LDS Freedom Forum

Fiannan wrote: ↑June 20th, 2019, 12:19 pm
Actually there is. The world attacks our concepts of the family 24/7, the Church tends to ignore the attacks and does little to counter them, so it is up to members to promote truth. You never know the impact you can have.

I disagree with this. The Church issued the Proclamation to the Family in the 90's because of the attack on the family. The church campaigned on Prop 22 and Prop 8 in California too for the same reason (even though I disagree that it should have). The Church does plenty to stand up to society when its values are being threatened IMO.

thestock wrote: ↑June 20th, 2019, 12:27 pm

Fiannan wrote: ↑June 20th, 2019, 12:19 pm
Actually there is. The world attacks our concepts of the family 24/7, the Church tends to ignore the attacks and does little to counter them, so it is up to members to promote truth. You never know the impact you can have.

I disagree with this. The Church issued the Proclamation to the Family in the 90's because of the attack on the family. The church campaigned on Prop 22 and Prop 8 in California too for the same reason (even though I disagree that it should have). The Church does plenty to stand up to society when its values are being threatened IMO.

Yeah, I told my kid to study for school last year...hope they are listening to my advice.

Just as a dog needs to have its training reinforced even if they are superb at what they can do a human needs constant reinforcement of cognitive skills. So to the Church's credit they tell us to read and ponder the scriptures. And yes, all they answers are there, yet as Hugh Nibley pointed out LDS people do not read their scriptures. So while occasional cracking of the standard works is fantastic, and listening to some talks from GC helps as well, the media and much of public education is aligned to spread lies. So if people, especially younger people, go to classes, correlated classes on Sunday, and get some fluffy messages, it is no match to counter the bombardment from all the influences that are on the attack. Sadly, many young people welcome straight-forward truth, and would act accordingly if it were given, but come on, even much of the Holy Handbook is so open to interpretation that one can read it and come to different conclusions than another member.

I do wish people would not keep bringing up The Proclamation to the Family as an example of the Church standing up to society. It is nothing of the sort. To those outside the Church it means nothing, and to many inside the Church it comes across as mostly a summary of what is already taught in Church publications. Are Prophets afraid to talk about the Judgement that is coming on each and every nation whose government supports homosexual and transgender behaviour? There was a reason for the Flood and a reason for the Destruction of Sodom and its sister cities of the plains. There is a Judgement in our future, if we as a nation do not repent of our national sins, which are many. We who are in the later years of our lives may not see it, but our children will see it. I suspect that even many believers will be surprised when that day comes.

For the LORD will execute judgment by fire And by His sword on all flesh, And those slain by the LORD will be many. (Isaiah 66:16)

From the LORD of hosts you will be punished with thunder and earthquake and loud noise, With whirlwind and tempest and the flame of a consuming fire. (Isaiah 29:6)

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. (2 Peter 3:10)

mike_rumble wrote: ↑June 20th, 2019, 1:15 pm I do wish people would not keep bringing up The Proclamation to the Family as an example of the Church standing up to society. It is nothing of the sort. To those outside the Church it means nothing, and to many inside the Church it comes across as mostly a summary of what is already taught in Church publications. Are Prophets afraid to talk about the Judgement that is coming on each and every nation whose government supports homosexual and transgender behaviour? There was a reason for the Flood and a reason for the Destruction of Sodom and its sister cities of the plains. There is a Judgement in our future, if we as a nation do not repent of our national sins, which are many. We who are in the later years of our lives may not see it, but our children will see it. I suspect that even many believers will be surprised when that day comes.

For the LORD will execute judgment by fire And by His sword on all flesh, And those slain by the LORD will be many. (Isaiah 66:16)

From the LORD of hosts you will be punished with thunder and earthquake and loud noise, With whirlwind and tempest and the flame of a consuming fire. (Isaiah 29:6)

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. (2 Peter 3:10)

The pro-LGBTQ members of the Church have written papers on how the Proclamation doesn't prohibit gay marriage. For example, it says the marriage of a man and woman is ordained by God, but it doesn't have the word "only". So in their minds, the Proc just says something about a traditional marriage, and nothing about any other non-traditional marriage, and that omission is what they are driving a truck through. They contend that as soon as the Top 15 humble themselves and ask God, He will reveal to the Church that gay marriage is equal in every way to traditional marriage, even so far as being part of celestial exaltation.

There is a comment by someone at Mormons Building Bridges that I am going to post. Just need some time, as their format, although public, is not copy-able.

Posted below:

The quote from Mormons Building Bridges:

"Wouldn't it be so much more preferable for The Church (LDS and any church) to encourage, celebrate and support ALL monogamous relationships, lifelong marriage commitments and the selfless sacrifice of raising a family? Any healthy, happy, striving, working, committed marriage, and resultant family, are the foundation of a healthy, happy, striving, blessed society.

Men and women are not created to be alone. God declared that it's "Not Good".

I've met and known many mixed and same-sex marriages, and families, and I've seen the beauty and goodness and very real, beautiful love and sacrifice. These couples and families are a blessing and gift to the world.

Maybe, since same-sex couples and their children can now be linked in FamilySearch, as they should, there is already an awakening. Perhaps heaven is slowly guiding us to receive a higher understanding of the eternal principle of FAMILY. For now, we "see through a glass darkly" on many things, but there is so much more light and knowledge ahead to discover! Line upon line, step by step, two by two, and family by family."

------------------------------------

She writes very well, and is obviously passionate about this cause. She has completely and totally decided that sexual relations between two people of the same gender is just fine-and-dandy with God, and eons of scripture have been mistaken.
It is one of the ultimate examples of good being called evil, and evil being called good (and healthy, happy, blessed, beautiful, and further light and knowledge).

Have to add a little bit of a rant here.
I see that the children's cartoon series "Arthur" and "My Little Pony" now includes homosexual couples. I don't watch a lot of television, but when I do I can't help to notice how things are creeping in without so much as a complaint. In the old days the FCC or it's Canadian version would be flooded with calls, but not any more.
In February the Bank of Montreal had a Valentine's ad that feature two males celebrating the holiday at a restarant. On Father's day my local channel featured a series of quickly displayed Fathers holding their children. One of those two second shots were of two fathers looking down at their little baby. And, just yesterday I watched a ad for 'Head & Shoulders' shampoo that showed a young woman getting ready for her date with the tag line something like "be the best you can be". Ended up showing her meeting up with a kissing her "girlfriend".
Now extrapolate this a few years into the future and you can see how the attitudes of our children and grandchildren will be changed. I know most of us won't believe it, but those little grandchildren we now hold in our arms, will likely be calling us bigots and worse before the next decade is over. To keep their love, we will have to adapt to their way of morality and ethics. Most of us, sadly will do just that.
How many of us can resist when it means the loss of our families? I guess we will see.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑June 20th, 2019, 1:22 pm

mike_rumble wrote: ↑June 20th, 2019, 1:15 pm I do wish people would not keep bringing up The Proclamation to the Family as an example of the Church standing up to society. It is nothing of the sort. To those outside the Church it means nothing, and to many inside the Church it comes across as mostly a summary of what is already taught in Church publications. Are Prophets afraid to talk about the Judgement that is coming on each and every nation whose government supports homosexual and transgender behaviour? There was a reason for the Flood and a reason for the Destruction of Sodom and its sister cities of the plains. There is a Judgement in our future, if we as a nation do not repent of our national sins, which are many. We who are in the later years of our lives may not see it, but our children will see it. I suspect that even many believers will be surprised when that day comes.

For the LORD will execute judgment by fire And by His sword on all flesh, And those slain by the LORD will be many. (Isaiah 66:16)

From the LORD of hosts you will be punished with thunder and earthquake and loud noise, With whirlwind and tempest and the flame of a consuming fire. (Isaiah 29:6)

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. (2 Peter 3:10)

The pro-LGBTQ members of the Church have written papers on how the Proclamation doesn't prohibit gay marriage. For example, it says the marriage of a man and woman is ordained by God, but it doesn't have the word "only". So in their minds, the Proc just says something about a traditional marriage, and nothing about any other non-traditional marriage, and that omission is what they are driving a truck through. They contend that as soon as the Top 15 humble themselves and ask God, He will reveal to the Church that gay marriage is equal in every way to traditional marriage, even so far as being part of celestial exaltation.

There is a comment by someone at Mormons Building Bridges that I am going to post. Just need some time, as their format, although public, is not copy-able.

Posted below:

Wow...the mental gymnastics some people will go thru to justify their favorite sins.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑June 20th, 2019, 1:36 pm The quote from Mormons Building Bridges:

"Wouldn't it be so much more preferable for The Church (LDS and any church) to encourage, celebrate and support ALL monogamous relationships, lifelong marriage commitments and the selfless sacrifice of raising a family? Any healthy, happy, striving, working, committed marriage, and resultant family, are the foundation of a healthy, happy, striving, blessed society.

Men and women are not created to be alone. God declared that it's "Not Good".

I've met and known many mixed and same-sex marriages, and families, and I've seen the beauty and goodness and very real, beautiful love and sacrifice. These couples and families are a blessing and gift to the world.

Maybe, since same-sex couples and their children can now be linked in FamilySearch, as they should, there is already an awakening. Perhaps heaven is slowly guiding us to receive a higher understanding of the eternal principle of FAMILY. For now, we "see through a glass darkly" on many things, but there is so much more light and knowledge ahead to discover! Line upon line, step by step, two by two, and family by family."

------------------------------------

She writes very well, and is obviously passionate about this cause. She has completely and totally decided that sexual relations between two people of the same gender is just fine-and-dandy with God, and eons of scripture have been mistaken.
It is one of the ultimate examples of good being called evil, and evil being called good (and healthy, happy, blessed, beautiful, and further light and knowledge).

It kind of reminds me of Ether 12:27 which talks about how God gives us weaknesses, but that if we are humble He will make our weaknesses strengths. Surely the opposite is true...as you note...this person has taken compassion...a wonderful characteristic and something that could be characterized as a strength...and is allowing it to be twisted into something ugly and evil.

Boyd K. Packer gave a talk at BYU some years ago where he outlined the three greatest challenges the Church would face in coming years...one was the gay lobby.

mike_rumble wrote: ↑June 20th, 2019, 1:41 pm Have to add a little bit of a rant here.
I see that the children's cartoon series "Arthur" and "My Little Pony" now includes homosexual couples. I don't watch a lot of television, but when I do I can't help to notice how things are creeping in without so much as a complaint. In the old days the FCC or it's Canadian version would be flooded with calls, but not any more.
In February the Bank of Montreal had a Valentine's ad that feature two males celebrating the holiday at a restarant. On Father's day my local channel featured a series of quickly displayed Fathers holding their children. One of those two second shots were of two fathers looking down at their little baby. And, just yesterday I watched a ad for 'Head & Shoulders' shampoo that showed a young woman getting ready for her date with the tag line something like "be the best you can be". Ended up showing her meeting up with a kissing her "girlfriend".
Now extrapolate this a few years into the future and you can see how the attitudes of our children and grandchildren will be changed. I know most of us won't believe it, but those little grandchildren we now hold in our arms, will likely be calling us bigots and worse before the next decade is over. To keep their love, we will have to adapt to their way of morality and ethics. Most of us, sadly will do just that.
How many of us can resist when it means the loss of our families? I guess we will see.

Male masculinity is now being written about as being some sort of disorder. My prediction? If things continue at this rate then if a teenager says they are only attracted to the opposite sex their parents will get contacted so that counseling sessions can begin in order to help them recognize that bisexuality is the only healthy way to live.

Fiannan wrote: ↑June 19th, 2019, 11:20 pm

AGAIN...YOU ARE QUOTING "DOCTRINE" FROM MANY YEARS AGO WHILE IGNORING THE FACT THAT MODERN DAY PROPHETS ARTICULATE A DIFFERENT STANDARD. SO...I DON'T SEE YOU AS STATING RIGHTEOUS DOCTRINE. RATHER...YOU ARE DOING WHAT SO MANY LDS DO...PICK AND CHOOSE QUOTES TO SUPPORT A POSITION, WHILE IGNORING OTHER MORE RECENT STATEMENTS THAT MIGHT TEND TO UNDERMINE YOUR ARGUMENT. FOR A CHURCH THAT CLAIMS TO BELIEVE IN CONTINUOUS REVELATION, I'M AMAZED HOW MANY MEMBERS IGNORE THIS FACT.

And yet that teaching from LDS leaders, articulated in most of the lives of people on this forum, was and is responsible for large families being a defining characteristic of LDS people in the minds of people worldwide. Strange how that worked out.

SO...WHAT IS YOUR POINT? IF PEOPLE EITHER WANT OR FEEL CALLED TO HAVE A LARGE FAMILY, I THINK THAT'S GREAT.

Just a question, one of my grandfathers, not a member I might add, had a large family. When my grandmother died he remarried at the age of 63 and created another family. So let us suppose that a 63 year old LDS man today, one that heard all the instructions in regards to "multiply and replenish the earth" in his youth and even later, marries a 25 year old woman who has never heard of this taught as doctrine. Which doctrine should they follow? Apparently, he would be under a different law or understanding. Is he then, when he says that he would like at least 4 or 5 kids, and she has only the Holy Handbook teachings, who then is right? Will he be held accountable if he gives in and compromises at two?

YOUR EXAMPLES ARE ALWAYS SO EXTREME. FIRST OF ALL...STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, MOST WOMEN WILL OUTLIVE THEIR HUSBANDS. SECOND...MOST MEN WHO ARE 63 YEARS OLD HAVE NO BUSINESS HAVING CHILDREN. THERE WILL BE THE ODD MAN WHO IS IN GOOD ENOUGH PHYSICAL SHAPE AND HAS ENOUGH ENERGY, BUT THAT IS BY FAR THE EXCEPTION AND NOT THE RULE. THIRD...WHY WOULD MOST 25 YEAR OLD WOMEN BE ATTRACTED TO A 63 YEAR OLD MAN?
I CAN ONLY THINK OF ONE REASON...HE BETTER HAVE A LOT OF MONEY. FOURTH...IN THE ONE OR TWO CASES WHERE WHAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED REALLY HAPPENS, I WOULD HOPE THE MAN AND WOMAN WOULD TALK ABOUT IT BEFORE MARRIAGE, IN WHICH CASE IT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE. MOST PEOPLE ARE SMART ENOUGH I HOPE TO DISCUSS THEIR IDEAS AND EXPECTATIONS IN TERMS OF CHILDREN BEFORE MARRIAGE. FURTHER...AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE...DECISIONS CONCERNING HAVING CHILDREN SHOULD INVOLVE THE COUPLE AND THE LORD. SO...THE CORRECT NUMBER OF CHILDREN IS HOWEVER MANY THEY FEEL INSPIRED BY THE LORD TO HAVE. COULD BE ANYWHERE FROM 0 TO DUGGAR.

In real terms the Church is in demographic trouble. The leaders recognize that and we can only speculate why they have not started emphasizing having large families lately. I suspect it has something to do with 501 3-C and not getting the powers-that-be angry. I used to hear people speculate that maybe it was to get into nations such as China with strict population control policies, but China has lifted those regulations and now appears to be encouraging people to have more kids. Weird how the Communist Party is seeing the need to create more young people and we are not so much.

I JUST DON'T SEE THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS. I SEE PLENTY OF LARGE FAMILIES IN THE CHURCH.
IN MY EAST COAST WARD, THE MOST COMMON NUMBER IS 4. IS THAT A SMALL NUMBER? NOT BY MY STANDARDS...WE HAVE 3 WHICH IS WHAT MY WIFE'S HEALTH WOULD ALLOW AND FOUND THAT NUMBER TO BE QUITE OVERWHELMING MANY DAYS.

SO HERE IS A QUESTION FOR YOU. WHY ARE YOU SO DOGMATIC WHEN IT COMES TO STATEMENTS MADE PERTAINING TO BIRTH CONTROL AND FAMILY SIZE MADE BY PAST PROPHETS, YET DON'T BELIEVE STATEMENTS MADE BY THESE SAME PROPHETS THAT CONFIRM THE REALITY OF A WORLD WIDE FLOOD? I HAVE READ MANY TIMES WHERE YOU SAY YOU BELIEVE NOAH'S FLOOD TO HAVE BEEN MERELY A LOCAL EVENT. AS IS NOTE ABOVE, THIS FLIES IN THE FACE OF STATEMENTS MADE BY THESE SAME PROPHETS AFFIRMING THAT THE FLOOD WAS WORLD WIDE AND IN FACT DID KILL EVERY HUMAN BEING EXCEPT FOR THOSE ON THE ARK.
I'M CURIOUS WHY THEIR STATEMENTS PERTAINING TO BIRTH CONTROL ARE IMMUTABLE GOSPEL DOCTRINE (THEY AREN'T) BUT YOU AREN'T OBLIGED TO BELIEVE THEIR STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE FLOOD? SEEMS PRETTY INCONSISTENT IF YOU ASK ME.

First, why do you have to make bold print for what you are saying? It does not make people read it more.

Second, it is indeed possible to have confirmation bias when you see people around you with larger families. Yet on a macro scale such is not the case. Sure, one can have three children and then one has four kids, one none and another two. The average will be two even though there is one with four.

Third, you can believe Noah road a purple unicorn and it will not affect your salvation. Was he a dirt farmer as old paintings from the 15th Century depict him? Was he part of an influential family in which only he saw the evils of idol worship as the Muslims present him? Was he perhaps a grand architect as is Masonic tradition or one of the survivors of the Atlantian age as more esoteric texts suggest? Who knows, maybe none of these accurately describe him but all one has to believe is that he lived, he talked with God, and he built an ark. Whether he had 8 people, 100 (Muslim texts), does not matter either. And neither does it matter if there were survivors scattered around the world but Noah was one of the few to survive his civilization's destruction. As for a local flood I have merely noted that if you had a major cataclysm such as an asteroid hitting the earth it would perhaps have inundated 90% of the earth with tsunamis the size of small mountains but some parts would have been spared. Nevertheless, it Hugh Nibley was wrong to question the idea that the whole earth got flooded so what? It does not take away from the truths of the Gospel. And it certainly won't cause the Church to shrink as LDS having small families certainly would.

About the Noah thing: I don't think there is any need to believe in a global flood. And lest I be accused of being less than faithful to the biblical text, I'll just say that biblical Hebrew has no concept of a global or a planet-wide anything.

The Hebrew word ארץ (Eretz) is variously translated as "Earth," "Land," or "Ground" in the King James Version. It can refer to land in general, or to a specific country, usually the land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), as in the title of modern Israel's largest newspaper, Ha'Eretz.

When the Noah story says that the all the Eretz was flooded, we simply don't know what land is being referred to, though I expect, from passages like the following, that the extent is less than "all the earth" in the modern sense of the word.

Genesis 7:19-20
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon ha'eretz; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Just fifteen cubits from high hills to mountains? That seems a little small the encompass all the lands that are known to modern geographers.

As for what this has to do with birth control or homosexuality? Suffice it to say that, even leaving the flood controversy out of it, the general authorities have provided enough evidence of their openness to change that nobody who quotes them in arguments like this has a right to complain when they end up hoisted on their own petard.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑June 20th, 2019, 1:22 pm

mike_rumble wrote: ↑June 20th, 2019, 1:15 pm I do wish people would not keep bringing up The Proclamation to the Family as an example of the Church standing up to society. It is nothing of the sort. To those outside the Church it means nothing, and to many inside the Church it comes across as mostly a summary of what is already taught in Church publications. Are Prophets afraid to talk about the Judgement that is coming on each and every nation whose government supports homosexual and transgender behaviour? There was a reason for the Flood and a reason for the Destruction of Sodom and its sister cities of the plains. There is a Judgement in our future, if we as a nation do not repent of our national sins, which are many. We who are in the later years of our lives may not see it, but our children will see it. I suspect that even many believers will be surprised when that day comes.

For the LORD will execute judgment by fire And by His sword on all flesh, And those slain by the LORD will be many. (Isaiah 66:16)

From the LORD of hosts you will be punished with thunder and earthquake and loud noise, With whirlwind and tempest and the flame of a consuming fire. (Isaiah 29:6)

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. (2 Peter 3:10)

The pro-LGBTQ members of the Church have written papers on how the Proclamation doesn't prohibit gay marriage. For example, it says the marriage of a man and woman is ordained by God, but it doesn't have the word "only". So in their minds, the Proc just says something about a traditional marriage, and nothing about any other non-traditional marriage, and that omission is what they are driving a truck through. They contend that as soon as the Top 15 humble themselves and ask God, He will reveal to the Church that gay marriage is equal in every way to traditional marriage, even so far as being part of celestial exaltation.

There is a comment by someone at Mormons Building Bridges that I am going to post. Just need some time, as their format, although public, is not copy-able.

Posted below:

Eh, people are always going to rationalize. If the Proclamation had said "ONLY" it wouldn't matter to those people, they rationalize what they want to believe.

mike_rumble wrote: ↑June 20th, 2019, 1:41 pm Have to add a little bit of a rant here.
I see that the children's cartoon series "Arthur" and "My Little Pony" now includes homosexual couples. I don't watch a lot of television, but when I do I can't help to notice how things are creeping in without so much as a complaint. In the old days the FCC or it's Canadian version would be flooded with calls, but not any more.
In February the Bank of Montreal had a Valentine's ad that feature two males celebrating the holiday at a restarant. On Father's day my local channel featured a series of quickly displayed Fathers holding their children. One of those two second shots were of two fathers looking down at their little baby. And, just yesterday I watched a ad for 'Head & Shoulders' shampoo that showed a young woman getting ready for her date with the tag line something like "be the best you can be". Ended up showing her meeting up with a kissing her "girlfriend".
Now extrapolate this a few years into the future and you can see how the attitudes of our children and grandchildren will be changed. I know most of us won't believe it, but those little grandchildren we now hold in our arms, will likely be calling us bigots and worse before the next decade is over. To keep their love, we will have to adapt to their way of morality and ethics. Most of us, sadly will do just that.
How many of us can resist when it means the loss of our families? I guess we will see.

Scriptures about the Gospel causing division in families is coming to mind....

If we are careful to worship Jesus as our Redeemer, and not even allow the goal of family peace to become a more important false god, then individually we can stay on the strait and narrow, no matter what our descendants do.

Ie, family discord may very well be an unwanted fruit of doing what's right, but those who endure to the end win the crown.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Plan ... th_control

"It is true that Church leaders have made frank warnings about the over-use of birth control. Even today, the LDS Church regards the commandment given to Adam and Eve to “multiply, and replenish the earth” Genesis 1:28 as still being in effect . [7] As late Church President, Ezra Taft Benson, taught:

Mothers who enjoy good health, have your children and have them early. And, husbands, always be considerate of your wives in the bearing of children. Do not curtail the number of children for personal or selfish reasons. Material possessions, social convenience, and so-called professional advantages are nothing compared to a righteous posterity."

Now for my own commentary:
"curtail" is a verb which means to "reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on."

That sounds like you shouldn't reduce your number of children for "personal or selfish" reasons. What are personal reasons? Does "I only want 3 kids" constitute a "personal" reason? I think so. Does "I think 4 sounds like the correct number of kids" sound like "imposing[ing] a restriction on" them? YES! My brother-in-law just wants a few (2-3, I think?), but my sister who is married to him wants more. They told me this when young and healthy, before having any children. Does it sound like my brother-in-law is a person who may end up "curtailing" (or reducing) their number of kids for "personal" reasons? To me it does indeed sound that way. And I think it [the attitude/behavior] is WRONG.

Now don't go saying I'm being judgmental. The scriptures have counseled us to "judge righteous judgements". I take this to mean: judge acts/behaviors, but do not judge a person. The same way we treat homosexuals: judge their behavior as wrong, (that doesn't necessarily mean you should confront them, it just means it is your responsibility to teach those under your stewardship the truth about the BEHAVIOR being wrong)... but do not judge the PERSON as being sinful. I am only judging my brother-in-law's BEHAVIOR about the number of children he wants (we'll see how many he ends up with). I am not judging HIM as a person. I don't know how he grew up. I gain no benefit or satisfaction from labeling him as sinning in this regard. Whether and how he will be judged for this is not up to me, it's in God's hands.

I don't judge people for how many kids they have. I don't know what their challenges are. I don't know if they just can't have them, or what. Frankly I don't even care. I DO NOT CARE how many kids someone has. I do care about the attitude though. I will say this: If you just want a few kids because you just want a few kids, you should strongly reconsider. They're wonderful, anyway! I love them to death [my kids at least, that is]! I practice what I preach, I have enough children that there isn't a single minivan on the market that can legally transport my entire family at once. And we're not done producing them. Having a large family is the most joyful thing ever!

Theres a difference between being sexually attracted to someone the same gender and being gay. Being gay means you live the lifestyle and have a partner, having a tendency to be sexually attracted to a man is not a sin because hes not acting on it. Same gender attraction is being attracted but not acting on it. Just like someone with the temptation to steal but doesn't do it, is worthy, just because they're tempted doesn't mean that they're unworthy to go to the temple.
Even jesus was tempted of the devil but he didnt cave. Hes not bad for being tempted.

XEmilyX wrote: ↑June 21st, 2019, 7:17 pm Theres a difference between being sexually attracted to someone the same gender and being gay. Being gay means you live the lifestyle and have a partner, having a tendency to be sexually attracted to a man is not a sin because hes not acting on it. Same gender attraction is being attracted but not acting on it. Just like someone with the temptation to steal but doesn't do it, is worthy, just because they're tempted doesn't mean that they're unworthy to go to the temple.
Even jesus was tempted of the devil but he didnt cave. Hes not bad for being tempted.

Emily, you are correct. Any temptation to sin that we experience is part of our fallen nature. We are here to learn how to overcome temptation, using our faith, our belief in the Atonement, and our desire to become more Christlike. I don't think anyone on this board has said that someone who is attracted to the same gender is automatically a lost cause. No one here has said that bullying or shaming a person with same-sex attraction is okay under any circumstance. However, we also believe that there are some sins that are so serious, that excommunicating or disfellowshipping them is a necessary part of the repentance process if they want to remain in the LDS Church.

You're very young compared to some of us. Are you aware that there are straight LDS people, including bishops, stake presidents, and temple workers, in every age group, and all over the world, who are teaching young LGBTQ members that it's NOT a sin to act on their homosexual desires? They are teaching that a monogamous homosexual marriage is what God wants for them. If gay sexual relations are sinful, what will be the likely outcome for those who have taken it upon themselves to teach otherwise?

They KNOW they are teaching doctrine that is not in line with Church doctrine, and they openly state that the Top Leadership is WRONG about gay sexual acts in a gay marriage. They are teaching false doctrine, they are leading youth to sinful activities, and they are saying hateful things about some of the Apostles.

My mind is boggled. I don't recognize the church of my youth (where candy cigarettes and colas were not allowed).

XEmilyX wrote: ↑June 21st, 2019, 7:17 pm Theres a difference between being sexually attracted to someone the same gender and being gay. Being gay means you live the lifestyle and have a partner, having a tendency to be sexually attracted to a man is not a sin because hes not acting on it. Same gender attraction is being attracted but not acting on it. Just like someone with the temptation to steal but doesn't do it, is worthy, just because they're tempted doesn't mean that they're unworthy to go to the temple.
Even jesus was tempted of the devil but he didnt cave. Hes not bad for being tempted.

Great points. I wish more people understood this. I have noted before that I know a woman who is bi who has a thing about turning straight women gay. It seems a power thing. She realizes that most women have some sort of same-sex attraction and so she seduces them and does her best to convince them that what they are experiencing is the "real thing" for them. She has no intention of forming a long-term relationship with them, and tires of them after about 3 months. The irony is that the ones who are more conservative are easier to convert and these are the ones who are so into the lifestyle now that some are even married to women. Why are conservatives easier to convert? A liberal woman will merely chalk up the relationship to a new experience. They merely go on with their lives and wind up with a man eventually. The more conservative one is vulnerable as they have to make sense of what has happened and so they have to rewrite their life script. Once they merely accept that they are lesbian then it gives them a sense of relief and despite all the "coming out" situations, which merely solidify their new way of life, they gain a sense of comfort and then community with other lesbians. The thing we have to remember is that if we do not make a difference between a behavior and a feeling then that leaves people vulnerable to feeling like the feeling must be them anyway so they self-identify. I wonder how many young conservative women find themselves enjoying lesbian porn and then wondering if it is because they must be gay. I doubt it is rare.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑June 21st, 2019, 8:18 pm

XEmilyX wrote: ↑June 21st, 2019, 7:17 pm Theres a difference between being sexually attracted to someone the same gender and being gay. Being gay means you live the lifestyle and have a partner, having a tendency to be sexually attracted to a man is not a sin because hes not acting on it. Same gender attraction is being attracted but not acting on it. Just like someone with the temptation to steal but doesn't do it, is worthy, just because they're tempted doesn't mean that they're unworthy to go to the temple.
Even jesus was tempted of the devil but he didnt cave. Hes not bad for being tempted.

Emily, you are correct. Any temptation to sin that we experience is part of our fallen nature. We are here to learn how to overcome temptation, using our faith, our belief in the Atonement, and our desire to become more Christlike. I don't think anyone on this board has said that someone who is attracted to the same gender is automatically a lost cause. No one here has said that bullying or shaming a person with same-sex attraction is okay under any circumstance. However, we also believe that there are some sins that are so serious, that excommunicating or disfellowshipping them is a necessary part of the repentance process if they want to remain in the LDS Church.

You're very young compared to some of us. Are you aware that there are straight LDS people, including bishops, stake presidents, and temple workers, in every age group, and all over the world, who are teaching young LGBTQ members that it's NOT a sin to act on their homosexual desires? They are teaching that a monogamous homosexual marriage is what God wants for them. If gay sexual relations are sinful, what will be the likely outcome for those who have taken it upon themselves to teach otherwise?

They KNOW they are teaching doctrine that is not in line with Church doctrine, and they openly state that the Top Leadership is WRONG about gay sexual acts in a gay marriage. They are teaching false doctrine, they are leading youth to sinful activities, and they are saying hateful things about some of the Apostles.

My mind is boggled. I don't recognize the church of my youth (where candy cigarettes and colas were not allowed).

I think there are people on this forum that think that same gender attraction is a sin and not just a temptation. Not me. But there are a wide range of people on this forum with views running the gamut on everything. I’m not just guessing on this SSA point though, I’ve actually read posts where someone is saying that SSA is sinful, perhaps not directly like that, but saying it nonetheless.

Fiannan wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2019, 1:06 am

XEmilyX wrote: ↑June 21st, 2019, 7:17 pm Theres a difference between being sexually attracted to someone the same gender and being gay. Being gay means you live the lifestyle and have a partner, having a tendency to be sexually attracted to a man is not a sin because hes not acting on it. Same gender attraction is being attracted but not acting on it. Just like someone with the temptation to steal but doesn't do it, is worthy, just because they're tempted doesn't mean that they're unworthy to go to the temple.
Even jesus was tempted of the devil but he didnt cave. Hes not bad for being tempted.

Great points. I wish more people understood this. I have noted before that I know a woman who is bi who has a thing about turning straight women gay. It seems a power thing. She realizes that most women have some sort of same-sex attraction and so she seduces them and does her best to convince them that what they are experiencing is the "real thing" for them. She has no intention of forming a long-term relationship with them, and tires of them after about 3 months. The irony is that the ones who are more conservative are easier to convert and these are the ones who are so into the lifestyle now that some are even married to women. Why are conservatives easier to convert? A liberal woman will merely chalk up the relationship to a new experience. They merely go on with their lives and wind up with a man eventually. The more conservative one is vulnerable as they have to make sense of what has happened and so they have to rewrite their life script. Once they merely accept that they are lesbian then it gives them a sense of relief and despite all the "coming out" situations, which merely solidify their new way of life, they gain a sense of comfort and then community with other lesbians. The thing we have to remember is that if we do not make a difference between a behavior and a feeling then that leaves people vulnerable to feeling like the feeling must be them anyway so they self-identify. I wonder how many young conservative women find themselves enjoying lesbian porn and then wondering if it is because they must be gay. I doubt it is rare.

This made me think about the same phenomenon of why when a temple covenant maker sins and it affects him/her greatly and often turns him/her into a “changed” person for the worse versus a non temple covenant maker with the same sin being less affected to the point of shaking it off and moving on.

The person who had greater knowledge and made covenants feels they have acted beyond the atonements help (the devils whispers) and they can really become a pretty “bad” person if they don't recognize and change something. OR - perhaps they were always that “bad” person they chose to become.

Either-way, I see those who know better and acting against that knowledge as damning themselves greater than a person who didn't know better or have that knowledge.
Makes me think of Lucifer and how he was able to become so bitter and desire destruction of others.

It is an eternal mystery to me how Lucifer could have fallen so far from his exalted station and why.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2019, 9:43 am Makes me think of Lucifer and how he was able to become so bitter and desire destruction of others.

At what point is same-sex attraction a sin? There are some answers in the 10 Commandments, as well as the teachings of Christ during the sermon on the mount. Also, let's not apply this only to sexual attraction, but to any sin that we are tempted with.

The Ten Commandments tell us not to commit adultery, and also not to steal. But what if we desire to commit adultery, or we see a possession of our neighbor's that we would like to steal? Thou shalt not covet. So it's not only wrong to commit adultery, but it's also wrong to covet another man's wife. It's wrong to desire possession of another's things.

In the Sermon on the Mount, we learn that it's not just enough to resist murdering someone, but we are admonished not to be angry with our brother. We learn that we don't just resist adultery, but we are also to resist lust.

Only a same-sex attracted person can tell you when they have crossed the line and lusted after someone, even though they resisted acting upon their lust, just as any straight person can tell you the same thing. Men and women who have the spirit with them know when they are thinking impure thoughts, and when they should repent.

So while it is not a sin itself to be attracted to someone with whom it would be wrong to have sexual relations, it is a sin if it moves into lusting after the action, or into coveting what others have.

This is why it's so important to the LDS LGBTQ and their allies to change the paradigm so that same-sex monogamous marriage is not a sin. They absolutely abhor the statement that we are to love the sinner, but not the sin. They abhor the idea that we are willing to mourn with those who mourn (over their SSA) or suffer with those who suffer (SSA). They want equality in marriage, meaning that their same-sex marriage is every bit as valid and acceptable in God's eyes as any straight marriage.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2019, 9:43 am

Fiannan wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2019, 1:06 am

XEmilyX wrote: ↑June 21st, 2019, 7:17 pm Theres a difference between being sexually attracted to someone the same gender and being gay. Being gay means you live the lifestyle and have a partner, having a tendency to be sexually attracted to a man is not a sin because hes not acting on it. Same gender attraction is being attracted but not acting on it. Just like someone with the temptation to steal but doesn't do it, is worthy, just because they're tempted doesn't mean that they're unworthy to go to the temple.
Even jesus was tempted of the devil but he didnt cave. Hes not bad for being tempted.

Great points. I wish more people understood this. I have noted before that I know a woman who is bi who has a thing about turning straight women gay. It seems a power thing. She realizes that most women have some sort of same-sex attraction and so she seduces them and does her best to convince them that what they are experiencing is the "real thing" for them. She has no intention of forming a long-term relationship with them, and tires of them after about 3 months. The irony is that the ones who are more conservative are easier to convert and these are the ones who are so into the lifestyle now that some are even married to women. Why are conservatives easier to convert? A liberal woman will merely chalk up the relationship to a new experience. They merely go on with their lives and wind up with a man eventually. The more conservative one is vulnerable as they have to make sense of what has happened and so they have to rewrite their life script. Once they merely accept that they are lesbian then it gives them a sense of relief and despite all the "coming out" situations, which merely solidify their new way of life, they gain a sense of comfort and then community with other lesbians. The thing we have to remember is that if we do not make a difference between a behavior and a feeling then that leaves people vulnerable to feeling like the feeling must be them anyway so they self-identify. I wonder how many young conservative women find themselves enjoying lesbian porn and then wondering if it is because they must be gay. I doubt it is rare.

This made me think about the same phenomenon of why when a temple covenant maker sins and it affects him/her greatly and often turns him/her into a “changed” person for the worse versus a non temple covenant maker with the same sin being less affected to the point of shaking it off and moving on.

The person who had greater knowledge and made covenants feels they have acted beyond the atonements help (the devils whispers) and they can really become a pretty “bad” person if they don't recognize and change something. OR - perhaps they were always that “bad” person they chose to become.

Either-way, I see those who know better and acting against that knowledge as damning themselves greater than a person who didn't know better or have that knowledge.
Makes me think of Lucifer and how he was able to become so bitter and desire destruction of others.

Great post...I have noticed this phenomenon as well. I have explained it this way...those born into the Church or who convert to the Gospel were among the Lord’s most valiant spirit children during the Great War. While that brings great blessings in this life, the flip side is that committing grievous sin is against their nature and it affects them deeper. Having been one of the rebellious, I found out that I could never be happy so long as I lived in opposition to what I knew to be correct because it was simply too contrary to my nature. Others could seemingly get away with living immorally without much ill effect, but I could not. That is the curse, if you will, of having been more valiant in the First Estate and having been born with great privilege here on earth.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2019, 11:47 am ...

This is why it's so important to the LDS LGBTQ and their allies to change the paradigm so that same-sex monogamous marriage is not a sin. They absolutely abhor the statement that we are to love the sinner, but not the sin. They abhor the idea that we are willing to mourn with those who mourn (over their SSA) or suffer with those who suffer (SSA). They want equality in marriage, meaning that their same-sex marriage is every bit as valid and acceptable in God's eyes as any straight marriage.

Yes. It's clear that this has been one of their strategies: attack the phrase "love the sinner, not the sin". They've reached a point of convincing everyone to self-censor to never use this phrase on social media. It's become a dirty phrase now. So sad to me that they wage war against such a beautiful concept. Part of the problem is they insist upon including the sin as part of their identity and then propose a false dichotomy of all or none: "accept every aspect of me and my identity including sinful behavior, or you are rejecting all of me and you need to be called to repentance". And by the way, the only road to redemption in this leftist religion is to agree with the priests at the top of the hierarchy, recognize your "privilege", signal your virtue, and join in the movement in silencing others and putting pressure on institutions you disagree with.

This is just not consistent with the gospel where we covenant take upon ourselves the name of "[His] Son" (someone else's identity, not whatever we decide or however we identify). And where the road to redemption is faith, repentance, baptism, receiving of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. Loving the sinner and not the sin is not a dirty phrase and there is nothing hateful about it.

jsk wrote: ↑June 20th, 2019, 1:56 pm Boyd K. Packer gave a talk at BYU some years ago where he outlined the three greatest challenges the Church would face in coming years...one was the gay lobby.

And the other 2 were...?