LDS Freedom Forum

Is this from the LDS Church, or is it from a united Christian front? Elder Ering attended just such a conference to discuss this very thing. It was in Rome I believe.

deep water wrote:Is this from the LDS Church, or is it from a united Christian front?

This news conference was solely by the LDS Church. No one else was involved. No one else spoke except officers of the LDS Church.

=== 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.

+1

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

MuerteRosa,
You seem to be arguing with yourself.
You insist on the ability of business owners to reserve the right to serve who they want, yet you see nothing wrong with the church compromising with the homosexual lobbyists in pushing for anti-discrimination in businesses.

Or is it the church trying to serve two masters and you following?

marktheshark wrote:

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.

I bring it up because it is noteworthy and I like the hard hitting stuff. And no, it is not 'bullcrap'. Look up 501c3 and see what you are agreeing to in order to remain tax-exempt... I am not fool-hardy in my supposition here... they weren't endorsing any political candidates, but they are certainly endorsing specific legislation designed to influence political decisions. And why are you so worked up about this anyway??? I think it's awesome that the brethren are stepping up to the plate and closely challenging the IRS here by what they did. Many Pastors and Clergy across the country banded together a few months ago and deliberately challenged the feds, the IRS and their mouth-shutting 501c3 by speaking out about political issues and endorsing specific individuals for office. :ymapplause:

Muerte Rosa wrote:Why would he be rolling in his grave?

I really don't understand why anybody is upset about this at all. I mean the church hasn't changed anything in regards to this matter. NOTHING. I mean all i see going on is that the church is looking for a way coexist peacefully with the rest of the world, while attempting to keep everyone's rights in tact. Is that so horrible? That they want to make things less contentious without condoning certain things?

And this isn't about protecting the corporation. That's about the dumbest thing I've heard all week. This world is full of a bunch of cry baby wimps. Like the gay couple that sued the baker cause he wouldn't make them a wedding cake? Wahhhh :(( REALLY???? Suck it up and find another baker!! Heaven forbid business owners have the same rights as the consumer.

I know it upsets me because when the original upholding of these anti gay discrimination laws by the church first came out awhile back, the church or corporation was given an exemption, the little guy was not. In other words what the church owned was safe in discriminating freely but the regular little guy lds business owner was not. Now a flaming unrepentant gay person can reak all sorts of havoc on the little guy mormon Private business owners by choosing to apply to their businesses for employment and housing and has the power of babylons government to support him. Better not make the gay man mad and not hire him or boom....lawsuit.

So now, if you choose to not hire or house a gay person in your private business, you can be sued, and looked down upon as a bigot and a hater of gays. This is so wrong........this has nothing to do with whether you love the gay or not, it has to do with babylon wanting to destroy the moral fabric of society, and to destroy the rights of private citizens in favor of a sodom society.

God commands us to obey him, and to love others. Loving others is being kind, and trying to help, and also knowing when to keep your distance when they won't repent. Is it love or hate to not allow a swinging couple to stay the night in your home? Is it love or hate to keep unrepentant gays from working at your local business? If I try to help a gay man, that is Godly....being kind and letting him know i am here to help, but if he is unrepentant i am not going to allow him in my home for example. So why should I be forced to hire him at my business? Next it will be my home too? I will love him, and let him know why he can't be in my home or my employee because I want to share repentance with him, if he refuses, I should keep my distance from being to close......yet babylon wants to shove their immorality into our private lives.THIS IS HUGE.......

Muerte Rosa wrote:

Thinker wrote:MuerteRosa,
You seem to be arguing with yourself.
You insist on the ability of business owners to reserve the right to serve who they want, yet you see nothing wrong with the church compromising with the homosexual lobbyists in pushing for anti-discrimination in businesses.

Or is it the church trying to serve two masters and you following?

There is a BIG difference between someone denying a person a place to live or a job based on sexual preference, and a business owner refusing service to a customer. People NEED jobs and a place to live. They don't need a stupid wedding cake. Go somewhere else.

Come on really????? Stupid wedding cake, now I think that is bigotry toward a time tested tradition of beauty and taste. Lol :ymblushing:

This example is only anecdotal, and not a statement of what the Brethren believe or teach, but when Packer's conference talk of several years ago was edited to say that the Proc on the Family is a "guide" instead of being a "revelation" that was in the original audio version, I asked my father, which is it? He told me that it is definitely a revelation, but the Church(tm) can't claim it as a revelation publicly, in writing, as it would undo all the good will they have created with the LGTB groups in SL, and the support the Church has given the anti-discriminatory laws.

I wonder what God would say about this, assuming He revealed the Proclamation to the Brethren?

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.

I have a childhood friend that is LDS and has come out and admitted he is gay. You know what so great about this guy? He does not want people forced to hire him or house him, he is all for the constitution. He wants people to be kind and not hateful, but he would never try to force his way of life on others, and that is what this anti- discrimination is about. If I have to hire him or else...not good. He wants to be hired and housed by the owners choice, not based on his private sexual lifestyle. I love the guy, he knows it, but he also knows i can't be as close to him because he won't repent. At least he is being honest and accepting his choices are furthering him from God.

It is just like many Mexicans who have come out against amnesty. Not all illegals want a free handout, not all gays want to force their lifestyle on you either, this is government sodomite propaganda to destroy society, its all in the scriptural patterns.

All i am saying is

Muerta, your home is yours to do with what you will. If you own a business, you should have full control over it and who works there. If you choose to not hire someone because they are gay, mormon, catholic, Muslim, atheist, evolutionist, or even because you don't like their hairstyle,,that is your choice......to have anyone of these people use babylons government to force you to hire or house them is sinful.

Our bodies are a temple, are homes should be an extension of the temple, as well as our businesses. If you want to keep immorality out, that should be your choice.....and the righteous choice. If you want to hire a gay man because you think you can help him. Great.....if later you find out he is having orgies in the back room after hours, then it should be your choice to fire him....but now he will claim it was discrimination.

God and immorality don't mix. Unrepentant people have never been allowed in Gods temples and private arenas. Our homes and businesses we own are an extension of that.

Muerte Rosa wrote:

cayenne wrote:I have a childhood friend that is LDS and has come out and admitted he is gay. You know what so great about this guy? He does not want people forced to hire him or house him, he is all for the constitution. He wants people to be kind and not hateful, but he would never try to force his way of life on others, and that is what this anti- discrimination is about. If I have to hire him or else...not good. He wants to be hired and housed by the owners choice, not based on his private sexual lifestyle. I love the guy, he knows it, but he also knows i can't be as close to him because he won't repent. At least he is being honest and accepting his choices are furthering him from God.

It is just like many Mexicans who have come out against amnesty. Not all illegals want a free handout, not all gays want to force their lifestyle on you either, this is government sodomite propaganda to destroy society, its all in the scriptural patterns.

Man if i could only hang out with people who were repentant of everything....I'd be very alone in this world. I'm willing to bet so would you. ;)

Not so, all true saints sin, but desire to not sin period. Believe it,or not there are people who never want to lie, or steal.....ever....they never want to be immoral, or gossip,,etc......ever.......if we truly love God we all will be repentant of every sin, otherwise we love sin, at least to a degree, and that is not what true saints and Zion are.

Exactly right, cayenne. In effect, the Church is saying that they can keep gays out of the temple, and even refuse to hire them to work in church-owned businesses, but the members of the church do not have the same freedom or agency.

Muerte rosa, I have enjoyed are back and forth, but I must get out of bed and do some stuff lol.....may I catch up with you later :ymapplause:

Can women - who have had anti-workplace-discrimination protection for years- force an employer to hire them under threat of a lawsuit? :-\

Hopefully not.

The only way one could even tell if another had "special sexual substitute (homosexual) preferences" is if they either said or showed so.

If a person is making such a big obsessive deal about their homosexual fetishes, then it would likely interfere with their job duties. On the other hand, if they kept their PRIVATE lives PRIVATE, there should be no problem.

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. ;)

How many?

All at once, or in a row?

That doesn't answer the question.

Lizzy60 wrote:This example is only anecdotal, and not a statement of what the Brethren believe or teach, but when Packer's conference talk of several years ago was edited to say that the Proc on the Family is a "guide" instead of being a "revelation" that was in the original audio version, I asked my father, which is it? He told me that it is definitely a revelation, but the Church(tm) can't claim it as a revelation publicly, in writing, as it would undo all the good will they have created with the LGTB groups in SL, and the support the Church has given the anti-discriminatory laws.

I wonder what God would say about this, assuming He revealed the Proclamation to the Brethren?

Lizzy60 that is so interesting! I haven't noticed that one word change before but it sticks out like a sore-thumb doesn't it? It tells me the tares in the public affairs department are at it again, what do you think?

GeeR wrote:

Lizzy60 wrote:This example is only anecdotal, and not a statement of what the Brethren believe or teach, but when Packer's conference talk of several years ago was edited to say that the Proc on the Family is a "guide" instead of being a "revelation" that was in the original audio version, I asked my father, which is it? He told me that it is definitely a revelation, but the Church(tm) can't claim it as a revelation publicly, in writing, as it would undo all the good will they have created with the LGTB groups in SL, and the support the Church has given the anti-discriminatory laws.

I wonder what God would say about this, assuming He revealed the Proclamation to the Brethren?

Lizzy60 that is so interesting! I haven't noticed that one word change before but it sticks out like a sore-thumb doesn't it? It tells me the tares in the public affairs department are at it again, what do you think?

the above discussion has reminded me of a Quote from Ogden..

Since the Manifesto was issued in 1890, the past 80 Years have been silent. There has never been a revelation presented for the people to accept or sustain at a General Conference. For nearly a century not another word has been added to the Doctrine and Covenants. -Ogden Kraut 95 theses

Either Ogden is correct or we do receive revelation and the PR department of the church has to doctor it up so it doesnt Offend these different parties.. who are these parties? LGBT, Fed Government, Other religions...

and if they do change words of the revelation or state that its just a guide.. then aren't they deceiving the saints?

There is nothing revelatory about the PoF.

It is merely a policy statement drafted by whomever (probably some people at Kirton McConkie) and adopted by the church so that it could gain standing to file an amicus brief in Baehr v. Miike, the Hawaii gay marriage case.

I don't know why everyone wants to give it such elevated status.

Thinker wrote:The only way one could even tell if another had "special sexual substitute (homosexual) preferences" is if they either said or showed so.

If a person is making such a big obsessive deal about their homosexual fetishes, then it would likely interfere with their job duties. On the other hand, if they kept their PRIVATE lives PRIVATE, there should be no problem.

I think it's pretty standard for people to do facebook checks on candidates applying for work. You don't have to be flamboyant in the interview itself.

jbalm wrote:There is nothing revelatory about the PoF.

It is merely a policy statement drafted by whomever (probably some people at Kirton McConkie) and adopted by the church so that it could gain standing to file an amicus brief in Baehr v. Miike, the Hawaii gay marriage case.

I don't know why everyone wants to give it such elevated status.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

Wonder how many people who wave the Proclamation in regards to homosexuality are on the pill.

Muerte Rosa wrote:There is NOTHING wrong with the pill.

Other then it stops the natural way your body works. Do you thing gods designs were imperfect? Do you think he wants you messing with the natual order of his working for your body?