LDS Freedom Forum

BenMcCrea wrote: 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.

The verses in the Pearl of Great Price do not refer to people of Cain's descent, but of Ham's who became the egyptians. Brigham Young's statement is directly relating to Cain and that posterity was killed in the flood.

I find it most sad however that the scriptures were changed in this matter. If you look at OD2 it says,

Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.

I find this statement somewhat deceptive considering they also publish another article here which is a direct contradiction to what is published in our Standard Works 2013 edition:
https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the ... d?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

It was supported in Joseph's time according to that article, then banned by Brigham Young, then tradition continued the practice(of which we know the origin of) until the time of Spencer W. Kimball.


While scripture doesn't change(2 Nephi 26:33), church policy sure does.

While we flip-flopped on this so much, the changes with polygamy are another example of the church changing policy or commonly held beliefs or doctrine.

jwharton wrote:Sending out sisters into the mission field to authoritatively preach the Gospel is spiritual homosexuality already.

I fail to see this. I served a mission and I see no connection. In fact, the sisters came back with a better ability to get along with a variety of people, and they had gained other traits that made them better spouses than they would have otherwise been. Absolutely no connection with a mission turning a female lesbian any more than going on a mission turns a male gay.

However, if you want to go to the women holding the priesthood front, I can see a possible connection between women serving missions and eventually holding the priesthood. And with women eventually becoming equal with men in positions in the Church, including one day being apostles and prophets.

Women being equal to men in the Church does not lead to homosexuality, though it might lead to men stepping down from their high and mighty dominions.

samizdat wrote:

Lizzy60 wrote:He also says that their thinking on homosexuality is "evolving." I recall hearing that from someone else.......regarding gay marriage.

IF the Apostles have personal and direct contact with God, why does their thinking have to evolve? Why doesn't He just tell them what His thinking is, and that will be that?

The sifting is beginning higher up.

Judas Iscariot was an Apostle that fell. Thomas B Marsh and Sidney Rigdon were too in this dispensation. I am NOT implying that he (Christoffersen) is going to fall. But we do have prophecies by Joseph Smith on the matter on sticking to the majority of the Twelve Apostles and we will not be laid astray.

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

First of all, the Joseph Smith "prophecies" about the majority of the twelve not leading people astray are non-existent. I can't find them in any contemporary account, only some 30-40 years after he is supposed to have said it. Not only that, the "quote" also says to stay with the records of the church. The records of the church were often lost when the keeper apostatized. The RLDS church ended up with many of the records. Furthermore, a majority of the 12 actually apostatized. Didn't Joseph say that Brigham and Heber were the only ones who never lifted the heel to him? This "key that will never rust" seems to get rustier and rustier upon closer inspection.

When the saints settled in Utah, it was taught consistently that polygamy was not just a temporal commandment, but the actual order of heaven. When the second Manifesto was issued, certain brethren who knew well the intent of the first Manifesto refused to sustain it. Among those excommunicated was apostle John W. Taylor, son of President Taylor. Before leaving he cursed the brethren by the priesthood for their rejection of what he considered to be the fulness of the Gospel.

The difference here is that I think most of the current brethren are institutional guys. I don't think a sudden change in doctrines regarding gay marriage would be enough to send an apostle packing. Besides that, I think gay marriage does more to undermine LDS doctrine than the rejection of polygamy did. I like to think that the church would prefer corporate dissolution over practicing gay sealings. Recent statements by Elder Bednar lead me to believe that he might be anticipating such an event. Only time will tell.

A Random Phrase wrote:

jwharton wrote:Sending out sisters into the mission field to authoritatively preach the Gospel is spiritual homosexuality already.

I fail to see this. I served a mission and I see no connection. In fact, the sisters came back with a better ability to get along with a variety of people, and they had gained other traits that made them better spouses than they would have otherwise been. Absolutely no connection with a mission turning a female lesbian any more than going on a mission turns a male gay.

I understand it is a difficult thing to see.
I agree it isn't as direct and immediate as you are trying to see it.
But, a connection exists none-the-less.

The way to be able to see the connection is you have to train your "eye" (so to speak) to understand how things work on the spiritual plane and how it gives rise to things on the physical plane. These planes are definitely interconnected, but in a way most people would think is just too bizarre to be worth considering. This is why many people view the father Lehi figures as delusional visionaries full of vain and foolish imagination.

One of the most prolific writers in holy writ who touches on the male-female roles and how the spiritual plane and the physical plane are inter-related is the apostle Paul. The basis upon which Paul taught that women should not speak authoritatively to govern men isn't out of a sexist superiority frame of mind. It is because he had a clear view of how spiritual bodies function and that they have very specific roles connected with their gender identity on the spiritual level.

For example, to someone with the depth of understanding as Paul had, suggesting that women can authoritatively speak and produce healthy spiritual offspring makes the same amount of sense to think that a women could be expected to issue semen during physical sex and produce a healthy physical child.

There is a pattern and order that exists in the spiritual plane that is connected to the physical plane in ways that most people do not see.

A Random Phrase wrote:However, if you want to go to the women holding the priesthood front, I can see a possible connection between women serving missions and eventually holding the priesthood. And with women eventually becoming equal with men in positions in the Church, including one day being apostles and prophets.

Sending out women to preach the Gospel with authority is giving them priesthood already. They have only had the formal ordination withheld.

A Random Phrase wrote:Women being equal to men in the Church does not lead to homosexuality, though it might lead to men stepping down from their high and mighty dominions.

This mindset you exhibit here is part of the problem. People think its about superiority sexism.
In actuality, when you understand the mechanics of the spiritual plane, it is simply mechanics.
So, when you tinker with and confuse the mechanics on the spiritual level, that same confusion and disorder will begin to show up in the physical.

Muerte Rosa wrote:

jwharton wrote:

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.

Some people do yes.....but some people also jump to conclusions.....some people think they can read between the lines only there aren't any.

And some people reject and deny that a person can have the gift to eye such things.
They will use exactly the kind of rationalization you are talking about here.

At the end of the day, when gays are just as accepted as sister missionaries preaching with authority is now, it will be too late.

This is very disturbing to me. The scriptures make it clear that homosexuality is a Sin. How can any church leader claim its okay to support it in any way? Why isn't it okay to support other sins if this is true? It saddens me to hear that Elder Christofferson would say such a thing.

Phoenixstar117 wrote: The verses in the Pearl of Great Price do not refer to people of Cain's descent, but of Ham's who became the egyptians.

I find it most sad however that the scriptures were changed in this matter. If you look at OD2 it says,

Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.

Ham's descendants were the decendants of Cain through his wife Egyptus. Egyptus was a descendant of Cain and was a black lady which is why Ham's posterity were denied the Priesthood.

The Church's Old Testament Institute manual explains:

(4-20) Genesis 9:20–27. Why Did Noah Curse Canaan in This Event When He Was Not Even Present?

The account of Noah’s “nakedness” and the role his sons played in the event is a puzzling one, especially the part in which Noah awakens and pronounces a curse upon Canaan, the son of Ham (see Genesis 10:6), who does not even seem to be present at the time.

Most members of the Church are aware that a priesthood garment, symbolic of the covenants made in the temple, is worn by those who have participated in the endowment ceremony in the temple. This garment is a representation of the coat of skins made by the Lord for Adam and Eve after the Fall (see Genesis 3:21; Moses 4:27). The idea of a garment made of skins that signified that one had power in the priesthood is found in several ancient writings. Hugh Nibley discussed some of these ancient writings and their implications for the passage in Genesis:

“Nimrod claimed his kingship on the ground of victory over his enemies [see Genesis 10:8–10; Reading 4-21]; his priesthood, however, he claimed by virtue of possessing ‘the garment of Adam.’ The Talmud assures us that it was by virtue of owning this garment that Nimrod was able to claim power to rule over the whole earth, and that he sat in his tower while men came and worshiped him. The Apocryphal writers, Jewish and Christian, have a good deal to say about this garment. To quote one of them: ‘the garments of skin which God made for Adam and his wife when they went out of the garden and were given after the death of Adam … to Enoch’; hence they passed to Methuselah, and then to Noah, from whom Ham stole them as the people were leaving the ark. Ham’s grandson Nimrod obtained them from his father Cush. As for the legitimate inheritance of this clothing, a very old fragment recently discovered says that Michael ‘disrobed Enoch of his earthly garments, and put on him his angelic clothing,’ taking him into the presence of God. …

“Incidentally the story of the stolen garment as told by the rabbis, including the great Eleazer, calls for an entirely different rendering of the strange story in Genesis [9] from the version in our King James Bible. They seemed to think that the ’erwath of Genesis [9:22] did not mean ‘nakedness’ at all, but should be given its primary root meaning of ‘skin covering.’ Read thus, we are to understand that Ham took the garment of his father while he was sleeping and showed it to his brethren, Shem and Japheth, who took a pattern or copy of it (salmah) or else a woven garment like it (simlah) which they put upon their own shoulders, returning the skin garment to their father. Upon awaking, Noah recognized the priesthood of two sons but cursed the son who tried to rob him of his garment.” (Lehi in the Desert and the World of Jaredites, pp. 160–62.)

Therefore, although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21–24), and so his sons were denied the priesthood.
Genesis 4–11: The Patriarchs

http://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Muerte Rosa wrote:JWharton

I don't deny that some people have that gift at all. I just don't think you or Obrien do in this case and that you're both wrong that's all.

And yes i think that your assertion about the lady missionaries is ridiculous.

So you believe the apostle Paul is ridiculous also?

samizdat wrote:
The sifting is beginning higher up.

Judas Iscariot was an Apostle that fell. Thomas B Marsh and Sidney Rigdon were too in this dispensation. I am NOT implying that he (Christoffersen) is going to fall. But we do have prophecies by Joseph Smith on the matter on sticking to the majority of the Twelve Apostles and we will not be laid astray.

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

Wow, did you really just write that? That's bold!

Rensai wrote:This is very disturbing to me. The scriptures make it clear that homosexuality is a Sin. How can any church leader claim its okay to support it in any way? Why isn't it okay to support other sins if this is true? It saddens me to hear that Elder Christofferson would say such a thing.

Read Romans chapter 1 from verse 18 to the end of the chapter.
These developments are entirely a predictable result from having the truths of the fullness of the Gospel from the Father and to turn against it and to consider the Celestial Law as foolishness. Once the higher laws are rejected and the people start giving in to the ways of the world contrary to the laws and commandments of God, everyone gets turned over to their own foolish and darkened minds.

I'll say it again even though most of you don't want to hear this.

Elder Christofferson did not say it's ok to support gay marriage. He said that members of the Church are free to believe whatever they want, including that same sex marriages should be approved, but they are not free to publically teach those principles or to openly support organisations that propose those things.

So no change to what the Church has always said.

Read it again.

He said that members can post their belief in SSM on Facebook, other social media, march in gay pride parades, etc, and will not be in danger of losing their temple recommends or church membership. He said they cannot advocate that leaders change their minds, or that people should leave the church because of the church's stance on SSM.

BenMcCrea wrote:I'll say it again even though most of you don't want to hear this.

Elder Christofferson did not say it's ok to support gay marriage. He said that members of the Church are free to believe whatever they want, including that same sex marriages should be approved, but they are not free to publically teach those principles or to openly support organisations that propose those things.

So no change to what the Church has always said.

Ben, I'll say this again: the sands are shifting. surprisingly, several steady and solid MMs have expressed concern about it on this thread. please make sure you're built the Rock when the sands DO shift.

BenMcCrea wrote:
The Church's Old Testament Institute manual explains:

(4-20) Genesis 9:20–27. Why Did Noah Curse Canaan in This Event When He Was Not Even Present?

The account of Noah’s “nakedness” and the role his sons played in the event is a puzzling one, especially the part in which Noah awakens and pronounces a curse upon Canaan, the son of Ham (see Genesis 10:6), who does not even seem to be present at the time.

Most members of the Church are aware that a priesthood garment, symbolic of the covenants made in the temple, is worn by those who have participated in the endowment ceremony in the temple. This garment is a representation of the coat of skins made by the Lord for Adam and Eve after the Fall (see Genesis 3:21; Moses 4:27). The idea of a garment made of skins that signified that one had power in the priesthood is found in several ancient writings. Hugh Nibley discussed some of these ancient writings and their implications for the passage in Genesis:

“Nimrod claimed his kingship on the ground of victory over his enemies [see Genesis 10:8–10; Reading 4-21]; his priesthood, however, he claimed by virtue of possessing ‘the garment of Adam.’ The Talmud assures us that it was by virtue of owning this garment that Nimrod was able to claim power to rule over the whole earth, and that he sat in his tower while men came and worshiped him. The Apocryphal writers, Jewish and Christian, have a good deal to say about this garment. To quote one of them: ‘the garments of skin which God made for Adam and his wife when they went out of the garden and were given after the death of Adam … to Enoch’; hence they passed to Methuselah, and then to Noah, from whom Ham stole them as the people were leaving the ark. Ham’s grandson Nimrod obtained them from his father Cush. As for the legitimate inheritance of this clothing, a very old fragment recently discovered says that Michael ‘disrobed Enoch of his earthly garments, and put on him his angelic clothing,’ taking him into the presence of God. …

“Incidentally the story of the stolen garment as told by the rabbis, including the great Eleazer, calls for an entirely different rendering of the strange story in Genesis [9] from the version in our King James Bible. They seemed to think that the ’erwath of Genesis [9:22] did not mean ‘nakedness’ at all, but should be given its primary root meaning of ‘skin covering.’ Read thus, we are to understand that Ham took the garment of his father while he was sleeping and showed it to his brethren, Shem and Japheth, who took a pattern or copy of it (salmah) or else a woven garment like it (simlah) which they put upon their own shoulders, returning the skin garment to their father. Upon awaking, Noah recognized the priesthood of two sons but cursed the son who tried to rob him of his garment.” (Lehi in the Desert and the World of Jaredites, pp. 160–62.)

Therefore, although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21–24), and so his sons were denied the priesthood.
Genesis 4–11: The Patriarchs

http://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the read. I did learn some stuff here. I appreciate it. I still don't dig Brigham Young's Policy though.

Lizzy60 wrote:Read it again.

He said that members can post their belief in SSM on Facebook, other social media, march in gay pride parades, etc, and will not be in danger of losing their temple recommends or church membership. He said they cannot advocate that leaders change their minds, or that people should leave the church because of the church's stance on SSM.

Can I wear whatever I want in the pride parade?

lemuel wrote:

Lizzy60 wrote:Read it again.

He said that members can post their belief in SSM on Facebook, other social media, march in gay pride parades, etc, and will not be in danger of losing their temple recommends or church membership. He said they cannot advocate that leaders change their minds, or that people should leave the church because of the church's stance on SSM.

Can I wear whatever I want in the pride parade?

So you wanna be the army guy/sailor from The Village People?

samizdat wrote: 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.

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.

AGStacker wrote:How would the Catholic church squash the US government?

Have you any idea of how powerful the Catholic Church is?
They brought down the Soviet Union, they were the power behind the Treaty of Rome, which brought about the EU, and they control most if not all of the governments of the world. Even the Queen answers to the Pope (although this will never be admitted).
I'm not saying this is a bad thing at present. In fact, I'm saying it's a positive thing right now because it serves to protect the church from the excesses of the Babylonian world.

Does anyone know the supposed religious protections built into sb296?

Ok, I've read the article again. He does appear to be telling Latter Day Saints that it's ok to support gay marriage in private and even on public social media such as Facebook and Twitter but not to support organisations that oppose the Church.

I suppose I want to give these men the benefit of the doubt and hope that they know what they're doing. I want to believe that the Lord is guiding them.

Who knows where this will all end?

Joseph Smith said:

No true angel from God will ever come to ordain any man, because they have once been sent to establish the priesthood by ordaining me thereunto;…the priesthood once being established on earth, with power to ordain others, no heavenly messenger will ever come to interfere with that power by ordaining any more…You may therefore know, from this time forward, that if any man comes to you professing to be ordained by an angel, he is either a liar or has been imposed upon in consequence of transgression by an angel of the devil for this priesthood shall never be taken away from this church. (Millenial Star, 20 Nov. 1846, p.139, underline added)

TannerG wrote:

samizdat wrote:

Lizzy60 wrote:He also says that their thinking on homosexuality is "evolving." I recall hearing that from someone else.......regarding gay marriage.

IF the Apostles have personal and direct contact with God, why does their thinking have to evolve? Why doesn't He just tell them what His thinking is, and that will be that?

The sifting is beginning higher up.

Judas Iscariot was an Apostle that fell. Thomas B Marsh and Sidney Rigdon were too in this dispensation. I am NOT implying that he (Christoffersen) is going to fall. But we do have prophecies by Joseph Smith on the matter on sticking to the majority of the Twelve Apostles and we will not be laid astray.

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

First of all, the Joseph Smith "prophecies" about the majority of the twelve not leading people astray are non-existent. I can't find them in any contemporary account, only some 30-40 years after he is supposed to have said it. Not only that, the "quote" also says to stay with the records of the church. The records of the church were often lost when the keeper apostatized. The RLDS church ended up with many of the records. Furthermore, a majority of the 12 actually apostatized. Didn't Joseph say that Brigham and Heber were the only ones who never lifted the heel to him? This "key that will never rust" seems to get rustier and rustier upon closer inspection.

When the saints settled in Utah, it was taught consistently that polygamy was not just a temporal commandment, but the actual order of heaven. When the second Manifesto was issued, certain brethren who knew well the intent of the first Manifesto refused to sustain it. Among those excommunicated was apostle John W. Taylor, son of President Taylor. Before leaving he cursed the brethren by the priesthood for their rejection of what he considered to be the fulness of the Gospel.

The difference here is that I think most of the current brethren are institutional guys. I don't think a sudden change in doctrines regarding gay marriage would be enough to send an apostle packing. Besides that, I think gay marriage does more to undermine LDS doctrine than the rejection of polygamy did. I like to think that the church would prefer corporate dissolution over practicing gay sealings. Recent statements by Elder Bednar lead me to believe that he might be anticipating such an event. Only time will tell.

Care to elaborate on what Elder Bednar said??? I am really interested in seeing that information.

Simon wrote: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.

He DID say that everything in the Church should be done by persuasion and not by force. There he is spot on.

I find this issue troubling on many levels. I believe there are many good people who struggle with same sex attraction, and yet the fruits of this lifestyle are sobering and are not something I would ever encourage for a friend or child of mine.

One day of my concerns is that the 15 PSR do not seem to be getting revelation on where this plague is coming from, or how to help this growing crowd. If we ever needed God's prophets to shed to spiritual light on an issue, well this would be a great place to start. Sadly it seems mostly about policies....