LDS Freedom Forum

Obrien wrote:Now, if they would just bring back a church distillery, we could all forget our problems.

=)) =)) =))

I'm still trying to absorb all of this. Found this video on another lds message board.

Muerte Rosa wrote:

Obrien wrote:

lemuel wrote:Aren't there any libertarians here who think folks should be able to contract for whatever they want?

Yes. I agree with this ^^^. The US Constitution (used to) support this notion as well. However, I should likewise be free to discriminate disassociate on whatever grounds appeal to me.

The rub with gay marriage is that eventually as it becomes more acceptable in society, those values will taint the views of everyone who doesn't have some kind of moral objection to it. It will creep (or likely sashay) into the church and it will be a heavy winnowing stick to separate the people. Like I mentioned in a post above above, my MM mom will go into complete mental meltdown when this happens, until she remembers that the solution to every bit of cognitive dissonance is to Follow those Prophets. Then she'll be fine. Now, if they would just bring back a church distillery, we could all forget our problems.

It doesn't matter how many times you say that Obrien...it's still not true.

What is not true? The truth is knowledge of things as they were, are and WILL BE. You can't comment on"the truth" unless you've seen it...

Muerte Rosa wrote:Will somebody please tell me what the hell a libertarian is?

Don't forget the google.

L-I-B-E-R-T-A-R-I-A-N

One point that I have not seen anyone bring up is the point that the Church threw their members under the buss, in order to maintain their own benefit. The members have to follow a whole different set of rules than the Church. They retain that they can deny a person based upon their religion, but you can not.

He didn't say its ok to support gay marriage. He said that those members of the Church who choose to support gay marriage won't face retribution from the Church.

The Church is not evolving on this matter. The Church had said this week that no matter what the government does, the Church will not support or practice same sex marriages.

Will the Church support gay marriage if it becomes law?

No. The Church is not sanctioning gay marriage or allowing its ecclesiastical leaders to perform gay marriages. The Church recognizes that it is now legal in most states and accepts the reality in those places as far as the law of the land is concerned. But same-sex marriage will not become a part of Church doctrine or practice.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/e ... egislation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BenMcCrea wrote:He didn't say its ok to support gay marriage. He said that those members of the Church who choose to support gay marriage won't face retribution from the Church.

The Church is not evolving on this matter. The Church had said this week that no matter what the government does, the Church will not support or practice same sex marriages.

Will the Church support gay marriage if it becomes law?

No. The Church is not sanctioning gay marriage or allowing its ecclesiastical leaders to perform gay marriages. The Church recognizes that it is now legal in most states and accepts the reality in those places as far as the law of the land is concerned. But same-sex marriage will not become a part of Church doctrine or practice.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/e ... egislation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At the risk of being provocative, the church did not have a doctrine or practice regarding banning "negroids" from holding the priesthood, either. That was a policy at least that is the latest official statement on the matter. I have the book "Mormonism and the Negro" if you need to verify I am quoting correctly above.

In both the newspaper article, and the interview that Marc posted, he stated that their (the First Presidency and the Twelve) knowledge is evolving on homosexuality. They have not yet evolved to the point of gay marriages performed by the church, but most definitely they have evolved in their tolerance for same-sex relationships.

After reading/hearing this, would you ask a gay couple not to hold hands in church or at a church dance?

Phoenixstar117 wrote:The future problem the church faces with these issues is that if the church outright is opposed to legalizing gay marriage and advocates such to it's members, the state could potentially do the same as it did during the Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887 which was:

Disincorporated the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company, with assets to be used for public schools in the Territory.
Required an anti-polygamy oath for prospective voters, jurors and public officials.
Annulled territorial laws allowing illegitimate children to inherit.
Required civil marriage licenses (to aid in the prosecution of polygamy).
Abrogated the common law spousal privilege for polygamists, thus requiring wives to testify against their husbands.
Disenfranchised women (who had been enfranchised by the Territorial legislature in 1870).
Replaced local judges (including the previously powerful Probate Court judges) with federally appointed judges.
Abolished the office of Territorial superintendent of district schools, granting the supreme court of the Territory of Utah the right to appoint a commissioner of schools. Also called for the prohibition of the use of sectarian books and for the collection of statistics of the number of so-called gentiles and Mormons attending and teaching in the schools.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Today the consequence could be anything from:

Taking away the church's right to preform legal marriages unless they also preform legal marriage for gay couples
Lose it's 501c status as a non-profit
Etc.

So what?
We cannot compromise with Babylon. If gay marriage is the price of tax exempt status then let's just pay the tax.
If they want to take away our assets, they can have them.
However, the the US government won't attempt this in my view because they would also have to take on the Catholic church, a much more formidable opponent. The Catholic church can squash the US government (and any other government) any time it chooses, and they know it.

deep water wrote:One point that I have not seen anyone bring up is the point that the Church threw their members under the buss, in order to maintain their own benefit. The members have to follow a whole different set of rules than the Church. They retain that they can deny a person based upon their religion, but you can not.

AAhhh, deep water, if you were subsumed into the borg that is "THE CHURCH", you would not parse such things. At that point, TRUTH is what THE CHURCH says it is, and you benefit by virtue of your borg-dom within it.

Robin Hood wrote:

Phoenixstar117 wrote:The future problem the church faces with these issues is that if the church outright is opposed to legalizing gay marriage and advocates such to it's members, the state could potentially do the same as it did during the Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887 which was:

Disincorporated the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company, with assets to be used for public schools in the Territory.
Required an anti-polygamy oath for prospective voters, jurors and public officials.
Annulled territorial laws allowing illegitimate children to inherit.
Required civil marriage licenses (to aid in the prosecution of polygamy).
Abrogated the common law spousal privilege for polygamists, thus requiring wives to testify against their husbands.
Disenfranchised women (who had been enfranchised by the Territorial legislature in 1870).
Replaced local judges (including the previously powerful Probate Court judges) with federally appointed judges.
Abolished the office of Territorial superintendent of district schools, granting the supreme court of the Territory of Utah the right to appoint a commissioner of schools. Also called for the prohibition of the use of sectarian books and for the collection of statistics of the number of so-called gentiles and Mormons attending and teaching in the schools.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Today the consequence could be anything from:

Taking away the church's right to preform legal marriages unless they also preform legal marriage for gay couples
Lose it's 501c status as a non-profit
Etc.

So what?
We cannot compromise with Babylon. If gay marriage is the price of tax exempt status then let's just pay the tax.
If they want to take away our assets, they can have them.
However, the the US government won't attempt this in my view because they would also have to take on the Catholic church, a much more formidable opponent. The Catholic church can squash the US government (and any other government) any time it chooses, and they know it.

RH - obviously you've been reading 1st Nephi about the GAC having control of the gentile kingdoms. Are you still unconvinced that you're a "mother gentile" in terms of Nephi's vision?

Robin Hood wrote:

Phoenixstar117 wrote:The future problem the church faces with these issues is that if the church outright is opposed to legalizing gay marriage and advocates such to it's members, the state could potentially do the same as it did during the Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887 which was:

Disincorporated the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company, with assets to be used for public schools in the Territory.
Required an anti-polygamy oath for prospective voters, jurors and public officials.
Annulled territorial laws allowing illegitimate children to inherit.
Required civil marriage licenses (to aid in the prosecution of polygamy).
Abrogated the common law spousal privilege for polygamists, thus requiring wives to testify against their husbands.
Disenfranchised women (who had been enfranchised by the Territorial legislature in 1870).
Replaced local judges (including the previously powerful Probate Court judges) with federally appointed judges.
Abolished the office of Territorial superintendent of district schools, granting the supreme court of the Territory of Utah the right to appoint a commissioner of schools. Also called for the prohibition of the use of sectarian books and for the collection of statistics of the number of so-called gentiles and Mormons attending and teaching in the schools.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Today the consequence could be anything from:

Taking away the church's right to preform legal marriages unless they also preform legal marriage for gay couples
Lose it's 501c status as a non-profit
Etc.

So what?
We cannot compromise with Babylon. If gay marriage is the price of tax exempt status then let's just pay the tax.
If they want to take away our assets, they can have them.
However, the the US government won't attempt this in my view because they would also have to take on the Catholic church, a much more formidable opponent. The Catholic church can squash the US government (and any other government) any time it chooses, and they know it.

I agree we cannot compromise with Babylon. I just post this for information's sake and the possible direction of the church.

How would the Catholic church squash the US government?

Obrien wrote:
At the risk of being provocative, the church did not have a doctrine or practice regarding banning "negroids" from holding the priesthood, either. That was a policy at least that is the latest official statement on the matter. I have the book "Mormonism and the Negro" if you need to verify I am quoting correctly above.

I don't agree. The doctrine and teaching which confirm the posterity of Cain being cursed with a black skin and those same people also being prohibited from having the Priesthood is clearly stated in the Pearl of Great Price.

22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.
Moses 7:22

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;
Abraham 1:25-27

BenMcCrea wrote:

Obrien wrote:
At the risk of being provocative, the church did not have a doctrine or practice regarding banning "negroids" from holding the priesthood, either. That was a policy at least that is the latest official statement on the matter. I have the book "Mormonism and the Negro" if you need to verify I am quoting correctly above.

I don't agree. The doctrine and teaching which confirm the posterity of Cain being cursed with a black skin and those same people also being prohibited from having the Priesthood is clearly stated in the Pearl of Great Price.

22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.
Moses 7:22

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;
Abraham 1:25-27

Yet the Church teaches that this is no longer true.

The Church Today

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24

Source: https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the ... d?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sure, the seed of Cain were black, but not all people with black skin were identified as negros. The Lamanites were cursed with a skin of blackness, but that didn't make them negros.

July 1831: Joseph Smith identifies Negroes as lineage of Ham: "The first Sabbath after our arrival in Jackson county, Brother W. W. Phelps preached to a western audience...wherein were present specimens of all the families of the earth; Shem, Ham and Japheth; … quite a respectable number of negro descendants of Ham ..." (History of the Church, 1:190)

1832: Elijah Abel baptized. In early years there is dispute over his exact ethnicity. Some Report him as white, which seems impossible given later actions regarding him.

March 1836: Elijah Abel ordained an Elder by Joseph Smith Jr. (Eunice Kinney: “My Testimony of the Latter-day Work”). The certificate of ordination is dated 3 Mar 1836.

Dec 1836: Elijah Abel is ordained a Seventy. Ordination is performed by Zebedee Coltrin according to certificate.

1844 or earlier: Walker Lewis, a Black member and barber in Lowell, MA ordained an Elder by William Smith (a younger brother of Joseph Smith Jr.)

1844 : Joseph Smith Jr. campaigns for the presidency of the United States on an anti-slavery platform aimed at ending slavery by 1850.

But Brigham Young apparently claims direct revelation when he succeeded Joseph Smith:

"Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot hold the priesthood ... I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it. The Negro cannot hold one particle of Government ... if any man mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the only way he Could get rid of it or have salvation would be to Come forward & have his head Cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground. It would also take the life of his Children." (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 4, p. 97)

Elijah Abel was not allowed by Brigham Young to receive his endowment. More relevant info: http://www.blacklds.org/history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To refine my post:

July 1831: Joseph Smith identifies Negroes as lineage of Ham: "The first Sabbath after our arrival in Jackson county, Brother W. W. Phelps preached to a western audience...wherein were present specimens of all the families of the earth; Shem, Ham and Japheth; … quite a respectable number of negro descendants of Ham ..." (History of the Church, 1:190)

Brigham Young: "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot hold the priesthood ... I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it. The Negro cannot hold one particle of Government ... if any man mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the only way he Could get rid of it or have salvation would be to Come forward & have his head Cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground. It would also take the life of his Children." (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 4, p. 97)

Anyway, back on topic.... :-B

lemuel wrote:Aren't there any libertarians here who think folks should be able to contract for whatever they want?

Yo.

BenMcCrea wrote:

Obrien wrote:
At the risk of being provocative, the church did not have a doctrine or practice regarding banning "negroids" from holding the priesthood, either. That was a policy at least that is the latest official statement on the matter. I have the book "Mormonism and the Negro" if you need to verify I am quoting correctly above.

I don't agree. The doctrine and teaching which confirm the posterity of Cain being cursed with a black skin and those same people also being prohibited from having the Priesthood is clearly stated in the Pearl of Great Price.

22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.
Moses 7:22

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;
Abraham 1:25-27

Ben - take a step back and see that you're kinda making my point.

In case it's not clear enough, the Church for all of my formative years (probably yours too) taught that homosexuality is a sin. Then the language softened a bit to be about people that suffer same sex attraction. Then the church puts up a website to help those that have SSA. Now we are building bridges with legislation we can all agree on in Utah. Can you not see the slow creep in policy? As Alexander Pope said (approximately, I'm quoting from memory):

Vice is a monster of so frightful a mien, that to be hated need only be seen
But seen to often, to look on her face, we first pity, then endure then embrace.

The move is on, and this abomination that maketh desolate will be embraced before too many more years have passed. Be prepared for it. What will you do? To whom will you turn? Make the rock upon which you build Jesus, not those that creep with the sand.

jbalm wrote:

lemuel wrote:Aren't there any libertarians here who think folks should be able to contract for whatever they want?

Yo.

Absolutely. Like Elder Cristofferson said, we only have patience, gentleness, love, and persuasion when teaching truths. Sometimes the Lord will teach His own sermons through men as was the case with Moses. If two gay men want to write up a contract promising each other whatever they want as long as they are not violating me, my family, my property or any others', what business is it of mine?

lemuel wrote:Aren't there any libertarians here who think folks should be able to contract for whatever they want?

Here

Where's Bobby D when you need a good round of "The Times They Are A-Changin'?"

So, reading this thread, I was brought back in time and the pioneers were brought forward. Wherever gay was mentioned, I saw plural marriage. Sort of a merging of events. History repeating itself, only with the invention of the internet.

"There is no way the Church will ever stop practicing plural marriage. Our Church president has promised us that, and now he is in Washington telling them what for."

"So, President, what happened in Washington?"

"I told them we were no longer practicing plural marriage. Now, to write up a statement with a 'wink wink' in it, saying God will not allow me or any other man who stands at the helm to lead the people astray."

20-30 years later: "Anyone who practices this will be excommunicated and cast into hell. There is no 'wink wink' in this statement. Got that?"

Today, the same discussions and disavowals, but with the format of the internet having the largest and angriest discussions.

What do you hold in higher regard? The words of current "prophets" or the words of scriptures. My choice has been the scriptures and if the Lord wants to tell me something regarding my life and what He expects of me I need to be willing to follow that. As we know He may even ask you something that at first appears to be against His law such as Abraham sacrificing his son. Just be SURE that what you are hearing is coming from Him.

BenMcCrea wrote:He didn't say its ok to support gay marriage. He said that those members of the Church who choose to support gay marriage won't face retribution from the Church.

The Church is not evolving on this matter. The Church had said this week that no matter what the government does, the Church will not support or practice same sex marriages.

Will the Church support gay marriage if it becomes law?

No. The Church is not sanctioning gay marriage or allowing its ecclesiastical leaders to perform gay marriages. The Church recognizes that it is now legal in most states and accepts the reality in those places as far as the law of the land is concerned. But same-sex marriage will not become a part of Church doctrine or practice.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/e ... egislation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree with you Ben but I do have quite a few reservations about where this is going. It almost seems like there's a significant division in the Church over this topic and if the Church went after every one in favor of SSM the membership numbers would take a hit.

That would be true in most of the Gentile countries plus quite a few Latin American countries.

It is almost as if they are walking on a tightrope that is getting thinner and thinner. We can't be on the fence on this issue.

Muerte Rosa wrote:I thing some of you read too much into things, that are just simply not there.

Some have the gift of seeing the enemy coming from far away.
I assure you acceptance of outright physical homosexuality is on our doorsteps.
How can I say this? Because it continues to make inroads on the spiritual level.

Sending out sisters into the mission field to authoritatively preach the Gospel is spiritual homosexuality already.
Things always creep in spiritually to lay the foundation for things to later manifest physically.

Are you appalled at my notion that our wonderful sisters serving full-time missions should be released and called home?

The whole point of Romans chapter 1 is to learn the principle that God shows us our spiritual corruptions by causing us to experience them manifested in the flesh. When you allow spiritual homosexuality in our spiritual affairs and do not repent of it, it is only a matter of time before those corruptions are thrown in your face on the physical level.

We either need to wise up and discontinue our spiritual perversions or we will be dragged kicking and screaming into experiencing them in the flesh.