Apostle says it's okay to support gay marriage

[samizdat]

Fair enough. Thanks anyway.

[Sirocco]

Fair enough. Thanks anyway.

It doesn't sound like something Canada would do, maybe once upon a time, but certainly not anymore...

[inquirringmind]

Will somebody please tell me what the hell a libertarian is?

A libertarian (in my opinion) is someone who pretends to be politically conservative, but who doesn't really care if street drugs, prostitution, same sex marriage, and abortion on demand are all legalized here at home, while Iran developes an atomic bomb and long range intercontenental ballistic missil systems (which some sources say they're within years of developing), Russia invades the Ukrane, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and all of Europe, China invades Tiwan, North Korea invades South Korea, and Israel is bombed into non-existence overseas--as long as they don't pay higher taxes.

Just kidding (I think.)

[Bald_Bandit]

Will somebody please tell me what the hell a libertarian is?

A libertarian (in my opinion) is someone who pretends to be politically conservative, but who doesn't really care if street drugs, prostitution, same sex marriage, and abortion on demand are all legalized here at home, while Iran developes an atomic bomb and long range intercontenental ballistic missil systems (which some sources say they're within years of developing), Russia invades the Ukrane, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and all of Europe, China invades Tiwan, North Korea invades South Korea, and Israel is bombed into non-existence overseas--as long as they don't pay higher taxes.

Just kidding (I think.)

Type a Google image search for 'Political Test Grid' and you'll see a pretty good representation of scale of the different political philosophies, there is also a test you can take to determine where you fall. Most people aren't all one thing, but in aggregate you'll fall somewhere in one of those boxes. I fall at the inside edge of Libertarianism, so while I value the right to choose and freedom, I'm not for anarchism. With politics we definitely tend to paint with far too broad a brush.

[Thinker]

It was reiterated that the church still believes in marriage as defined as a man and a woman.
Some, like the OP, like to slant media to sway public opinion.

Still, I think the issue is that some church leaders are realizing if they started excommunicating everyone who disagreed with some aspect of the church, they wouldn't have many tithe-payers left.
They are caving in to the pressures of the homosexual fanatics, and IMO, are showing they prioritize their own reputation over standing for what is right - and this isn't just regarding legal marriage - but also abortion and poverty and other major social concerns.
One of the church spokesmen on a lds-owned radio station was trying to put down Indiana for standing for what's right - and saying that all states should do as Utah has - in compromising principles - for the sake of a minority of individuals with certain "special" sexual substitutes.

I don't fall for homosexual media nonsense and realize it is a long-term systematic mind control, where homosexual fanatics have used marketing methods which have worked and blinded many.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issu ... _ball.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Still, I believe that many people suffering from homosexual thoughts/feelings have been sexually abused or otherwise victimized and I believe they need love - not enabling and pretending harmful behavior is a-ok - but love as in striving for what is best - and caring as Jesus did.
Excommunication and similar bullying is not what Jesus taught.
Jesus spent time around those who needed him most, rather than push them away.

[A Random Phrase]

Will somebody please tell me what the hell a libertarian is?

There are two kinds of libertarians. There's the libertarian party. Not sure all that they believe. Then there's the libertarian belief system, which is that people ought to be free to make their choices, even if we don't agree with them. In that sense, God is a libertarian and chose Jesus because Jesus was willing to follow the libertarian plan of salvation.

[marktheshark]

It was reiterated that the church still believes in marriage as defined as a man and a woman.
Some, like the OP, like to slant media to sway public opinion.

Still, I think the issue is that some church leaders are realizing if they started excommunicating everyone who disagreed with some aspect of the church, they wouldn't have many tithe-payers left.
They are caving in to the pressures of the homosexual fanatics, and IMO, are showing they prioritize their own reputation over standing for what is right - and this isn't just regarding legal marriage - but also abortion and poverty and other major social concerns.
One of the church spokesmen on a lds-owned radio station was trying to put down Indiana for standing for what's right - and saying that all states should do as Utah has - in compromising principles - for the sake of a minority of individuals with certain "special" sexual substitutes.

I don't fall for homosexual media nonsense and realize it is a long-term systematic mind control, where homosexual fanatics have used marketing methods which have worked and blinded many.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issu ... _ball.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Still, I believe that many people suffering from homosexual thoughts/feelings have been sexually abused or otherwise victimized and I believe they need love - not enabling and pretending harmful behavior is a-ok - but love as in striving for what is best - and caring as Jesus did.
Excommunication and similar bullying is not what Jesus taught.
Jesus spent time around those who needed him most, rather than push them away.

Can you provide anything demonstrable that shows the Church is certainly caving on gay marriage, abortion, poverty and other major social issues?

I have read through and listened to all recent official statements and do not agree.

[jwharton]

Can you provide anything demonstrable that shows the Church is certainly caving on gay marriage, abortion, poverty and other major social issues?

I have read through and listened to all recent official statements and do not agree.

How about the church supporting anti-discrimination laws that prevent individuals and private businesses from being discriminatory?

There are no collective rights that are not a result of an accumulation of individual rights of those in the organization.
If individual rights are done away with, it is only a matter of time before groups lose their rights.
If the church has supported removing individual rights to conduct personal and private business to their individual election...
It won't be long before that the same concept and premise will be applied to organizations as well.
And, then, this is where it cuts deep because now organizations have written policies that are an easy target.
It's pretty hard to pin down when an individual actually discriminates along those lines but organizations are sitting ducks.
Protection of individual rights is really the only basis and foundation upon which the church could maintain religious rights.
And, so far as I have been made aware, the church has thrown individual rights under the bus in hopes of garnering religious rights.

[Thinker]

MarkShark,
Jwharton explained my thoughts.
It seems as if they are saying one thing to public media and how they're influencing their strong arm in UT law... And then turning around and saying another thing to members in conference.

Yet again, it is a good reminder to not trust in them as if they are infallible gods.
At the same time, I treasure truth wherever it's found and have found a lot of truth in our church and in words I've heard or read from GAs.

I don't think Christ would encourage dicriminatory "anti-discrimination" laws - but would encourage freedom protection of ALL.

[A Random Phrase]

What if the "gay agenda" is simply a, "Quick! Look over there!" while something seriously bad is in the works for this nation? What if it was created as a distraction (and not by those with ssa)?

[samizdat]

What if the "gay agenda" is simply a, "Quick! Look over there!" while something seriously bad is in the works for this nation? What if it was created as a distraction (and not by those with ssa)?

It IS a distraction. They are telling us, support us, support our desires to be like you but in our own way. While behind the curtain, they want to destroy us all.

It really is death by a thousand paper cuts.

[A Random Phrase]

What if the "gay agenda" is simply a, "Quick! Look over there!" while something seriously bad is in the works for this nation? What if it was created as a distraction (and not by those with ssa)?

It IS a distraction. They are telling us, support us, support our desires to be like you but in our own way. While behind the curtain, they want to destroy us all.

It really is death by a thousand paper cuts.

:ymapplause:

[EmmaLee]

I don't ever see anyone like Elder Packer, Elder Oaks, or Elder Holland caving anytime soon on gay marriage.

You should probably take Oaks off that list.

And Elder Packer is no longer with us.

[EmmaLee]

Mayby there is a shift going on, but I have to say I would be just as concerned about a negative shift if the church would try to controle my, or any persons personal believes and convictions. Just because some of us believe the church may one day accept homosexuality, that doesnt mean the church is false with what Elder Christoperson explained here... in fact, I find he is spot on. People have, and should always have the right to believe whatever they want to believe in, and noone ever should excercise controle over that, but as said properly, use godly means to testify and remind of true principles.

That's all well and good, but the Church needs to either re-word or eliminate recommend question #7 then -

“Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”

Because if what he's describing here isn't "supporting, affiliating, and agreeing with", then I don't know what is -

“D. Todd Christofferson was asked about marriage equality in an interview for KSL. As the Salt Lake Tribune reported, Elder Christofferson explained that the Church won’t take disciplinary action against Mormons who support same-sex marriage. In fact, he affirmed that they can even be public about such support by posting about their views on social media, belonging to gay-friendly Mormon organizations like Affirmation, and marching in gay pride parades without fear of reprisal."

Otherwise, they really are speaking out of both sides of their mouth and are trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

[EmmaLee]

Jesus Christ's Church will never support iniquity. Hence, it will never support gay marriage, just like it will never support fornication.

viewtopic.php?t=39238" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cohabiting Opposite-Sex Couples Can Now Get Baptized

One elder from the Philippines San Pablo Mission wrote on June 2, 2015 -

"The area presidency recently released a new rule that as long as two people have been living together for 5 years or more, they are allowed to be baptized..."

Has anyone found any evidence that this is not true?

[EmmaLee]

Elder Oaks has always been against gay marriage. If you are trying to suggest that the October 2014 Conference talk that he gave about civility is a tacit approval of gay marriage then you are surely mistaken.

Lizzy: that is going to happen, initially. Hopefully the Church takes the high road and doesn't accept gay marriage. The truth of the matter is that the Church is worldwide now and not just a Utah or even an American church.

Samizdat -that must take a lot for you to write a post like this.

It does not matter what Packer, Oaks, Ballard etc think about gay marriage. There is a clear age break in the Q 12 right now - Holland is the oldest "young' guy there is. Everyone above Holland is probably out of the picture in 5 years months (with how it's going, anyway). There will be a sea change when Packer, Perry, Nelson (seems healthy, but turns 91 in a couple months), Oaks, Ballard, Scott (currently in ill health) and Hales (currently in very ill health) (all of them over 82 and several over 90) pass the way of all the earth. There will likely be 7 new apostles in the near term, and that change will rock "policy" on the homosexual acceptance front. Hell, Christofferson will be one of the "senior" apostles then, and you've seen how pleased he is at the evolution of the thinking in the Q 12. God help us all.

[EmmaLee]

Someone will be denied a Temple recommend if they associate with a group that advocates for gay marriage.

Facebook, Twitter, PrideFest, Pride parades, etc... ALL advocate for gay marriage, yet Elder Christofferson said members would not have their recommends denied or taken away if they participate in/with these organized same-sex groups/activities or if they post their support and agreement of same-sex marriage on Facebook and Twitter - both of which are rabidly pro same-sex marriage.

[EmmaLee]

But, is a privately held belief worthy of being penalized if that's all it is?

Posting your support of same-sex marriage on Facebook, Twitter, etc. and marching in gay pride parades, participating in Pridefest, etc.. - all things Elder Christofferson said we are "allowed" to do now, and will not cause you to lose your recommend - are most definitely NOT "privately held beliefs" - those are very public things. Also, how does this jive with recommend question #7?

“Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”

Interviewer — "What about Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage privately among family and friends or publicly by posting entries on Facebook, marching in pride parades or belonging to gay-friendly organizations such as Affirmation or Mormons Building Bridges? Can they do so without the threat of losing their church membership or temple privileges?"

D. Todd Christofferson - “We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues ... In our view, it doesn’t really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that’s a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines.”

So, if I'm on Facebook, for example, supporting and agreeing with same-sex marriage, and I'm persuasive enough that others change their minds and start supporting and agreeing with same-sex marriage, etc. aren't I "drawing and pulling people away from its [the Church's] teachings and doctrines"?

[marktheshark]

Ya, with the recent statements read in churches from the FP, anyone still think they are caving?

Lol, cmon ppl.

[EmmaLee]

You didn't answer my questions. And what was read in Church doesn't change anything about what I wrote above (last few posts). Nice dodge though. ;)

[konigking]

So is this a Crack in the dam and it soon will burst? (Crack=softening on gay issues, Burst=temple sealing for gays). I think not. That's why we have modern prophets. And I guess this point is a representation of LDSFF as a whole. Some here think the church is apostate because it acknowledges and addresses cracks.

[Tony]

Jesus Christ's Church will never support iniquity. Hence, it will never support gay marriage, just like it will never support fornication.

viewtopic.php?t=39238" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cohabiting Opposite-Sex Couples Can Now Get Baptized

One elder from the Philippines San Pablo Mission wrote on June 2, 2015 -

"The area presidency recently released a new rule that as long as two people have been living together for 5 years or more, they are allowed to be baptized..."

Has anyone found any evidence that this is not true?

First, let it be said that God's prophet on the earth has all the keys and has the authority to exercise those keys. There is a clear reason why the Church recognizes people living together in the Philippines for more than five years as married, and the prophet would not have authorized it unless Jesus Christ had revealed it to him. Hence, the Church is not supporting "fornication" or "iniquity."

I checked with some Filipino Saints. There is no divorce in the Philippines. Many couples live together without being married because they are still legally married to someone else and there is nothing they can do about it. There is annulment under certain conditions, and it is prohibitively expensive. I guess the Church essentially recognizes them as "married," even though Philipine law does not see it that way. One person said the couple can get baptized but not endowed.

A couple living together cannot get baptized if there is nothing stopping them from getting married.

[EmmaLee]

What a thing. :ymsigh:

So the Filipino saints who are in bad marriages can leave the bad marriage and live with another partner, with all that entails, i.e. unmarried sex (and can even get baptized) - but an LDS person with same-sex attraction doesn't get to do that (have sex, of any kind), and has to live their life as a celibate single person - they just have to deal with it, basically. The Filipino member - bad situation, but here's an 'out' for you. Gay member - bad situation, no 'out' for you (no pun intended). Seems strange that some are required to make a sacrifice, but others aren't. Again I say, what a thing.

[samizdat]

Jesus Christ's Church will never support iniquity. Hence, it will never support gay marriage, just like it will never support fornication.

viewtopic.php?t=39238" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cohabiting Opposite-Sex Couples Can Now Get Baptized

One elder from the Philippines San Pablo Mission wrote on June 2, 2015 -

"The area presidency recently released a new rule that as long as two people have been living together for 5 years or more, they are allowed to be baptized..."

Has anyone found any evidence that this is not true?

First, let it be said that God's prophet on the earth has all the keys and has the authority to exercise those keys. There is a clear reason why the Church recognizes people living together in the Philippines for more than five years as married, and the prophet would not have authorized it unless Jesus Christ had revealed it to him. Hence, the Church is not supporting "fornication" or "iniquity."

I checked with some Filipino Saints. There is no divorce in the Philippines. Many couples live together without being married because they are still legally married to someone else and there is nothing they can do about it. There is annulment under certain conditions, and it is prohibitively expensive. I guess the Church essentially recognizes them as "married," even though Philipine law does not see it that way. One person said the couple can get baptized but not endowed.

A couple living together cannot get baptized if there is nothing stopping them from getting married.

Yep Tony you nailed it. It is EXTREMELY hard to get a divorce in the Phillipines if not impossible.

[Tony]

What a thing. :ymsigh:

So the Filipino saints who are in bad marriages can leave the bad marriage and live with another partner, with all that entails, i.e. unmarried sex (and can even get baptized) - but an LDS person with same-sex attraction doesn't get to do that (have sex, of any kind), and has to live their life as a celibate single person - they just have to deal with it, basically. The Filipino member - bad situation, but here's an 'out' for you. Gay member - bad situation, no 'out' for you (no pun intended). Seems strange that some are required to make a sacrifice, but others aren't. Again I say, what a thing.

They are not allowed to get a lawful divorce. The government of the Philippines is this preventing someone from entering the kingdom of God. The government is hedging up the way. The Church, with authority from God, is providing a way. It is an abomination to compare this to the sin of homosexuality.

President Monson has the keys and the authority; you do not have the keys nor the authority.