LDS Freedom Forum

Muerte Rosa wrote:

briznian wrote:

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.

Why oaks? He's been at the forefront of this the entire time.

You'll have to clarify for me what "this" is in your comment.

Muerte Rosa wrote:

briznian wrote: You'll have to clarify for me what "this" is in your comment.

The gay marriage issue? That is what this thread is about isn't it?

actually its cats

Muerte Rosa wrote:Lmao i love that hahaha

I didn't make it but I do often photoshop cats into things

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

Yes!

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

Here's a good place to look for info.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+a+libertarian%3F" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Muerte Rosa wrote:

briznian wrote: You'll have to clarify for me what "this" is in your comment.

The gay marriage issue? That is what this thread is about isn't it?

Which side of the issue are suggesting Oaks has been at the front?

I think it's easy for those outside the Church to misunderstand the stance the Church is taking on this issue. I heard (online) a conversation between two evangelical Christian ministers who said that the Mormons have now approved gay marriage. They seem to be sincere in their understanding, although of course they are mistaken. It was just that when they saw the support that the Church leaders gave to the non-discrimination bill for the state of Utah, they mistakenly interpolated that the Church has also chosen to no longer discriminate against LGBT people. This is understandable. Your average non-LDS person would assume that what the Church advocates for in PUBLIC, they would also advocate for in PRIVATE. Instead, we are upside down. They have advocated that the private individual cannot discriminate in who they hire, or rent an apartment to, while they, as an institution, can still discriminate. The leaders have sold out our individual religious freedom, while they, the institution, have tried to maintain theirs.

This is causing a brain overload for many. Kind of entertaining really.

I can only echo the advice given by others. Decide now where you are going to firmly plant your feet. For some of you, I have a feeling your paradigm will be going through a big shift. :ymhug:

MR -- read my post just above yours and you will see that Oak's position is not as black-and-white as most LDS believe it to be. Like samizdat said earlier, they are walking a tightrope on this issue, and it is not totally clear to some people which side of the fence they will end up on.

caddis wrote:This is causing a brain overload for many. Kind of entertaining really.

I can only echo the advice given by others. Decide now where you are going to firmly plant your feet. For some of you, I have a feeling your paradigm will be going through a big shift. :ymhug:

VERY good advice. This announcement rocked my husband's paradigm a bit. He said that he felt that his testimony was weakened some. I told him (not for the first time!!!) that the only important testimony is the one you have of CHRIST. Any man, or group of men, has the ability to be mistaken, or to mislead. It's our fallen nature. We are enemies to God. Only trust in Christ will get us through.

I will say this.
If the church ever embraces gay marriage, or recognizes "married" gays as equal to heterosexual marrieds, or accepts practicing gays as members in good standing, I will be out the door as fast as my legs can carry me. And I won't look back.

Why?

Lizzy60 wrote:I think it's easy for those outside the Church to misunderstand the stance the Church is taking on this issue. I heard (online) a conversation between two evangelical Christian ministers who said that the Mormons have now approved gay marriage. They seem to be sincere in their understanding, although of course they are mistaken. It was just that when they saw the support that the Church leaders gave to the non-discrimination bill for the state of Utah, they mistakenly interpolated that the Church has also chosen to no longer discriminate against LGBT people. This is understandable. Your average non-LDS person would assume that what the Church advocates for in PUBLIC, they would also advocate for in PRIVATE. Instead, we are upside down. They have advocated that the private individual cannot discriminate in who they hire, or rent an apartment to, while they, as an institution, can still discriminate. The leaders have sold out our individual religious freedom, while they, the institution, have tried to maintain theirs.

This is an excellent assessment of the situation.

Muerte Rosa wrote:REALLY?

Yes. Really. You have not actually stated what you think his position is.

My opinion-----
Unless the BIg Earthquake hits first, there will come a time that the Church Leaders will have to decide whether they are losing more members because they, the Church(tm) will not accept gay couples in good standing, or if they will lose more members if they do accept gay couples. And then they will have to decide what to do about that.

I really don't see how anyone familiar with church history can be the least bit surprised by this.

Yesterday's doctrine, is today's policy, is tomorrow's heresy.

Lizzy60 wrote:

caddis wrote:This is causing a brain overload for many. Kind of entertaining really.

I can only echo the advice given by others. Decide now where you are going to firmly plant your feet. For some of you, I have a feeling your paradigm will be going through a big shift. :ymhug:

VERY good advice. This announcement rocked my husband's paradigm a bit. He said that he felt that his testimony was weakened some. I told him (not for the first time!!!) that the only important testimony is the one you have of CHRIST. Any man, or group of men, has the ability to be mistaken, or to mislead. It's our fallen nature. We are enemies to God. Only trust in Christ will get us through.

He isn't alone obviously. Like I mentioned in a post yesterday, this is the danger of the false doctrine "we can't lead you astray". People begin to believe everything coming from SLC has the Lords stamp of approval. So when something like the topic of this thread comes up, it causes a serious internal conflict for people.

@Muerta Rosa,

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

The proposition was put forth earlier in the thread that Elder Christoferson's position on gay marriage is evolving and by extension that some day he may be in favor of it. If we were to run with that assumption, and it is just an assumption, then the joint venture between Oaks and Christoferson on the Mormon & Gays website could indicate that Oaks may not be as "uncavable" as samizdat's list above would suggest.

Muerte Rosa wrote:Well the way i see it....is that someday supporting gay marriage...would not be a very wise business decision. I mean after all they are a corporation right? If they changed their stance on gay marriage...many many many people would leave the church. Less people, less money So if the LDS church is as greedy and money hungry as some of you say they are.....doing something that would effect their income would not really make sense would it?

Can't have it both ways.

When the time comes that not supporting gay marriage tips the monetary scales the other direction...

BenMcCrea wrote: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)

I think, in those days, "church" meant the followers of Christ, right?

Muerte Rosa wrote:Well the way i see it....is that someday supporting gay marriage...would not be a very wise business decision. I mean after all they are a corporation right? If they changed their stance on gay marriage...many many many people would leave the church. Less people, less money So if the LDS church is as greedy and money hungry as some of you say they are.....doing something that would effect their income would not really make sense would it?

Can't have it both ways.

The article that Darren just posted on the Sister Missionary thread says that the Church is losing members as fast as they are gaining them, here in the US (not the rest of the world). So, yes, it could come down to the money. Do the old fuddy-duddy retirees pay more tithing than the younger generations who will be supportive of gay couples being baptized? I wonder if somebody is already running those spreadsheets. But then, I became a heretic long ago, and not on this issue.

briznian wrote:

Muerte Rosa wrote:Well the way i see it....is that someday supporting gay marriage...would not be a very wise business decision. I mean after all they are a corporation right? If they changed their stance on gay marriage...many many many people would leave the church. Less people, less money So if the LDS church is as greedy and money hungry as some of you say they are.....doing something that would effect their income would not really make sense would it?

Can't have it both ways.

When the time comes that not supporting gay marriage tips the monetary scales the other direction...

^^^^This

Young people are much more open to the idea of SSM. 10-20 years you just might see it.

briznian wrote:

Muerte Rosa wrote:REALLY?

Yes. Really. You have not actually stated what you think his position is.

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 wrote:

TannerG wrote: 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.

I am also interested in knowing this.

Muerte Rosa wrote:

briznian wrote:

Muerte Rosa wrote: The gay marriage issue? That is what this thread is about isn't it?

Which side of the issue are suggesting Oaks has been at the front?

REALLY?

Yes, most definitely a big "REALLY" is in order.

Take for example some years ago Elder Oaks gave this lauded sermon on the Constitution. He makes himself appear valiant and ardent to support the things we care about most, but at the same time it is clear to those who have eyes to see that the valiance and ardency just isn't there.

In one of his talks he spoke of the Constitution as if it was something that could be over used or used up, which appeared to me as a clever way to put it on the shelf to gather dust when it should be getting used to protect our individual God-given rights.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that he supported the undermining of the rights of individuals as Lizzy60 pointed out some posts back.