LDS Freedom Forum

Jbalm,
While it's true that scriptures are interpreted subjectively...
Human anatomy and reproduction are not - your existence testifies of the eternal unchanging truth of heterosexuality - between a man and a woman.

And I agree that it's absurd to compare sexual fetishes (homosexuality) with ethnicity.

Muerte Rosa wrote:I don't recall EVER reading or hearing any church official saying anything close to telling members to shun their gay family members.

I don't think they made any blatant advice to shun one who is gay, but they did tell them the "disease is curable".

Want to see these prophets, seers and revelators in action:

from wikipedia:
In 1992, when the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from list of mental illnesses classified by the International Classification of Diseases,[31] the church produced a booklet for leaders entitled Understanding and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems,[32] which removed all reference to homosexuality as a disease.

Whose leading who in this scenario? Or is it only convenient that the church changes it's position on how they are labeled as the world changes?

Col. Flagg wrote:

BroJones wrote:Excellent news conference - declaring the intention of the Church to pursue freedom of speech as a Constitutional right - and not be silenced nor forced on LGBT issues.

I wonder how close their remarks came to crossing the line with the feds and jeopardizing their 501c3 status?

No problems with 501c3 whatsoever.

It is generally known that the APA changed the diagnosis of homosexuality being a disorder to normalize it - NOT because of any scientific research, but because of harassment from gay lobbyists.

Look up US CDC and homosexuality and you'll find it still fits the definition of disorder - a harmful one (STDs, AIDs/HIV and mental illness, besides anal sex medical complications).

Col. Flagg wrote:

Fiannan wrote:Will the Church officially announce its support of laws to protect the rights of polygamists?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say no.

So this is not worthy of civil rights protection: http://www.womeninthebible.net/Polygamy1.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is: http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/ ... mlarge.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Muerte Rosa wrote:Lizzy when did i call someone a name? The only thing i said that came close to it was in reference to fiannan and his bizarre statements. I've never done so much eye rolling in my life. If someone says something that i think is ridiculous then you can bet your a$$ I'm gonna call them out on it. Just like you are when you think i am.

A well reasoned argument tends to have more impact than some empty comment intended to dismiss someone who might disagree with you.

Just saying.

Also, might I suggest this animated presentation of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6LUptADIww" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Muerte Rosa wrote:Lizzy when did i call someone a name? The only thing i said that came close to it was in reference to fiannan and his bizarre statements. I've never done so much eye rolling in my life. If someone says something that i think is ridiculous then you can bet your a$$ I'm gonna call them out on it. Just like you are when you think i am.

Just keep quiet and pretend to lap up her many, many, many countless anecdotal stories (usually taken out of context as marketyshark noted above) that prove without a shadow of doubt that the church has fallen.

BroJones wrote:

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.

Ah, no - that is not what we teach. Rather, this is what the LDS Church teaches, QUOTING from an Apostle at the last General Conference (Nov. 2014 Ensign of the Church):

God intends that His children should act according to the moral agency He has given them, “that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.”2 It is His plan and His will that we have the principal decision-making role in our own life’s drama. God will not live our lives for us nor control us as if we were His puppets, as Lucifer once proposed to do.

Nor will His prophets accept the role of “puppet master” in God’s place.
Brigham Young stated: “I do not wish any Latter Day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ,—the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves.”3

Thank-you for the clarification Bro. Jones, nice to hear the truth!

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.

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!

What??? Brains and wisdom don't come with the golden years??? I'm 73...guess I'm screwed!!!

Pinky,

You keep opening the door for some real doozies.

Hope I get credit for not taking advantage.

:-BD

natasha wrote:What??? Brains and wisdom don't come with the golden years??? I'm 73...guess I'm screwed!!!

So, what does this mean for the God given constitutional rights of business owners etc? Do good honorable lds and christian businesses who have always hired moral people per their God given right to do so now have to hire immoral gay people? .....or else.....am I confused here? These anti-discrimination laws have always been dumb. We are to always discriminate against sin, and not to tolerate blatant unrepentant people in our lives, etc......God set up this land of liberty in a way that we could have our private homes and businesses left alone by big brother unless ofcourse we do something to violate another....etc

So now does a lds business owner have to hire a gay man or else?


We are to love gays, extend our hand to them, but not to be ruled by them......or subject to their unrepentant filthy life styles in our private homes and businesses.

Muerte Rosa wrote:Holland talked about that. That people shouldn't have to go against their moral beliefs, and gave examples line a Dr shouldn't be forced to give an abortion when there are plenty of other drs who can do it. Or a Catholic pharmacist shouldn't have to stock the morning after pill if he's against it when their are plenty of other places that provide it. But that things like employment and housing and such there should be no discrimination against.,

Only problem is that's exactly what these laws do. Doesn't matter what Oaks says to pacify the naysayers, once the law is on the books, moral judgment be damned.

http://libertasutah.org/center-for-priv ... ation-law/

Well, did the church get this one wrong?
Or, Is Connor and Libertas wrong?

The most important minority class is the individual, any classification beyond individual you can be certain that individual rights and liberties are being eroded.

marktheshark wrote:

Col. Flagg wrote:

BroJones wrote:Excellent news conference - declaring the intention of the Church to pursue freedom of speech as a Constitutional right - and not be silenced nor forced on LGBT issues.

I wonder how close their remarks came to crossing the line with the feds and jeopardizing their 501c3 status?

No problems with 501c3 whatsoever.

They were attempting to influence legislation with their press conference... that is borderline in violation of the 501c3 rule. But if they're finally getting some courage to take on the feds and the IRS' corrupt law here by speaking up and out, kudos to the brethren! :ymhug:

Muerte Rosa wrote:Holland talked about that. That people shouldn't have to go against their moral beliefs, and gave examples line a Dr shouldn't be forced to give an abortion when there are plenty of other drs who can do it. Or a Catholic pharmacist shouldn't have to stock the morning after pill if he's against it when their are plenty of other places that provide it. But that things like employment and housing and such there should be no discrimination against.,

Don't be naive. Once these laws are on the books in regards to anti-discrimination then common sense goes out the door. Some may point to nations in Europe where such laws exist do not force gay weddings in temples, but you are talking about Europe, not a fascist nation such as the USA where whatever the state decides to do they will find a way to justify it.

He also said the thing about a doctor not being forced to do artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. Oh really? If I were a lawyer for a lesbian woman who would be denied artificial insemination even though the doctor did AI for all other women how hard would it be to go after him or her in court? Abortion is different as it is not something where a doctor might say that he would give an elective abortion to one person but not another, and artificial insemination (in which Holland sort of now has given the stamp of approval I might add) is opposite to abortion.

Fiannan wrote:

Col. Flagg wrote:

Fiannan wrote:Will the Church officially announce its support of laws to protect the rights of polygamists?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say no.

So this is not worthy of civil rights protection: http://www.womeninthebible.net/Polygamy1.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is: http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/ ... mlarge.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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).

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.

Col. Flagg wrote: They were attempting to influence legislation with their press conference... that is borderline in violation of the 501c3 rule. But if they're finally getting some courage to take on the feds and the IRS' corrupt law here by speaking up and out, kudos to the brethren! :ymhug:

Bullcrap. There is no "borderline". Either they did violate the provision, or they did not. And they did not.

Why would you even bring this up? Even the biggest antis haven't said a word accusing of this because they would be stupid to do so.

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.

mattctr wrote:http://libertasutah.org/center-for-priv ... ation-law/

Well, did the church get this one wrong?
Or, Is Connor and Libertas wrong?

I think Connor is right:

Elder Oaks likewise referenced a “steady erosion of treasured freedoms” at the heart of his concern for supporting religious liberty along with housing and employment protections for LGBT persons. However, anti-discrimination laws themselves erode the treasured freedoms of association and private property.

This is Liberty 101. Irony is the Church is studying the life and teachings of ETB this year. One of the Church's staunchest defenders of liberty and the constitution must be rolling in his grave.