrictions on women in the church. We have spent decades coming up with reasons why it shouldn't matter. I ceertainly used to. But at some point, we need to come to terms with the pragmatic reality of a situation where women are denied ultimate decision making along with access to most offices of the church. It matters. 

We have a good example of why it matters because of the latest misstep of a male leader. How much longer can we acknowledge how problematic his content was while still denying the underlying issues? We don't need to blow up the church to merely admit we cannot continue with the exclusion and "othering" without damaging the church we love. We don't need to malign the church, anymore than we need to malign Wilcox to point out what was damaging and offensive in his words. 

[Robert F. Smith]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

But not without a man presiding somewhere in the temple. A member of the temple presidency must be in the temple. 
But they serve under the authority of a mission President, not the MP’s wife. 

That might  be a distinction without a difference.  Dallin Oaks said:

Quote

“When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood.”  https://www.thechurchnews.com/living-faith/2019-02-21/lds-org-president-oaks-dallin-highlights-how-women-are-essential-participants-of-the-priesthood-4648

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

None of this addresses the day to day restrictions on women in the church. We have spent decades coming up with reasons why it shouldn't matter. I ceertainly used to. But at some point, we need to come to terms with the pragmatic reality of a situation where women are denied ultimate decision making along with access to most offices of the church. It matters. 

We have a good example of why it matters because of the latest misstep of a male leader. How much longer can we acknowledge how problematic his content was while still denying the underlying issues? We don't need to blow up the church to merely admit we cannot continue with the exclusion and "othering" without damaging the church we love. We don't need to malign the church, anymore than we need to malign Wilcox to point out what was damaging and offensive in his words. 

All good points, but not taking account of the Relief Society under Emma.  As usual, the exceptions prove the rule.  Then there are the biblical examples of female prophets.  This may cause some discomfort, but it allows for much wider possibilities than we ordinarily think of.

As to Brad, who is a member of my stake (and he and I were both in cub scouting at the same time), if I didn't know better I'd think that he had been smoking some dope, but no that's not him.  Very strange.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Would you say the same of exalted men and women who happen to be husband and wife?  Note that the man could not be exalted without the woman.  He cannot exercise his priesthood power on his own.  The same for a man who is bishop.  He could not be a bishop if not married.

The reality is that men do not need women, in this life, to use their priesthood but women do need men, in this life, to use "theirs" (the quotes are because women are not ordained and men are, so there is a difference to that word that should be acknowledged). 

That men and women cannot be exalted without each other does not negate or change the first statement.

I'm not sure on the bishop stuff.  I know that it's policy that bishops be married, but I don't know that it's an absolute.  For example, if all that were available were single men and there was no likelihood of a married man showing up anytime in the future, perhaps a single man could be called. 

However, if only women were available, I don't believe a woman could be called as a bishop.

 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All good points, but not taking account of the Relief Society under Emma.  As usual, the exceptions prove the rule.  Then there are the biblical examples of female prophets.  This may cause some discomfort, but it allows for much wider possibilities than we ordinarily think of.

 

But we don’t live with the speculative theology behind it all or the what life is like on the exalted level at this point of our existence. We are looking for explanations to explain what is happening in the here and now. To point to an eternal principle that is at best only partially lived in this life as if it should satisfy our questions is ineffective, imo. 
 

What Joseph set up has been altered by later prophets. Emma is long dead and not the least viewed as any church authority these days. And when was the last time we call as a church a specific living woman a prophet and she was teaching the church in that capacity?  
 

So how do those examples do anything to tell us what is going on now?  Future potential, they are very applicable.  Here and now, not. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by Calm

[JAHS]

46 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Quick question - Is a managing director of a church organization a general officer? I have had the privilege of having known and had extensive chats with several church managing directors, both at conferences and here in my home. How does a managing director fit into the hierarchy of the church? I have tremendous regard for one gentleman who left his managing director position to become a Mission President. Is that considered a promotion, or just a different type of calling?

I don't think so. The managing directors are more like non-ecclesiastical positions of the church. Some examples:
Missionary Department
Church History Department
Public Affairs Department
Headquarter Facilities
BYU Broadcasting
Materials Management
Meetinghouse Facilities
Special Projects
Church Security Department