LDS Freedom Forum

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 7:15 am

Arenera wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 6:38 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 6:27 am

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 6:20 am
Unfortunately it is popping up all over the place. Mormons Building Bridges, a.k.a homosexual allies inside the Church, i.e. individuals who want homosexuals to have full acceptance inside the Church have parade marches in PRIDE parades all across the US, from Boston, Salt Lake, Atlanta, Pittsburg, Huntsville, DC, etc. it is spreading like wildfire.

And leadership does absolutely nothing . . .except continue to make concessions to the velvet mafia. Oh our doctrine still says it's not right . . .but not really. The doctrine right now is that it's okay to be homosexual except don't act on it . . . . lol that is a conflicting convoluted message and it won't last.

Either it is fully accepted or fully rejected, there is no middle way that is a long term solution. And my guess is that it will be fully accepted in another 15-20 years . . .if that. The massive societal pressures to do so are HUGE and the forces within the Church to do so are HUGE. It's certainly (at this point) not a majority of the membership . . .but it's an very significant minority (maybe at most 25%) and that minority will grow as leadership continues to acquiesce to the velvet mafia.

Stick a fork in it-at some point it will be accepted-it's only a matter of time and what does that look like for the Church when it does happen. . .

If you're right, that'll be me out of the door.

Either you have confidence that Christ leads His Church, or you don’t. Do you have confidence in President Nelson, and the other Apostles?

Be nice to people.

Well you seem to forget that there is something we do each and every General Conference . . . .it's called sustaining. What do you think would happen if a significant portion of the Church refused to sustain any supposed revelation that homosexuality is okay.

The sustaining mechanism is supposed to be a check upon stupidity of leadership to go off the rails-yet for over 100 years it's been taught that it's just what you MUST do.

We have records in Church History about sustaining, BY vs. Rigdeon. This is how major splits and break-offs occur, and the Church has been very stable for a significant period of time. Major split happened in BY time and in 1910, as a Church we haven't had a major breaking off in a very, very long time.

My guess is that this issue will cause a major split. Those who advocate for homosexuality are too many, too well-organized and too motivated for it not to end up with either acceptance or a split. I could be wrong, but as things progress it appears to be heading that way.

I'm not worried about it. For me, I'm with President Nelson and our leaders.

Arenera wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 6:56 am

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 6:52 am Arenera --

No one on this forum has ever said that we shouldn't be nice to LGBT people. However, telling them that their gay sexual activities are NOT sinful is not showing kindness.

Also, Robin Hood said that he would be out the door IF the church eventually says that gay marriage and gay sex are acceptable practices for Mormons. Would you believe that Christ is directing the leadership to come to that decision if that's what happens? The possibility seems remote, but what IF it happens?

It's a fallacy to basically accuse someone of not having confidence in the leadership, when what they have said is a scenario that would cause them to lose that confidence.

I have confidence that my husband is faithful. However, if he cheated on me, I would lose that confidence. However, as long as he hasn't cheated, I don't have a problem. But, if he started going out to lunch with another woman, and talking on the phone with another womanin the middle of the night, and buying romantic gifts for another woman, I would be concerned, and I might say, if he cheats on me, I'm out the door.

Why work yourself up? Everyone sins.

As the Proclamation on the Family has shown for many years, the Leaders and Christ are aware of what is going on, and have been.

Lol . . .
https://www.facebook.com/UsgaAtByu/vide ... OLWnpnbUBI

Watch the video, the twisting of the Proclamation here is something to behold.
One of the slides states: "The Proclamation is silent on LBGTQ"
It does not mention the existence of same-sex attraction, gender dysphoria, etc.
Mentions gender but does not define it.
No Revelation on the Role of LGBT/SSA in the Plan of Salvation

Another person is up in front with their homosexual lover
stating:
"Can I be happy, healthy, serve others, live the principles, and raise a wonderful family any other way?" than "marriage is between a man and a woman". Then an "ally" afterwards states that this homosexual couple is a wonderful example of how to live the principles of the Proclamation in a non-standard family, that it's the "principles" of the Proclamation that are important not the implementation.

This video is posted on the facebook public page for ALL to see of the wife of an LDS Bishop in Riverton Utah. She participates in this meeting, talks about how homosexual members should "claim their seat" if they feel comfortable.

The Relief Society President in one LDS BYU ward (Sarah Langford), is a homosexual woman married to a homosexual man who advocates for homosexuals-she participated in BYU's recent LGBT symposium about what it's like to be LGBT on BYU campus.

The twisting of words of the Proclamation (which is clearly against homosexuality) into something that is silent on it is really something to behold. The title of the video is "Healthy Responses to the Proclamation".

And according to a GA at BYU now, there is no place in the Church for homophobes (of course homophobe means anyone who dares to reject the homosexual messaging).

It will be interesting to see what the membership of the Church does-do they stand and fight it, do they just accept it, or do they leave. I don't know what course others take, but I ain't leaving until they kick me out and I don't plan on staying silent.

Arenera wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 7:20 am

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 7:15 am

Arenera wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 6:38 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 6:27 am

If you're right, that'll be me out of the door.

Either you have confidence that Christ leads His Church, or you don’t. Do you have confidence in President Nelson, and the other Apostles?

Be nice to people.

Well you seem to forget that there is something we do each and every General Conference . . . .it's called sustaining. What do you think would happen if a significant portion of the Church refused to sustain any supposed revelation that homosexuality is okay.

The sustaining mechanism is supposed to be a check upon stupidity of leadership to go off the rails-yet for over 100 years it's been taught that it's just what you MUST do.

We have records in Church History about sustaining, BY vs. Rigdeon. This is how major splits and break-offs occur, and the Church has been very stable for a significant period of time. Major split happened in BY time and in 1910, as a Church we haven't had a major breaking off in a very, very long time.

My guess is that this issue will cause a major split. Those who advocate for homosexuality are too many, too well-organized and too motivated for it not to end up with either acceptance or a split. I could be wrong, but as things progress it appears to be heading that way.

I'm not worried about it. For me, I'm with President Nelson and our leaders.

I'm with President Nelson also . . .but I don't blindly follow them . . .if they allow this filth into the Church-my hand is going up in opposition.

My guess is they probably won't, but that some external event will come to bear where there is a split-I have faith the God will not let those who know that all forms of homosexual expression is sin-I have faith that He will not let those of us who are firm in the Faith be overrun by the modern secular humanists inside the Church.

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 7:15 am

Arenera wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 6:38 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 6:27 am

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 6:20 am
Unfortunately it is popping up all over the place. Mormons Building Bridges, a.k.a homosexual allies inside the Church, i.e. individuals who want homosexuals to have full acceptance inside the Church have parade marches in PRIDE parades all across the US, from Boston, Salt Lake, Atlanta, Pittsburg, Huntsville, DC, etc. it is spreading like wildfire.

And leadership does absolutely nothing . . .except continue to make concessions to the velvet mafia. Oh our doctrine still says it's not right . . .but not really. The doctrine right now is that it's okay to be homosexual except don't act on it . . . . lol that is a conflicting convoluted message and it won't last.

Either it is fully accepted or fully rejected, there is no middle way that is a long term solution. And my guess is that it will be fully accepted in another 15-20 years . . .if that. The massive societal pressures to do so are HUGE and the forces within the Church to do so are HUGE. It's certainly (at this point) not a majority of the membership . . .but it's an very significant minority (maybe at most 25%) and that minority will grow as leadership continues to acquiesce to the velvet mafia.

Stick a fork in it-at some point it will be accepted-it's only a matter of time and what does that look like for the Church when it does happen. . .

If you're right, that'll be me out of the door.

Either you have confidence that Christ leads His Church, or you don’t. Do you have confidence in President Nelson, and the other Apostles?

Be nice to people.

Well you seem to forget that there is something we do each and every General Conference . . . .it's called sustaining. What do you think would happen if a significant portion of the Church refused to sustain any supposed revelation that homosexuality is okay.

The sustaining mechanism is supposed to be a check upon stupidity of leadership to go off the rails-yet for over 100 years it's been taught that it's just what you MUST do.

We have records in Church History about sustaining, BY vs. Rigdeon. This is how major splits and break-offs occur, and the Church has been very stable for a significant period of time. Major split happened in BY time and in 1910, as a Church we haven't had a major breaking off in a very, very long time.

My guess is that this issue will cause a major split. Those who advocate for homosexuality are too many, too well-organized and too motivated for it not to end up with either acceptance or a split. I could be wrong, but as things progress it appears to be heading that way.

You remind me of those people out there who spend their time worrying about things that never come to pass. They get all worked up about possible concerns that are created in their own minds and eventually they suffer poor health from all that worrying done about things that never even materialize. What good is that? It is fruitless. If the church ever came out and said homosexuality is okay and the Lord is fine with it then you can start worrying. Until that time occurs just making all kinds of wild hypothesis and scenarios and getting worked up about those potential scenarios is fruitless and counterproductive. Most things that people worry over never materialize. Maybe you should just wait and see if they do materialize before starting to fret over them? Seems like a more fruitful way to live. Don't be a chicken little and get people worked up about nothing.

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 5:36 am Oh I'm sorry, did I step on your homosexualists toes?

Either you believe homosexuality is inborn or it is not. If homosexuality is inborn then no matter what any says or does will not change the proportion of individuals who end up practicing homosexuality.

If you do not believe homosexuality is inborn or innate then yes how the world perceives homosexuality WILL have an impact on the proportion of individuals who end up practicing homosexuality.

The birth rate among Western countries is ALREADY below repopulation rates-i.e. there are not enough babies being made to replace the generations that are dying off . . . if we go by Kinsley's satanic idea that 10% of the population is "naturally" homosexual-you immediately remove 10% of the population that is able to you know actually have kids.

So no, it's not lunacy to say what I did-lunacy is anyone who defends this evil practice

Except of course the current population of homosexuals already do not produce children in any numbers anyway so they are already accounted for in population numbers.

For the record I think that some homosexuals are innately so while others make a choice to be so. Statistic on this matter are very difficult to collect. People generally will not tell the truth when it comes to such matters even in a clinical setting. So we don't really know what the percentages are or if they have changed over time. So while homosexuals have become more visible is society in general visibility alone does not equal an increase in numbers.

Let's take a look at another example to demonstrate this. At one time it was rare to see pregnant women out in public. They generally stayed home in in that condition. Over time it became more common until today we think nothing of it.Now the fact that we see pregnat womin out in public does not mean that there are more prgnat women, it just means we are more publicly aware of such.

illyume wrote: ↑June 14th, 2018, 4:18 pm

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑June 14th, 2018, 3:28 pm The Freedom Festival parade committee in Provo UT has denied the applications of 5 LGBTQ support groups, to march in the 4th of July parade. They also denied at least 17 other groups for whatever reason.

And as it turns out, they were well within their legal rights to do so, from what I've been able to determine! Seems LGBT status is a protected class in Utah for nondiscrimination when it comes to things like employment and housing (mostly), but exclusion from participation in public events is perfectly legal!

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑June 14th, 2018, 3:28 pm [Update: It looks like the Parade Committee has told the denied groups that they may reapply.]

Yeah, it sounds like there was more backlash against the decision than the parade committee expected.

What I heard is that if the Freedom Festival wants to continue to get money from the City, they are subject to anti discrimination laws and can't simply keep groups out, but if they want to finance the event themselves, they are free to pick and choose who participates.

Maybe they should not take government money so they have more freedom.

Mark wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 8:41 am

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 7:15 am

Arenera wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 6:38 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 6:27 am

If you're right, that'll be me out of the door.

Either you have confidence that Christ leads His Church, or you don’t. Do you have confidence in President Nelson, and the other Apostles?

Be nice to people.

Well you seem to forget that there is something we do each and every General Conference . . . .it's called sustaining. What do you think would happen if a significant portion of the Church refused to sustain any supposed revelation that homosexuality is okay.

The sustaining mechanism is supposed to be a check upon stupidity of leadership to go off the rails-yet for over 100 years it's been taught that it's just what you MUST do.

We have records in Church History about sustaining, BY vs. Rigdeon. This is how major splits and break-offs occur, and the Church has been very stable for a significant period of time. Major split happened in BY time and in 1910, as a Church we haven't had a major breaking off in a very, very long time.

My guess is that this issue will cause a major split. Those who advocate for homosexuality are too many, too well-organized and too motivated for it not to end up with either acceptance or a split. I could be wrong, but as things progress it appears to be heading that way.

You remind me of those people out there who spend their time worrying about things that never come to pass. They get all worked up about possible concerns that are created in their own minds and eventually they suffer poor health from all that worrying done about things that never even materialize. What good is that? It is fruitless. If the church ever came out and said homosexuality is okay and the Lord is fine with it then you can start worrying. Until that time occurs just making all kinds of wild hypothesis and scenarios and getting worked up about those potential scenarios is fruitless and counterproductive. Most things that people worry over never materialize. Maybe you should just wait and see if they do materialize before starting to fret over them? Seems like a more fruitful way to live. Don't be a chicken little and get people worked up about nothing.

I am waiting and seeing, but I'm also seeing what is right before my eyes. Things have shifted, things have changed. If I am chicken little then you have your head stuck in the sand singing lalalallalala it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist.

I don't have "fear", but I can plainly judge the direction that things are going. As I stated earlier, God will not abandon those who hold fast to time-tested, honored truths. What that means for the Church as an organization, I don't know-but what I do know is that the number of people in the Church who accept homosexuality is growing and you are a Pollyanna if you don't admit that simple fact.

gkearney wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 9:10 am

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 5:36 am Oh I'm sorry, did I step on your homosexualists toes?

Either you believe homosexuality is inborn or it is not. If homosexuality is inborn then no matter what any says or does will not change the proportion of individuals who end up practicing homosexuality.

If you do not believe homosexuality is inborn or innate then yes how the world perceives homosexuality WILL have an impact on the proportion of individuals who end up practicing homosexuality.

The birth rate among Western countries is ALREADY below repopulation rates-i.e. there are not enough babies being made to replace the generations that are dying off . . . if we go by Kinsley's satanic idea that 10% of the population is "naturally" homosexual-you immediately remove 10% of the population that is able to you know actually have kids.

So no, it's not lunacy to say what I did-lunacy is anyone who defends this evil practice

Let's take a look at another example to demonstrate this. At one time it was rare to see pregnant women out in public.

???
What does this have to do with the price of rice in China . . .being pregnant is not nor ever has been sin. For a period of time there was an "unclean" aspect about things like childbirth, conception, etc. But IMO that was more a literal unclean. 100s of years ago people didn't take baths, wash or have hygiene and there was a very temporal aspect to things that were "unclean". Today with better hygiene we don't have to worry about it hardly at all.

You analogy is very poor, comparing good thing (the growing of a child in the womb) to something that has been sin.

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 9:54 am

gkearney wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 9:10 am

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 5:36 am Oh I'm sorry, did I step on your homosexualists toes?

Either you believe homosexuality is inborn or it is not. If homosexuality is inborn then no matter what any says or does will not change the proportion of individuals who end up practicing homosexuality.

If you do not believe homosexuality is inborn or innate then yes how the world perceives homosexuality WILL have an impact on the proportion of individuals who end up practicing homosexuality.

The birth rate among Western countries is ALREADY below repopulation rates-i.e. there are not enough babies being made to replace the generations that are dying off . . . if we go by Kinsley's satanic idea that 10% of the population is "naturally" homosexual-you immediately remove 10% of the population that is able to you know actually have kids.

So no, it's not lunacy to say what I did-lunacy is anyone who defends this evil practice

Let's take a look at another example to demonstrate this. At one time it was rare to see pregnant women out in public.

???
What does this have to do with the price of rice in China . . .being pregnant is not nor ever has been sin. For a period of time there was an "unclean" aspect about things like childbirth, conception, etc. But IMO that was more a literal unclean. 100s of years ago people didn't take baths, wash or have hygiene and there was a very temporal aspect to things that were "unclean". Today with better hygiene we don't have to worry about it hardly at all.

You analogy is very poor, comparing good thing (the growing of a child in the womb) to something that has been sin.

I don't think you got the point here. I was not comparing pregnancy with homosexually.

What I was saying is that just because we start to encounter a group of people which at one time we may not have encountered in the public arena it does not follow that there are necessarily more of those people. I used pregnant women as a example of this. I could just as well have used the disabled who at one time were hidden aways by their families and seldom seen in public but are now widely seen in public. So don't confuse the example with what the example is trying to demonstrate.

Homosexuals were once "closeted" which is to say we did not encounter them much. But just because we did not encounter them in the past does not mean they were not there we just didn't know of them. Today they are very much in the open. Because of this we might be inclined to believe that there are more homosexuals now than there were in the past. But you can not make that argument because you are only more aware of them now than you were, not that there are more of them.

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 7:15 amMy guess is that this issue will cause a major split. Those who advocate for homosexuality are too many, too well-organized and too motivated for it not to end up with either acceptance or a split. I could be wrong, but as things progress it appears to be heading that way.

I think you're spot on. I'll take it a step further and say that within two years there will be a major apostasy with this issue at the forefront. The discontent is coming to a boil, and the rates of members exiting over this and intellectual oriented questions is exploding.

BackBlast wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 10:21 am

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 7:15 amMy guess is that this issue will cause a major split. Those who advocate for homosexuality are too many, too well-organized and too motivated for it not to end up with either acceptance or a split. I could be wrong, but as things progress it appears to be heading that way.

I think you're spot on. I'll take it a step further and say that within two years there will be a major apostasy with this issue at the forefront. The discontent is coming to a boil, and the rates of members exiting over this and intellectual oriented questions is exploding.

I will only say go with the majority of those who we sustain as Apostles and Prophets as Joseph said if any splits in the church ever did occur to any extent. The wheat and tares will eventually divide of that we can be sure. The Lord will continue to guide His church and those called to hold His Priesthood keys. Don't find yourself on the outside.

gkearney wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 10:14 am

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 9:54 am

gkearney wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 9:10 am

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 5:36 am Oh I'm sorry, did I step on your homosexualists toes?

Either you believe homosexuality is inborn or it is not. If homosexuality is inborn then no matter what any says or does will not change the proportion of individuals who end up practicing homosexuality.

If you do not believe homosexuality is inborn or innate then yes how the world perceives homosexuality WILL have an impact on the proportion of individuals who end up practicing homosexuality.

The birth rate among Western countries is ALREADY below repopulation rates-i.e. there are not enough babies being made to replace the generations that are dying off . . . if we go by Kinsley's satanic idea that 10% of the population is "naturally" homosexual-you immediately remove 10% of the population that is able to you know actually have kids.

So no, it's not lunacy to say what I did-lunacy is anyone who defends this evil practice

Let's take a look at another example to demonstrate this. At one time it was rare to see pregnant women out in public.

???
What does this have to do with the price of rice in China . . .being pregnant is not nor ever has been sin. For a period of time there was an "unclean" aspect about things like childbirth, conception, etc. But IMO that was more a literal unclean. 100s of years ago people didn't take baths, wash or have hygiene and there was a very temporal aspect to things that were "unclean". Today with better hygiene we don't have to worry about it hardly at all.

You analogy is very poor, comparing good thing (the growing of a child in the womb) to something that has been sin.

I don't think you got the point here. I was not comparing pregnancy with homosexually.

What I was saying is that just because we start to encounter a group of people which at one time we may not have encountered in the public arena it does not follow that there are necessarily more of those people. I used pregnant women as a example of this. I could just as well have used the disabled who at one time were hidden aways by their families and seldom seen in public but are now widely seen in public. So don't confuse the example with what the example is trying to demonstrate.

Homosexuals were once "closeted" which is to say we did not encounter them much. But just because we did not encounter them in the past does not mean they were not there we just didn't know of them. Today they are very much in the open. Because of this we might be inclined to believe that there are more homosexuals now than there were in the past. But you can not make that argument because you are only more aware of them now than you were, not that there are more of them.

No actually you can make the argument that there are more homosexuals today vs. 50 years ago.

No one says well you know you don't see a whole lot of people smoking in public today but there are still a lot of people who smoke they are just "closeted" smokers. No the actual percentage of people who smoke has gone down.

Open homosexuality is much, much worse that closeted; for example there are plenty of people who are murderers, thieves, adulterers, rapists, etc. IN THEIR HEAD-i.e. as in closeted. They don't give expression to it and anyone who does give expression to it will not be only a murderer/thief/adulterer in their head for long-they will eventually become an "open" murderer or thief, etc.

No homosexuality was not as widespread 50 years ago as it is today and saying well they were just "closeted" is a major cop-out for allowing sin to take open and center stage in our culture.

Mark wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 10:38 am

BackBlast wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 10:21 am

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 7:15 amMy guess is that this issue will cause a major split. Those who advocate for homosexuality are too many, too well-organized and too motivated for it not to end up with either acceptance or a split. I could be wrong, but as things progress it appears to be heading that way.

I think you're spot on. I'll take it a step further and say that within two years there will be a major apostasy with this issue at the forefront. The discontent is coming to a boil, and the rates of members exiting over this and intellectual oriented questions is exploding.

I will only say go with the majority of those who we sustain as Apostles and Prophets as Joseph said if any splits in the church ever did occur to any extent. The wheat and tares will eventually divide of that we can be sure. The Lord will continue to guide His church and those called to hold His Priesthood keys. Don't find yourself on the outside.

I agree with the idea of don't find yourself on the outside; but if you don't have a good grounding in the Gospel, scriptures, right vs. wrong and if you are more steeped in the ideology of the world it might be quite a bit harder than you think to actually ensure you are on the right side.

BackBlast wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 10:21 am

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 7:15 amMy guess is that this issue will cause a major split. Those who advocate for homosexuality are too many, too well-organized and too motivated for it not to end up with either acceptance or a split. I could be wrong, but as things progress it appears to be heading that way.

I think you're spot on. I'll take it a step further and say that within two years there will be a major apostasy with this issue at the forefront. The discontent is coming to a boil, and the rates of members exiting over this and intellectual oriented questions is exploding.

I agree and I almost look forward to it.

BackBlast wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 10:21 am

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 7:15 amMy guess is that this issue will cause a major split. Those who advocate for homosexuality are too many, too well-organized and too motivated for it not to end up with either acceptance or a split. I could be wrong, but as things progress it appears to be heading that way.

I think you're spot on. I'll take it a step further and say that within two years there will be a major apostasy with this issue at the forefront. The discontent is coming to a boil, and the rates of members exiting over this and intellectual oriented questions is exploding.

I don't know about 2 years, that to me seems pretty dang fast; but then again you never know things can snowball real quick-I say 10-20 years . . .when the generation that is coming of age now becomes adults and starts having families . . .that will be IMO the time frame.

Homosexual marriage has been the law of the land for 3 years, when kids who were about 9-10 then become adults and those who are being indoctrinated now become adults. How can a religion continue to preach and practice that SSM is not of God when states like Illinois have legislation requiring that public schools have sections of their teaching devoted to extolling the virtues and accomplishments of homosexuals?

It's going to be very, very hard to not go down that route.

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 10:46 am
No actually you can make the argument that there are more homosexuals today vs. 50 years ago.

If you can make the argument, then back it up with something other than your personal opinion.

braingrunt wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 10:52 am

BackBlast wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 10:21 am

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 7:15 amMy guess is that this issue will cause a major split. Those who advocate for homosexuality are too many, too well-organized and too motivated for it not to end up with either acceptance or a split. I could be wrong, but as things progress it appears to be heading that way.

I think you're spot on. I'll take it a step further and say that within two years there will be a major apostasy with this issue at the forefront. The discontent is coming to a boil, and the rates of members exiting over this and intellectual oriented questions is exploding.

I agree and I almost look forward to it.

Someone is an eager beaver to jump into the refiner's fire

I, also, look forward to a time where I can look around at church and really feel like I am one with everyone else there.

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 10:46 am No actually you can make the argument that there are more homosexuals today vs. 50 years ago.

This is true. In fact, there's a faction within feminism called "political lesbianism" where its adherents choose homosexuality as a way to express their hatred of men. This is the direction my own daughter is heading right now, actually. It won't surprise me if within a few years, she leaves her husband for a woman. I've actually seen her transform from just advocating equality for gays out of a sense of fairness to full on celebration and admiration of it. She now openly admits she's at least bi-curious.

Arenera wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 6:56 am
Why work yourself up? Everyone sins.

Arenera wrote:
Be nice to people.

It is this false doctrine that is consuming the Church. The sum total of the restored Gospel to much of the church members can be summed up by these quotes. Love and Unicorns. No judging. No thinking. Sin is not to be overcome. It is instead embraced so people feel good about themselves.

But any even minor study of the scriptures shows us that this doctrine is absolutely false. How did we get to this point that people refuse to call sin a sin because they think it isn't nice? What was the purpose of the restoration in this context?

Is this why the Book of Mormon was restored? Why our ancestors sacrificed so much? So we can endorse pro-homosexual concerts and parades? So we can call a sexual fetish that has been a sin from the beginning of time a virtuous trait that is your primary source of identity?

It boggles the mind.

22 And the Lord of the vineyard said unto him: Counsel me not; I knew that it was a poor spot of ground; wherefore, I said unto thee, I have nourished it this long time, and thou beholdest that it hath brought forth much fruit.

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 10:48 am

Mark wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 10:38 am

BackBlast wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 10:21 am

mgridle1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2018, 7:15 amMy guess is that this issue will cause a major split. Those who advocate for homosexuality are too many, too well-organized and too motivated for it not to end up with either acceptance or a split. I could be wrong, but as things progress it appears to be heading that way.

I think you're spot on. I'll take it a step further and say that within two years there will be a major apostasy with this issue at the forefront. The discontent is coming to a boil, and the rates of members exiting over this and intellectual oriented questions is exploding.

I will only say go with the majority of those who we sustain as Apostles and Prophets as Joseph said if any splits in the church ever did occur to any extent. The wheat and tares will eventually divide of that we can be sure. The Lord will continue to guide His church and those called to hold His Priesthood keys. Don't find yourself on the outside.

I agree with the idea of don't find yourself on the outside; but if you don't have a good grounding in the Gospel, scriptures, right vs. wrong and if you are more steeped in the ideology of the world it might be quite a bit harder than you think to actually ensure you are on the right side.

Posted this on another thread, but in case you missed it - Bishop Paul Augenstein has been released as bishop of the Parkway Ward, Riverton Utah Summerhill Stake. Check it out on the Meeting House Locator on lds.org (now a Bishop Green). It would seem (?) that Augenstein was released prematurely. How long before he appears on Mormon Stories etc?

Jack Vance 79 wrote: ↑June 20th, 2018, 7:00 pm Posted this on another thread, but in case you missed it - Bishop Paul Augenstein has been released as bishop of the Parkway Ward, Riverton Utah Summerhill Stake. Check it out on the Meeting House Locator on lds.org (now a Bishop Green). It would seem (?) that Augenstein was released prematurely. How long before he appears on Mormon Stories etc?

Has he been promoted to Cruise Director yet?



In all seriousness it's probably unsafe to presume too much. They'll tell the new chapter in their story when it suits them. Until then,

Jack Vance 79 wrote: ↑June 20th, 2018, 7:00 pm Posted this on another thread, but in case you missed it - Bishop Paul Augenstein has been released as bishop of the Parkway Ward, Riverton Utah Summerhill Stake. Check it out on the Meeting House Locator on lds.org (now a Bishop Green). It would seem (?) that Augenstein was released prematurely. How long before he appears on Mormon Stories etc?

I don't know if it was "premature", he mentioned in a podcast that he had already served almost 5 years (and in general a Bishop calling is for about 5 years)-he was up for being released anyways.

But at least he is gone from being a Bishop.

Probably explains why he began to be so vocal about it - used the mantle to drive a progressive agenda and then got released after 5 years so it all looks okay.