New Mormon church managing director of church communication

[Diamondhands69]

Here is the new hire for church communication. 
 

it would appear he openly and publicly supports gay marriage. He also formerly worked for Phillip Morris ( big tobacco). 
 

where in the world did the church find him? What a breath of fresh air. Someone who supports the lgbtq agenda. 

 

https://www.deseret.com/2024/1/9/24032002/latter-day-saint-leaders-hire-new-managing-director-for-church-

 

 

Edited January 22 by Diamondhands69

[JustAnAustralian]

He might be able to help tone down any messages, but it's not like the church is suddenly going to start sending out pro same-sex marriage messaging. 

[Diamondhands69]

9 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

He might be able to help tone down any messages, but it's not like the church is suddenly going to start sending out pro same-sex marriage messaging. 

I don’t disagree, but it seems odd to hire a straight-up (no pun intended) lgbtq SUPPORTER. His behavior on social media alone should keep him from getting a temple recommend. 

Edited January 22 by Diamondhands69

[JustAnAustralian]

27 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

His behavior on social media alone should keep him from getting a temple recommend. 

Why?

Quote

Elder Christofferson and other church leaders have said repeatedly that Mormons may express political support for same-sex marriage without consequence to their church membership. The updated policy does not alter that.

https://www.deseret.com/2015/11/6/20576211/elder-christofferson-explains-updated-lds-church-policies-on-same-sex-marriage-and-children

 

 

Quote

What about Mormons who support same-sex marriage privately among family and friends or publicly by posting entries on Facebook, marching in pride parades or belonging to gay-friendly organizations such as Affirmation or Mormons Building Bridges? Can they do so without the threat of losing their church membership or temple privileges?

"We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues," Christofferson said. " ... In our view, it doesn't really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that's a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines."

https://www.sltrib.com/news/mormon/2015/03/03/balancing-lgbt-religious-rights-wont-be-easy-mormon-leaders-concede/

 

 I doubt he's doing anything that church leadership is concerned about, especially considering he's been a Bishop after saying those things.

Edited January 22 by JustAnAustralian

[Diamondhands69]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Why?

 

 

 

 I doubt he's doing anything that church leadership is concerned about, especially considering he's been a Bishop after saying those things.

From the recommend interview question list: 

“Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”

 

 

he obviously does. Cheering on the Supreme Court decision flies in the face of the churches prop 8 campaign. 

perhaps the church now supports gay marriage? I’m thinking not. 
 

 

[Calm]

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/elder-oaks-balance-accommodation-not-culture-wars?cid=social_20151020_54244506&adbid=656601898737250304&adbpl=tw&adbpr=14364617
 

Quote

A leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints told a gathering of several hundred lawyers, judges and religious leaders in California today that secularists and religionists with opposing views should seek balance and accommodation with each other rather than total victory for one side only.

The Church’s position is not so black and white as you paint it.

Edited January 22 by Calm

[Diamondhands69]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/elder-oaks-balance-accommodation-not-culture-wars?cid=social_20151020_54244506&adbid=656601898737250304&adbpl=tw&adbpr=14364617
 

The Church’s position is not so black and white as you paint it.

I agree it isn’t black and white. The church is speaking out both sides of its mouth in this hire. Hiring a guy who is depicted in social media wearing the “uniform” of the gay agenda. 
 

elder oaks is esp interesting. I recall a pretty nasty statement he made about gay kids few years ago regarding  how parents should treat their gay kids. Something about not wanting to be seen with them in public. I’m surprised he didn’t say the gay kid would be better off in a pine box than to be gay. 
 

I predict rainbow temple sealings  in <10 yrs. 

Edited January 22 by Diamondhands69

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

The church is speaking out both sides of its mouth in this hire.

It seems that way to you only because you are putting words in its mouth.

Edited January 22 by Calm

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Here is the new hire for church communication. 
 

it would appear he openly and publicly supports gay marriage. He also formerly worked for Phillip Morris ( big tobacco). 
 

where in the world did the church find him? What a breath of fresh air. Someone who supports the lgbtq agenda. 

 

https://www.deseret.com/2024/1/9/24032002/latter-day-saint-leaders-hire-new-managing-director-for-church-

 

 

I am tickled pink!

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

I recall a pretty nasty statement he made about gay kids few years ago regarding  how parents should treat their gay kids. Something about not wanting to be seen with them in public. I’m surprised he didn’t say the gay kid would be better off in a pine box than to be gay. 

Could you please share the quotes from President Oaks that you're alluding to here?

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

I agree it isn’t black and white. The church is speaking out both sides of its mouth in this hire. Hiring a guy who is depicted in social media wearing the “uniform” of the gay agenda. 
 

elder oaks is esp interesting. I recall a pretty nasty statement he made about gay kids few years ago regarding  how parents should treat their gay kids. Something about not wanting to be seen with them in public. I’m surprised he didn’t say the gay kid would be better off in a pine box than to be gay. 
 

I predict rainbow temple sealings  in <10 yrs. 

I remember hearing about that quote.  If my memory isn't too far off it's been more than a few years.  I think the interview (the quote is from a church newsroom interview) took place in 2006.  So almost 20 years ago.  

It's a lengthy interview and centered on the church's focus on Prop. 8 in California.

Quote

 

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

 

I appreciate that Elder Oaks teaches that it's an issue that each family needed to seek divine counsel on.  He then talks about his opinions on the subject (opinions I disagree with) but at no time does he make his opinions binding on the members or teach them as what must be done.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

It seems that way to you only because you are putting words in its mouth.

It's interesting how Diamond is always trying to bring up stuff like this to show how bad/corrupt/whatever negative thing the church is, yet he (a member in name only who is very critical and basically non believing) is often the only one who gets upset by what he posts.

The believing/active posters who have testimonies tend to be way less dogmatic and harsh or judgemental  than Diamond is. 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's interesting how Diamond is always trying to bring up stuff like this to show how bad/corrupt/whatever negative thing the church is, yet he (a member in name only who is very critical and basically non believing) is often the only one who gets upset by what he posts.

The believing/active posters who have testimonies tend to be way less dogmatic and harsh or judgemental  than Diamond is. 

So my question is has he always been that way or is this a new style adopted from his new community perhaps.

[Pyreaux]

17 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

From the recommend interview question list: 

“Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”

he obviously does. Cheering on the Supreme Court decision flies in the face of the churches prop 8 campaign. 

perhaps the church now supports gay marriage? I’m thinking not.

The Bishop's question doesn't include political policies. Saying gay marriage (or saying the sale of alcohol) should be legal, doesn't mean you teach it or practice it. As a Libertarian, I'm often having to explain to my Christian conservative friends why we should legalize drugs even though we don't promote or teach doing drugs. Just because you personally and morally oppose it doesn't mean you must vote for laws to impose your morality on others. Then there's Harry Reid, Democrat Senate Majority Leader, who as far as I know was a worthy member.

The Prop 8 campaign did nothing to prevent any rights to equal protection concerning marriage, it only wanted to keep the legal definition of the word "marriage" from changing, and they only cared about the legal definition to keep the California Courts from persecuting religious social services by denying religious hospitals and adoption agencies their licenses to function. Despite the hyperbole, we only cared because it directly affected us, it was not to impose our morals on others.

Edited January 22 by Pyreaux

[Diamondhands69]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I remember hearing about that quote.  If my memory isn't too far off it's been more than a few years.  I think the interview (the quote is from a church newsroom interview) took place in 2006.  So almost 20 years ago.  

It's a lengthy interview and centered on the church's focus on Prop. 8 in California.

I appreciate that Elder Oaks teaches that it's an issue that each family needed to seek divine counsel on.  He then talks about his opinions on the subject (opinions I disagree with) but at no time does he make his opinions binding on the members or teach them as what must be done.

Bluebell provided his statement:

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Could you please share the quotes from President Oaks that you're alluding to here?

“Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

 

we don’t want to be seen with you.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So my question is has he always been that way or is this a new style adopted from his new community perhaps.

It sounds like he may come from a family that is that way (he’s uses them often in his examples and it never paints them in a very nice light), and if that’s the case, then he probably grew up that way. But I doubt he’s that way now.  I think it’s more likely that he is using his family’s interpretation of the gospel as a weapon of convenience against all latter-day Saints.

But sometimes people do seem to find it easier to blame the church for a dogmatic upbringing rather than blaming their parents.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Bluebell provided his statement:

“Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

 

we don’t want to be seen with you.

Thanks Bluebell

Here's more of what he said for context:

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.

 

The quote comes off a little different when you read the whole thing.

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Thanks Bluebell

Here's more of what he said for context:

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.

 

The quote comes off a little different when you read the whole thing.

Wow. It does seem more like a cherry-picked quote, an imagined quote by an imaginary person.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Thanks Bluebell

Here's more of what he said for context:

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.

 

The quote comes off a little different when you read the whole thing.

Be sure and include the question as it’s not about just being seen in public with them and is referencing the child’s relationship, so he is talking about the couple, not the individual at this point.  Elder Oaks is responding to the son’s question about coming as a couple, not on his own, so not only is it’s being seen in a way that makes it appear you are endorsing the sexual side of gay relationships, it’s about that particular relationship, not about their son on his own…which to me means a lot more than just doing stuff with your child on their own or taking the couple out to dinner or something similar.  I can see some interpreting it to mean they should introduce a gay couple as friends, but not partners….but introducing a son or daughter in law as a son or daughter in law doesn’t mean you approve of the relationship, it is just a statement of fact imo, so I interpret it as he is probably thinking more along the lines of gushing about the relationship (they are perfect for each other, we couldn’t be happier).

Quote

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’

I have heard pretty much the same sort of counsel given when it’s children in an unmarried sexual relationship.  Invite the partner over with the child, but don’t expect to sleep in the same bedroom kind of thing.

Edited January 22 by Calm

[Diamondhands69]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Thanks Bluebell

Here's more of what he said for context:

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.

 

The quote comes off a little different when you read the whole thing.

I don’t have a problem with any of that up to the dealing with them in a public situation. 
 

if the kid is gay and has a bf… oh well. Yea they are not staying over night , but I’ll go out to dinner with them in public. Oaks apparently would not unless perhaps as someone else mentioned.. act as if they are just friends and not in a relationship… so lie about it. 

[Diamondhands69]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

But sometimes people do seem to find it easier to blame the church for a dogmatic upbringing rather than blaming their parents.

The dogma is 100% to blame. If the parents didn’t believe in half of it like me then it’s much easier to not come off as tyrants over every little church issue. 
 

when they eat, drink, think, live Mormonism all the time they can get a little crazy. It isn’t anything they have made up it comes from church leaders they are obligated to follow. 

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

The dogma is 100% to blame. If the parents didn’t believe in half of it like me then it’s much easier to not come off as tyrants over every little church issue. 
 

when they eat, drink, think, live Mormonism all the time they can get a little crazy. It isn’t anything they have made up it comes from church leaders they are obligated to follow. 

That’s not my experience. Though I was raised with the same teachings and doctrine as you. 

[Okrahomer]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

That’s not my experience. Though I was raised with the same teachings and doctrine as you. 

Nor mine

[Diamondhands69]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That’s not my experience. Though I was raised with the same teachings and doctrine as you. 

Ok that settles it. I’m wrong about my family. It is the enforcement and force feeding of teaching which creates problems. If that didn’t happen to you- congratulations 🍾 

Edited January 23 by Diamondhands69

[rpn]

I have a hard time figuring out why/how the critics of this choice think they are smarter, in a better position to decide who should serve in this position than the Prophet and leaders whose calling it is to choose who fills that role (and who are the ones responsible to God for the way they do their callings (not anyone who posts in opposition to it).   Maybe this is just a test of the so called faithful in living their faith even if they don't understand a leader's choice in making it?