Sacrament meeting talks today

[Serragon]

The church doesn't condone homosexual behavior and they will excommunicate anybody involved in it.

You are a few years late to the party.

Excommunication is still an option, but is no longer mandatory. In fact, the penalty for engaging in a Same sex marriage is no longer an automatic excommunication.

The church no longer considers homosexual activity "wrong". The church no longer considers there to be a distinction between homosexual or heterosexual activity.

The only thing now considered "wrong" about homosexuality is that God only ordains marriage between a man and a woman. So homosexuality will prevent that from happening. But the act itself is no longer considered to be wrong by the nature of it being homosexual.

[CuriousThinker]

We get an email every week telling us what the EQ lesson will be based on. It's always conference talks. Always. Ugh. Sacrament meeting is the same. Haven't been to church in months (except for a baby blessing in another ward).

Conference talks for EQ meeting is mandated via the handbook. Conference talks for Sacrament meeting is just a tradition that has started up somehow over the last decade. I suspect it has happened because it is easier than figuring out real topics or scriptures, and they feel it is helping the ward members know what the Lord is saying via our current PSR's.

Can you show me that? The reason I ask is because I know RS sisters who think it is mandated too, but the handbook says to select topics from recent general conference talks. So, if they mention faith, it can be on faith. The general conference talk doesn't even have be mentioned or quoted even once. It seems weird that EQ would have different instructions for lessons than RS.

[Serragon]

We get an email every week telling us what the EQ lesson will be based on. It's always conference talks. Always. Ugh. Sacrament meeting is the same. Haven't been to church in months (except for a baby blessing in another ward).

Conference talks for EQ meeting is mandated via the handbook. Conference talks for Sacrament meeting is just a tradition that has started up somehow over the last decade. I suspect it has happened because it is easier than figuring out real topics or scriptures, and they feel it is helping the ward members know what the Lord is saying via our current PSR's.

Can you show me that? The reason I ask is because I know RS sisters who think it is mandated too, but the handbook says to select topics from recent general conference talks. So, if they mention faith, it can be on faith. The general conference talk doesn't even have be mentioned or quoted even once. It seems weird that EQ would have different instructions for lessons than RS.

You are correct. It only states that it should be topics from one or more conference talks. That was my misinterpretation.

[Dusty Wanderer]

The church doesn't condone homosexual behavior and they will excommunicate anybody involved in it. However, you can be gay and have engaged in homosexual behavior, repent of those activities and forsake them, and return to full membership. I have to question the efficacy of going through the motions of repentance while never having a change of heart though. Either way, this is an individual matter, not a church one.

Depending on how you define "homosexual behavior", you might be wrong here. Do you personally think that there is any behavior two men can do other than the actual act of sodomy that would qualify as homosexual? If yes, then your statement is false. If no, then you may be morally confused by the emerging double standard, possibly compromised.

[spiritMan]

In 2008, the church launched a big campaign to prevent gay marriage in California from becoming codified into law. Today, they've thrown their support behind a bill that would codify it at the federal level. They also issued a statement to the effect that gays actually do have a right to marriage and always have.

I'd say that's a change.

The church never said gays always had a right to marry. Here is their statement: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... -statement

They clearly say that marriage is between a man and a woman and that this doctrine won't change. Then, they acknowledge that gays have a right to marry (which they have for almost 10 years now, right?). The world has chosen the path of sin and the law upholds them in this path. The church must recognize this and work around it, or ditch the twelfth Article of Faith and find them self at odds with the law and subject to the penalties thereof.

So explain to me why we have openly homosexual missionaries who have dated the same sex and been romantically involved with the same sex proclaim there is nothing wrong with what they did, have no need to repent and are protected by mission presidents.

Easy! Sin. It's the same reason there are so many apostates on this forum who proclaim to follow Christ while rejecting his church and its leadership.

The church doesn't condone homosexual behavior and they will excommunicate anybody involved in it. However, you can be gay and have engaged in homosexual behavior, repent of those activities and forsake them, and return to full membership. I have to question the efficacy of going through the motions of repentance while never having a change of heart though. Either way, this is an individual matter, not a church one.

That is a change in doctrine. Are we at the point of full acceptance of SSM, no. When, babies are blessed from homosexual "married" couples and those children are presented before the Church, it is all but saying... In he future SSM couples will be fully accepted in the Church.

Sorry, but these are all non-sequiturs.

You are misinformed.

The Church endorses missionaries publicly "coming out" and says there is nothing wrong with non sexual homosexual behavior.

Missionaries boast about their same sex activities and that there is nothing wrong with it and their mission presidents endorse it.


Here is one https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/list ... -151317162

[spiritMan]

In 2008, the church launched a big campaign to prevent gay marriage in California from becoming codified into law. Today, they've thrown their support behind a bill that would codify it at the federal level. They also issued a statement to the effect that gays actually do have a right to marriage and always have.

I'd say that's a change.

The church never said gays always had a right to marry. Here is their statement: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... -statement

They clearly say that marriage is between a man and a woman and that this doctrine won't change. Then, they acknowledge that gays have a right to marry (which they have for almost 10 years now, right?). The world has chosen the path of sin and the law upholds them in this path. The church must recognize this and work around it, or ditch the twelfth Article of Faith and find them self at odds with the law and subject to the penalties thereof.

So explain to me why we have openly homosexual missionaries who have dated the same sex and been romantically involved with the same sex proclaim there is nothing wrong with what they did, have no need to repent and are protected by mission presidents.

Easy! Sin. It's the same reason there are so many apostates on this forum who proclaim to follow Christ while rejecting his church and its leadership.

The church doesn't condone homosexual behavior and they will excommunicate anybody involved in it. However, you can be gay and have engaged in homosexual behavior, repent of those activities and forsake them, and return to full membership. I have to question the efficacy of going through the motions of repentance while never having a change of heart though. Either way, this is an individual matter, not a church one.

That is a change in doctrine. Are we at the point of full acceptance of SSM, no. When, babies are blessed from homosexual "married" couples and those children are presented before the Church, it is all but saying... In he future SSM couples will be fully accepted in the Church.

Sorry, but these are all non-sequiturs.

You are way way late to the party brother. 4-5 years ago you would have been right. Not today.

You are going up against people who have studied this issue much longer than you have, people who have documented evidence of what they are saying.

If you are a brothernite you should get with the program, the only thing currently not endorsed in the Church today is same sex sexual activity. Everything else is a okay.

Same sex slowing dancing for youth, check.
Open homosexual missionaries, check.
Homosexuals going on same sex romantic activities, check.

You are way way behind what the Church currently teaches is right.

[h_p]

The church never said gays always had a right to marry. Here is their statement: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... -statement

If someone says the bill will preserve a right, what they mean is that right has existed prior to this point in time and irrespective of the law. Have they said anything about when that right started? No, they have not. Rights are not granted by a law; they are enshrined in and protected by it.

They clearly say that marriage is between a man and a woman and that this doctrine won't change. Then, they acknowledge that gays have a right to marry (which they have for almost 10 years now, right?).

And what were they saying prior to that? Something different? Ok... so, let's walk through this slowly. If they said one thing, and then they started saying something different... that's... (guess)

The world has chosen the path of sin and the law upholds them in this path. The church must recognize this and work around it, or ditch the twelfth Article of Faith and find them self at odds with the law and subject to the penalties thereof.

There is currently no law allowing gay marriage. The Supreme Court merely struck down part of a bill banning it. The whole point and purpose of HR8404 is to now codify what they see as a right into law. And, to belabor the point: in 2008, they opposed allowing non-member gays to marry. Today, they not only have stopped opposing it, but they now actively support it. How someone can say with a straight face that this is not a change is incomprehensible to me.

[spiritMan]

The church never said gays always had a right to marry. Here is their statement: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... -statement

If someone says the bill will preserve a right, what they mean is that right has existed prior to this point in time and irrespective of the law. Have they said anything about when that right started? No, they have not. Rights are not granted by a law; they are enshrined in and protected by it.

They clearly say that marriage is between a man and a woman and that this doctrine won't change. Then, they acknowledge that gays have a right to marry (which they have for almost 10 years now, right?).

And what were they saying prior to that? Something different? Ok... so, let's walk through this slowly. If they said one thing, and then they started saying something different... that's... (guess)

The world has chosen the path of sin and the law upholds them in this path. The church must recognize this and work around it, or ditch the twelfth Article of Faith and find them self at odds with the law and subject to the penalties thereof.

There is currently no law allowing gay marriage. The Supreme Court merely struck down part of a bill banning it. The whole point and purpose of HR8404 is to now codify what they see as a right into law. And, to belabor the point: in 2008, they opposed allowing non-member gays to marry. Today, they not only have stopped opposing it, but they now actively support it. How someone can say with a straight face that this is not a change is incomprehensible to me.

Follow the prophet.
Follow the prophet
Follow the prophet
Follow the prophet.

If the prophet says the sky is green, well it must be green.

[h_p]

Follow the prophet.
Follow the prophet
Follow the prophet
Follow the prophet.

If the prophet says the sky is green, well it must be green.

Like the Theory of Relativity's constant speed of light, it's the one immutable law around which all of physics and reality itself must bend. Time, space, and mass itself must shrink and expand so that this one law is maintained: the (current) prophet is never EVER wrong.

[CuriousThinker]

We get an email every week telling us what the EQ lesson will be based on. It's always conference talks. Always. Ugh. Sacrament meeting is the same. Haven't been to church in months (except for a baby blessing in another ward).

Conference talks for EQ meeting is mandated via the handbook. Conference talks for Sacrament meeting is just a tradition that has started up somehow over the last decade. I suspect it has happened because it is easier than figuring out real topics or scriptures, and they feel it is helping the ward members know what the Lord is saying via our current PSR's.

Can you show me that? The reason I ask is because I know RS sisters who think it is mandated too, but the handbook says to select topics from recent general conference talks. So, if they mention faith, it can be on faith. The general conference talk doesn't even have be mentioned or quoted even once. It seems weird that EQ would have different instructions for lessons than RS.

You are correct. It only states that it should be topics from one or more conference talks. That was my misinterpretation.

It seems pretty much every ward EQ and RS just picks talks instead of topics. It's frustrating to be tied to a talk so it's harder to dive deep into topics. Teaching a talk usually means the teacher has specific quotes and a certain layout they want to cover so they rush through some things. I tried to change how it's done in my ward RS and they said no, they wanted talks picked, even after I showed the handbook. (I was President at the time, but I didn't want to die on that hill.)

[Serragon]

Conference talks for EQ meeting is mandated via the handbook. Conference talks for Sacrament meeting is just a tradition that has started up somehow over the last decade. I suspect it has happened because it is easier than figuring out real topics or scriptures, and they feel it is helping the ward members know what the Lord is saying via our current PSR's.

Can you show me that? The reason I ask is because I know RS sisters who think it is mandated too, but the handbook says to select topics from recent general conference talks. So, if they mention faith, it can be on faith. The general conference talk doesn't even have be mentioned or quoted even once. It seems weird that EQ would have different instructions for lessons than RS.

You are correct. It only states that it should be topics from one or more conference talks. That was my misinterpretation.

It seems pretty much every ward EQ and RS just picks talks instead of topics. It's frustrating to be tied to a talk so it's harder to dive deep into topics. Teaching a talk usually means the teacher has specific quotes and a certain layout they want to cover so they rush through some things. I tried to change how it's done in my ward RS and they said no, they wanted talks picked, even after I showed the handbook. (I was President at the time, but I didn't want to die on that hill.)

Kudos to you for picking up on that distinction and then trying to implement something that would have been more beneficial for your sisters.

[Dusty Wanderer]

Follow the prophet.
Follow the prophet
Follow the prophet
Follow the prophet.

If the prophet says the sky is green, well it must be green.

Like the Theory of Relativity's constant speed of light, it's the one immutable law around which all of physics and reality itself must bend. Time, space, and mass itself must shrink and expand so that this one law is maintained: the (current) prophet is never EVER wrong.

I appreciate your qualification here ("current"). Apparently, the "current" prophet can invalidate or transcend any previous prophet based upon the principle of continuing restoration.

Though, can something actually be a restoration of a true principle if there is a need to change it down the road? Isn't truth eternal? Either it was a form of apostasy at its inception or it is now. Pick one. Or is there a third option?

[h_p]

I appreciate your qualification here. Apparently, the "current" prophet can invalidate or transcend any previous prophet based upon the principle of continuing restoration.

Though, can something actually be a restoration of a true principle if there is a need to change it down the road? Isn't truth eternal? Either it was an apostasy at its inception or it is now. Pick one. Or is there a third option?

The usual go-to is something along the lines of "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."

[Serragon]

Follow the prophet.
Follow the prophet
Follow the prophet
Follow the prophet.

If the prophet says the sky is green, well it must be green.

Like the Theory of Relativity's constant speed of light, it's the one immutable law around which all of physics and reality itself must bend. Time, space, and mass itself must shrink and expand so that this one law is maintained: the (current) prophet is never EVER wrong.

I appreciate your qualification here ("current"). Apparently, the "current" prophet can invalidate or transcend any previous prophet based upon the principle of continuing restoration.

Though, can something actually be a restoration of a true principle if there is a need to change it down the road? Isn't truth eternal? Either it was a form of apostasy at its inception or it is now. Pick one. Or is there a third option?

From what I have been able to gather when asking the same question about current changes that fly in the face of all Judeo-Christian history as well as our own restoration is that God couldn't reveal it to the prophet until society had progressed enough that we would accept it.

Pay no attention to the fact that this idea can't stand any amount of scrutiny. It appears to meet the needs of many who need an explanation, and on this principle it must be true.

[tribrac]

This is where I get all confused....if Brigham was wrong about women and race ( like it is currently states). How can I trust him on any other topic?

And if he, acting as a prophet could be corrected by later prophets, how do I know the prophets correcting Brigham were not also wrong and in need of correction?

So am I wrong to feel reticent about something Russel M says when he is undoing what Gordon B did? And who knows if Russel M might be undone by some future similarly infallible person?

What if 9 successive infallible people say it is one way but the 10th infallible says it is not?

It is about that point I throw my hands up, and walk back to scriptures and traditions.

[h_p]

From what I have been able to gather when asking the same question about current changes that fly in the face of all Judeo-Christian history as well as our own restoration is that God couldn't reveal it to the prophet until society had progressed enough that we would accept it.

So if you want to know what God actually wants us to believe, just look at what current society is saying. He'll get around to confirming it in about 20 years.

[Dusty Wanderer]

I appreciate your qualification here. Apparently, the "current" prophet can invalidate or transcend any previous prophet based upon the principle of continuing restoration.

Though, can something actually be a restoration of a true principle if there is a need to change it down the road? Isn't truth eternal? Either it was an apostasy at its inception or it is now. Pick one. Or is there a third option?

The usual go-to is something along the lines of "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."

Haha, nice reference.

Yes, but one would've hoped that an undertaking to update all historical occurrences of Eurasia would've given someone pause to its appropriateness. Or at least, after some time, perhaps the existence of the committee itself would give some pause, seeing its dedication and sole function was to correlate the past into the present. Perhaps its evolution into a more historically-conscientious group satisfied the skeptical, now choosing to omit or obfuscate that which cannot be correlated with the present, rather than its arguably dubious methods from its early years of simply rewriting information that could not be correlated.

[Serragon]

From what I have been able to gather when asking the same question about current changes that fly in the face of all Judeo-Christian history as well as our own restoration is that God couldn't reveal it to the prophet until society had progressed enough that we would accept it.

So if you want to know what God actually wants us to believe, just look at what current society is saying. He'll get around to confirming it in about 20 years.

Exactly. But until we change, you can be thankful that we are led by a prophet who is fearless in standing up to the world. After, you can be thankful that we have a prophet with the courage to avoid persecution and listen to still small voice that appears to be the world but really isn't.

Either way, be thankful for the prophet. He can't lead you astray because it appears that we are creating the path in real time instead of following anything objective.

[tribrac]

So God revels his kingdom to social media influencers, community organizers and career politicians first....then to large groups of their followers, then to local officials and education leaders, then to the prophet, and then it can be confirmed to me?

So a "community activist" could receive heavenly truth and live it for 20 years before I as a member of the church am allowed or required to live it?

So then could it be said the mission of the restored church is to save people who are really slow to accept change?

[Serragon]

So God revels his kingdom to social media influencers, community organizers and career politicians first....then to large groups of their followers, then to local officials and education leaders, then to the prophet, and then it can be confirmed to me?

So a "community activist" could receive heavenly truth and live it for 20 years before I as a member of the church am allowed to live it?

Yes, it seems you have it.

But those folks still need the ordinances that can only be provided by those with keys. So it's all good. As long as we have those, it really doesn't matter what nonsense we believe or which prophets get thrown under the bus.

Keys. Authority. Follow. Win.

[tribrac]

I think I'd rather have walked across the plains and ate cricket's. This is all so confusing.

[h_p]

Yes, but one would've hoped that an undertaking to update all historical occurrences of Eurasia would've given someone pause to its appropriateness. Or at least, after some time, perhaps the existence of the committee itself would give some pause, seeing its dedication and sole function was to the correlate the past into the present.

They probably thought it'd just be easier to convince people that questioning the committee is risking an eternity of hellfire and damnation. It's a simple matter of exploiting people's natural tendency to gravitate towards laziness, idol worship, and cult-like behavior.

At least, it has been up until now. Sooner or later, it will blow up in their faces.

[Serragon]

I think I'd rather have walked across the plains and ate cricket's. This is all so confusing.

With those racist, homophobic, colonizing rapers of the land? Please.

Just follow the current prophet. Seek your own revelation and measure it against whatever the current title holder says. You know you are actually feeling the Spirit instead of an emotion when the two align. Then use the substitution method to put the current title holder in place of your own revelation. BAM! You will never be confused again.

[Dusty Wanderer]

So God revels his kingdom to social media influencers, community organizers and career politicians first....then to large groups of their followers, then to local officials and education leaders, then to the prophet, and then it can be confirmed to me?

So a "community activist" could receive heavenly truth and live it for 20 years before I as a member of the church am allowed to live it?

Yes, it seems you have it.

But those folks still need the ordinances that can only be provided by those with keys. So it's all good. As long as we have those, it really doesn't matter what nonsense we believe or which prophets get thrown under the bus.

Keys. Authority. Follow. Win.

Ahh, I see what my problem is now. It's my definition of "Win". I've been thinking it resembled something more like 2 Nephi 32:6:

Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall amanifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do.

And as for "Keys" and "Authority", I've had this misconception about being able to validate claims to such against the manifested spiritual gifts, appropriate to their call or station in the kingdom. My bad.

[Dusty Wanderer]

Yes, but one would've hoped that an undertaking to update all historical occurrences of Eurasia would've given someone pause to its appropriateness. Or at least, after some time, perhaps the existence of the committee itself would give some pause, seeing its dedication and sole function was to the correlate the past into the present.

They probably thought it'd just be easier to convince people that questioning the committee is risking an eternity of hellfire and damnation. It's a simple matter of exploiting people's natural tendency to gravitate towards laziness, idol worship, and cult-like behavior.

At least, it has been up until now. Sooner or later, it will blow up in their faces.

It does seem easier to just let someone else ascend the mountain on your behalf. Or at least claim to have ascended it through the occupation of institutional offices.