LDS Freedom Forum

Fiannan wrote:

The church has completely distanced itself from polygamy and anything to do with it... they're not going to come out and publicly call for zero intolerance or rights for practicing polygamists, especially when it is against the law (as natasha stated).

Hahaha -- preference for gay rights over celestial marriage.

Yeah, celestial marriage is a practice that makes property out of women... =)) ... you are going to be mighty stunned when you get to the other side of the veil some day my friend.

Thinker wrote:If the church suddenly began supporting abortions, I hope "members" would still recognize the inherent immorality of killing children (developing humans).

What concerns me with "follow the prophet" is that people will follow them to whatever evil, trusting that their false gods could never lead them astray.

My guess is the news announcement will be more subtle, but still the principle applies - don't let anyone decide for you what is ethical or not. God is based on truth not that which yields to popular opinion.

Each of our existences testifies of the truth of heterosexuality. The homosexual movement would have everyone ignore that axiomatic truth, even when US CDC reveals disproportionately high statistics of cases of STDs, AIDS/HIV and mental illness among those who practice homosexuality (besides anal sex risks).

It is loving to want someone to be healthy, not sick.
It is loving to future generations (children) to reserve their right to NOT be legaly denied a mother or father. Studies, reproduction and common sense show that mothers are needed as well as fathers.

hmmpf Thinker? more like gross speculator...and wrong to boot.

Col. Flagg wrote:

Fiannan wrote:

The church has completely distanced itself from polygamy and anything to do with it... they're not going to come out and publicly call for zero intolerance or rights for practicing polygamists, especially when it is against the law (as natasha stated).

Hahaha -- preference for gay rights over celestial marriage.

Yeah, celestial marriage is a practice that makes property out of women... =)) ... you are going to be mighty stunned when you get to the other side of the veil some day my friend.

Property? I thought that was what American culture did to women...property of the state and said property is to fulfill her obligations to worship at the altar of consumerism.

So you would say an educated woman who wanted to join a couple in marriage has no right to do so? Does that mean you wish to exercise ownership rights over her mind, body and spirit and deny her the right to choose?

Muerte Rosa wrote:Get in the kitchen? WOW!!!! X(

Just order pizza. =))

Bee Prepared wrote:

Lizzy60 wrote:I believe fiannan is right on target, except that I think that maybe 20 years is too far out.

A man was excommunicated in 1977 for saying that the Church should, and would, be giving blacks the Priesthood. A year later he was proven correct. I was a young married person in 1978, and I remember that there were quite a few people who were very surprised. It seemed like a huge reversal in doctrine to them. It is possible for the same thing to happen with LGTB. NOT saying it will happen that way, just that it's a possibility.

You do like to call people names, don't you Pink Death? It shows your disinclination to carry on an intelligent conversation.

hy·poc·ri·sy

noun: hypocrisy; plural noun: hypocrisies
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

big-ot-ry

noun:
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
"the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry"

Bee Prepared wrote:

natasha wrote:I thought the news release was excellent. I always love to hear Elder Oaks talk. He is brilliant....and yet....he speaks with such intelligent PLAINNESS. The Church is being pretty clear that they have not liked the direction the country has taken regarding religious liberty. You can read whatever some of you want to read into all this, but it's pretty clear to me. Good for us!!!

Thank-you for the voice of reason!

The voice of reason you say?

Let me rephrase that one natasha to give you a more open minded approach (IMHO),

"The Church has been pretty clear that they have not liked the direction their members have taken regarding religious freedom."

The church is suffering the very consequence of their intolerance towards their own members who are truthfully seeking the religious freedom that Joseph Smith established and taught within the confines of Christ's restored gospel.

They who have eyes to see and ears to hear... take the Holy Spirit as your guide, never the "holy" brethren as your guide, lest you be deceived (this is me taking my religious freedom of likening the scriptures to ourselves as per Nephi's suggestion - the brethren, bishop, stake pres. are the hypocrites in this matter (gasp) I called those brethren, I do admire and love, hypocrites - waiting for a bear to tear me to pieces now (silence, birds chirping, kids awakening)).

You want to talk about hypocrisy Bee Prepared? Make a covenant with God in his temples (symbolic or not) and then tell your fellow saint all his blessings, eternal marriage, covenants etc. are null, void, and removed from him because he has faith TSM could be a seer and revolator but is seeking the witness supposedly all others have.

We all reap what we sow. God cannot be mocked even by well meaning, most often inspired men and women in top tier positions in any organization. We reap what we sow, and we get what we project upon others.

I forgot to practice also something I'm learning.

I love you. I am sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.

see: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=37326

natasha wrote:Oops...so...let me get this straight. You won't hire a gay person because you believe he/she is unrepentant. What about anyone else you hire that may break what we consider commandments? Are you not going to hire him? Or, if you already have, are you going to fire him? So, when you interview someone are you going to ask them about their sexual preferences? A person is only unrepentant when they have full knowlege of something that they should not do. The Church is doing the right thing and they have NOT changed their view of morality or anything else.

natasha - I will protect my innocent children from the ideals and philosophies of homosexuality through and through, because they are dangerous. I have empathy for these people, am sorry, feel in my heart love for them. But as a true friend should tell me smoking will kill me, I will tell those who I have spoken with, in love and truth, as I think Christ would, that homosexuality will end their life prematurely, and that that lifestyle will make them mostly miserable, likely to be raped repeatedly by partners, abused, cheated on, etc. etc. (just as the social science data is showing)

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
https://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity

I think we are missing the point. What is the reason for being gay? I won't say this is an end all, but people claim it is love, maybe it is their ideal "love" for them, and God does leave us to our reprobate mind (those are his words) if that is what we want most - but the social science data of our day shows blatantly that gays and lesbians are miserable, not from bigotry or intolerance by christians or society but by their very own partners and actions.

Just as you hear all about "blacks" being killed by "white" cops (Taken way out of proportion), the truth is blacks kill more blacks, and blacks kill more white officers than white officers have ever come close to killing blacks. So here we have another card being played for an agenda by those wanting to defy God in our country. Racism. Just like the card of intolerance is being played in the matter of LGBT rights. Both are lies and misuse of actual facts.

So, the underlying issue isn't intolerance and rights, its moral societal decay and the misery of the major majority of homosexuals, and the social science data (finding my links from my studies done years ago on this topic for a friend) blatantly shows that the average partners (for males) are in the hundreds during the short 20 or so year life-span of their practicing homosexuality before they die earlier than they should have. Statistics of the Violence, sexual abuse, rapes, diseases, etc. within the homosexual partnerships are so alarming, it breaks my heart. And you want me to embrace this as a "choice" even a "healthy choice" for my children to be around?

I do not want my children taught in any way shape or form by anyone who will teach this is a choice of a healthy life style, let a lone coach them about the lifestyle. This isn't about intolerance as much as smoking is. It is a physiological debate of disease, abuse, early deaths (as homosexuals also have a shorter life expectancy and that is proven fact), and a majority miserable life feedback from those in such relationships, the ratios and statistics are so sad, and this misery ratio is heavily weighted on their partners, not intolerance of society whatsoever. The last thing I'm going to do is allow such to be around my young children. I will fight it to my death.

The intolerance card we are seeing is a cover-up to push agendas through law, take a few celebrity gay couples who will work for the Gaddianton, and you have a perfect intolerance card to cry bigotry and intolerance to further force the changes of law they want through sympathetic lies.

I invite all of us to read up on the social science data and studies on this matter, especially the study done on identical twins (http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647), proving the gay gene is a media falsehood, as well an invite to study up on and ponder the understanding and being open to some ideas about the spiritual aspect of being gay: (read point 5 on this blog, I feel this is pretty close to what is going on with tendencies these people have)
http://uncleanspirits.blogspot.com/2012 ... irits.html
People need help, truth is the only end all thing that will set them free, whether they embrace it or not is their real right. Tolerance and flattery will only further their misery.

In the end, homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle. It has little to do with protecting rights, they already have the right to live the lifestyle and are doing so as they please. But to take it, despite the data of early death and misery (rape, divorce, 100s of partners, abuse, violence, etc.) and push it as a healthy lifestyle, promoting it in schools, and declaring it is a right, is down right dangerous to children, society, etc..

If we as "saints" can't see the agendas behind this matter, then we are doomed more than the judgements of God upon our symbolic power of the economy (going down this year come September and on according to the signs), hence maybe why the plagues will come along side the destruction and end of our endless chariots (as Isaiah saw our day) http://voiceofanearthquake.blogspot.com ... phecy.html.

Please also watch this documentary by a US. Congressmen: http://youtu.be/uUMOWZc8PU8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If we believe our doctrine, we believe Satan is actively seeking to destroy the family at all costs. This LGBT rights issues is one of many cards being used to do just that. The data is there, media ignores it, and published falsehoods again and again.

triple777 wrote:I guess on this Forum it is okay to be a TROLL just like Muerte Rosa
Pink Death is.

Just going down this one topic this user is constantly posting every other post. You may want to go to a forum for desperate house wives and discuss topic there that may be more in line with your peer group.

but don't fall into the same trap yourself? Ignore what you think is not worth your intelligence.

Re: some comments earlier...
God is love.
Some people have a pretty twisted idea of love - some pushing "homosexual rights" are also pushing child-sex rights.
Genuine love is not defined as just romance and sex.

Love is not sickness but strives for what is best - and healthy.
Homosexual practices statistically prove to be harmful...According to the US CDC, there are many more cases of STDs, AIDs/HIV and mental illness among those engaging in homosexual practices. Doctors warn of risks of anal sex, because the anus is not anatomically designed to be an entrance.

Ex-homosexual and ex-gay-rights leader Michael Glatz said, "Homosexuality is death and I choose life."

Since liberals seem to primarily have the most control over media, homosexual practices are deceptively passed off as "happy rainbows" but dig a little and you find the opposite.
Children raised by homosexual parents are increasingly coming forward in opposing same-sex marriage because of either dysfunctional lifestyles they were subject to or because they missed out on either a mother or father.

Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court
http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/laure ... eral-court" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

cayenne wrote:

=== wrote:The news conference was an calculated attempt to positively influence future legislation and court opinions in favor of discrimination practiced by religion.

Religion Freedom is the right to discriminate, the church is lobbying to take away that same right from individuals who own businesses and property. Personally, I think individuals should be able to decide when they want to discriminate when it comes to their own business and property. I also feel religion, along with other organizations, should have the right to operate in discriminating ways if that is how they believe they should operate.

The news conference was just carefully crafted spin to lobby against the rights of individuals who own their own business and property, it was presented in this way so the church can try to preserve its own right to discriminate and yet still look as though it is being sensitive to the shifting culture and attitudes of the population.

Protect the corporation, poop on the little innocent guy, all the while looking like the peacemaker. I do pray that those church members who are so blinded by the craftiness of men will see the truth. This should be an outrage to all those who have any grasp on God's principles of liberty. The erosion continues, same pattern getting filthier per Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc

I'd say a person who can't get housing or a job because of discrimination is the "little guy" compared to a landlord or small business owner.

Okay, you own a duplex in which you and your kids live in one half and you rent out the other half. Two gay men wish to rent the other half. The Church now says you should live with it, but wants the right to say that they can fire someone for being gay...you know, bad example for the image of the Church I suppose.

Makes sense, right?

Muerte Rosa wrote:Ill answer that with a question....two men or women apply to rent said duplex....how can you tell if they are gay or not? It's not always obvious. I know plenty of straight guys who appear gay and vise versa. Are we also allowed to discriminate against an unmarried couple "living in sin" ?

I can definitely see valid points on both sides of this. I think the right side though is the side of Jesus, and we just have to ask ourselves the age old question of "What would Jesus do?" and do that.

I know exactly what you are talking about. Because there was a decent situation where thankfully I didn't say a word. At first I thought the two guys were homosexual, but it turned out that they were actually brothers. Again, good that I didn't say any words in assumption. Outside of HGTV, it's not obvious. Even in the OT, people had to be witnessed in the act in order for any real condemnation, and it's true, it's not easy to tell if it's an unwed couple sometimes either, just let said person rent and move on with it. It's also important to know that the one faction that tries to egg the Church on into either doing some extreme retaliation, or turn to changing our religious policies on marriage, are not as much the homosexual lobby, but even moreso actually the religious far right. There's plenty of anti-mormon ministries among some of the Christian Churches that really want, like the Pharisees, or Balaam, for the Church members to fall or go contrary to the ways of the Bible so that they can win by default, or call the church fallen. Keep that in mind, that the sectarians are just as much against the Church, if not more, than the leftists are.

I agree that being loving as Jesus was is important.
But Jesus wasn't a peace-at-all-costs type of person.
He stood up for what he felt was good and healthy - even to his death.

Bottom line is should someone get special treatment for having a dysfunctional sexual substitutes?
An employer cannot know if one prefers homosexual substitutes just by looking at them - they have to be told or shown in order to know. And if one is so obsessed about their sexual substitutes, it would likely interfere with their job duties.

Muerte Rosa wrote:I know for me i always make it a point when i go to job interviews to let the person hiring know that i prefer to only have sex with males. Because my private sex life has a direct affect on the success of their business. And everyone around me's, personal salvation. ;)

=))

I thought I would post this to add to the discussion

Muerte Rosa wrote:I can definitely see valid points on both sides of this. I think the right side though is the side of Jesus, and we just have to ask ourselves the age old question of "What would Jesus do?" and do that.

Not disagreeing with you here, because this is exactly what we should do. But the problem with non-discrimination laws is that it's essentially saying "Do what Jesus would do, or we'll throw you in a cage or kill you." And then these kinds of laws are usually enforced against just the non-politically correct groups, just like the so-called "hate-crime" laws.

Putin weighs in on morality:



Maybe LDS people who have become born-again supporters of gay rights should tell their more traditional LDS counterparts that if they want to live in a nation that feels like what America used to feel like they should move to Russia. ;)

Also, if the Church wants to support gay rights ordinances then they should be forced to abide by them to in regards to employment. If a woman identified as a lesbian but otherwise living the commandments applies to be a seminary teacher or anything else in the Church by golly she has the right to do so. The only area that I would say that the Church should be able to have special rights is in regards to marriage and the temple.

Muerte Rosa wrote:Ill answer that with a question....two men or women apply to rent said duplex....how can you tell if they are gay or not? It's not always obvious. I know plenty of straight guys who appear gay and vise versa. Are we also allowed to discriminate against an unmarried couple "living in sin" ?

I can definitely see valid points on both sides of this. I think the right side though is the side of Jesus, and we just have to ask ourselves the age old question of "What would Jesus do?" and do that.

Oh for Pete's sake let's suppose they greet each other or say goodbye to each other with a huge French kiss. Should the kids see that? I will bet if I posted a pic on any LDS site of a man and woman giving each other an affectionate, not passionate, kiss I would be allowed to but if I instead posted a pic of two men or two women doing the same thing it would be taken down. Am I not right?

And what would Jesus do? I will bet if you asked that question 20 years ago in an LDS audience you would get a different answer than if you asked it today. And we can only speculate what answer people would generally give 20 years from now.

Muerte Rosa wrote:I don't think so

Don't think what?

Muerte Rosa wrote:To everything you said.

So you should be fined or arrested for discrimination but the Church should have special rights?

Thinker wrote:I agree that being loving as Jesus was is important.
But Jesus wasn't a peace-at-all-costs type of person.
He stood up for what he felt was good and healthy - even to his death.

Bottom line is should someone get special treatment for having a dysfunctional sexual substitutes?

Straight people like you and I don't have to worry about being discriminated against for our sexual orientation at our jobs, looking for a place to live ect. LGBT people wanting the same assurances and stability that we take for granted is not "special treatment" in my opinion. It is wanting the same treatment.

Thinker wrote: An employer cannot know if one prefers homosexual substitutes just by looking at them - they have to be told or shown in order to know. And if one is so obsessed about their sexual substitutes, it would likely interfere with their job duties.

That is not true and I think you are applying a double standard. If man during an interviewer casually mentioned his wife or going on a date with a woman that would give the interviewers a good idea that he was probably not gay, but I don't he would think twice about it, much less think he was obsessed.

Wargames,
Well then, do we need to legislate anti-discrimination for single people - who knows maybe the employer has a bias toward married people, or women, or men, or people within a certain age range...

No, just those with special sexual substitutes. 8-|


Who's being discriminated against?

Children have the right to not be taught homosexuality in school. Yet, in places where homosexual marriage has been supported, these rights have been infringed upon...
*Freshmen were told not to tell their parents about a pro-gay seminar & were required to sign a confidentiality agreement (Derrfield, Illinois Mar. 2007).
*In March, 2007, a Massachusetts high school banned parents from attending a seminar for students on how they can know they are homosexual.
*In October, 2008, First graders (6 year-old students) were taken on a field trip to watch their lesbian teacher's wedding.
*In Oct 2008, a Hayward CA public elementary school celebrated "Coming Out Day."

Normalizing & even encouraging children to explore homosexuality obviously causes more to experiment with homosexuality.
"The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Schools... This report is part of an integrated strategy to inform and educate parents, students and school officials across the nation of its contents and of their respective rights and duties. It has documented the concern that the health of students in many schools across the country may have been compromised and their First Amendment rights may have been denied."
http://www.afamichigan.org/images/Legal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 200504.pdf

Some in the homosexual fetish activist group have bluntly admitted that their eventual goal is to normalize pedophilia and inappropriate adult-child sexual relations.

Many have been harassed by the homosexual fetish herd, without public notice, but some have been public, like Chick Filay and a Miss America contestant, both who voiced their support for marriage between a man and a woman.
Other examples include...
*In April 2008, an Albuquerque photographer was fined over $6,000 for refusing to be hired to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.
*In May, 2008, a black administrator was fired from the U of Toledo, Ohio, for writing an editorial objecting to the comparison of black discrimination to same-sex marriage.
*An intolerant opponent of Proposition 8 violently attacked & injured a Proposition supporter in Oct. 2008.
*On November 19, 2008, eHarmony, a Christian-based matching service was forced by New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights to provide website matching services for homosexuals.

Then there's Chick Filay and the Ender's Game movie boycotts.

"Gay Discrimination Bill Will Stifle Free Speech, Advance 'Homosexual Agenda,' "
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02 ... itics-say/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

=== wrote:I thought I would post this to add to the discussion

Interesting, at about 7:57 a few people asked them to clarify "public advocacy"
going off from memory - Christofferson says "In our view" it's ok (meaning you will not lose your good standing in the church) to join groups like Ordain women, Mormons building bridges, etc... and even speak about those issues publicly (like on facebook) as long as you are not deliberately and persistently attacking the church and it's leaders and trying to get others to follow you or pull out of the church.

Thinker wrote:Wargames,
Well then, do we need to legislate anti-discrimination for single people - who knows maybe the employer has a bias toward married people, or women, or men, or people within a certain age range...

No, just those with special sexual substitutes. 8-|

Seriously, what do you think is more common, married people being discriminated against or LGBT people?

Thinker wrote: Who's being discriminated against?

Children have the right to not be taught homosexuality in school. Yet, in places where homosexual marriage has been supported, these rights have been infringed upon...
*Freshmen were told not to tell their parents about a pro-gay seminar & were required to sign a confidentiality agreement (Derrfield, Illinois Mar. 2007).
*In March, 2007, a Massachusetts high school banned parents from attending a seminar for students on how they can know they are homosexual.
*In October, 2008, First graders (6 year-old students) were taken on a field trip to watch their lesbian teacher's wedding.
*In Oct 2008, a Hayward CA public elementary school celebrated "Coming Out Day."

Obviously trying to hide from parents what is being taught to their children is very wrong. Do you have a link to that story?

Thinker wrote: Normalizing & even encouraging children to explore homosexuality obviously causes more to experiment with homosexuality.
"The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Schools... This report is part of an integrated strategy to inform and educate parents, students and school officials across the nation of its contents and of their respective rights and duties. It has documented the concern that the health of students in many schools across the country may have been compromised and their First Amendment rights may have been denied."
http://www.afamichigan.org/images/Legal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 200504.pdf

The link doesn't work. Do you really think that children should be sheltered from the existence of homosexuality and the existence of LGBT people and the issues they face? There is no evidence that I know of that being lesbian, bi, or gay is catching. Your fears that being taught about these issues would actually make children gay seems irrational to me.

Thinker wrote: Some in the homosexual fetish activist group have bluntly admitted that their eventual goal is to normalize pedophilia and inappropriate adult-child sexual relations.

Are you talking about groups like NAMBLA? Mainstream LGBT groups want nothing to do with those sickos.

Thinker wrote: Many have been harassed by the homosexual fetish herd, without public notice, but some have been public, like Chick Filay and a Miss America contestant, both who voiced their support for marriage between a man and a woman.
Other examples include...
*In April 2008, an Albuquerque photographer was fined over $6,000 for refusing to be hired to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.
*In May, 2008, a black administrator was fired from the U of Toledo, Ohio, for writing an editorial objecting to the comparison of black discrimination to same-sex marriage.
*An intolerant opponent of Proposition 8 violently attacked & injured a Proposition supporter in Oct. 2008.
*On November 19, 2008, eHarmony, a Christian-based matching service was forced by New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights to provide website matching services for homosexuals.

Yes, it is unfortunate that some people have the spirit of revenge. Achieving equality is a tough and complicated process.

Thinker wrote: Then there's Chick Filay and the Ender's Game movie boycotts.

Aren't you a supporter of free markets? Boycotting is part of a free market economy. It is certainly better than having people try to get the government to stop things that they don't like.

Thinker wrote: "Gay Discrimination Bill Will Stifle Free Speech, Advance 'Homosexual Agenda,' "
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02 ... itics-say/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good point. The law is a blunt instrument. It is better suited for making the pendulum swing the other way than achieving equilibrium.

It bugs me that the church or its members like to cherry pick the Constitution.

About 90% of government programs and wars are unconstitutional and take away our freedoms (at the least, we are forced to pay for them), yet where are the protests?

Most of my family can't get enough wars, and have no interest in declaring them as the Constitution requires. They also see no problem with out government spying on us, because they want to be safe.

Many of my relatives have high paying federal jobs in unconstitutional departments, with nice benefits and retirement packages.

I suppose now with the church emphasizing liberty and the Constitution, all this will change, right?