Church to allow baptisms, blessings for children of LGBT parents

[Toast]

We continue down a very slippery slope, pandering to the world.

Nah. We continue to be guided by Apostles and Prophets, who are led by the Lord, helping to bring Christ’s church into the 21’s century.

LOL. It is hard for me understand how anyone can still think they speak for God when they makes change based on social pressures and study groups.

I couldn't agree more, it's just PR. Oaks essentially says purge the homosexuals one day and pulls back the next after severe backlash. He must be speaking to God because why else would he be inconsistent and say those things knowing his grandson is LGBT and not even mention him. He seems like a caring, sensitive, and loving guy...... lol I hope the alleged current apostate Apostle can do some real change while he's in there. It's desperately needed!

[dezNatDefender]

"Follow the Prophet no matter what."

And this is how the church gets away with it. This is a sinister ideology ingrained and made into song that our primary kids sing that strips them of the ability to think and act independently, rationally and reasonable for themselves. They are not self governing. They focus on the opinions of officeholders and tie themselves to that. They've given up their agency.

I care not one wit what the policy is, (I think nobody should be baptized until they can make a reasonable decision as adults), but I find it fascinating observing the flipping and flopping and the rationalizations which occur which all boil down to the FTP principle. And this isn't the first time.

I wasn't quoting a primary lesson. I was sharing in quotes what the Spirit told me. I still pray for my own witness, even while obeying the revelation I already received for this particular time.

I understand that and I appreciate that. I used to think that, but as I've studied the Scriptures-I personally have had to deconstruct "follow the Prophet".

And I mean actually study and ponder the Scriptures for myself not relying upon what some other mans interpretation of the scriptures means, "follow the Prophet" has for me changed to "follow the prophets". I've had to go back to the roots and study what words meant, the context, etc.

I firmly believe in following the prophets. But the question becomes who is a prophet and how do you know he is a prophet? What does it mean to be a prophet?

It is fascinating studying ancient Israel. There were prophets galore, big prophets, minor prophets, false prophets. I love Amos 3:7.

There was a prophet who did that which was not right in the Lord's eyes and was eaten by a lion. There were dueling prophets and the false prophet had his necklace broken.

In order to follow a prophet you have to know or believe he is a prophet and then the question becomes, what makes one a prophet? That's a big question. Moses proclaimed that all should be prophets.

The last open vision was over 100 years ago. As a religion we are living off the fumes of the past. We boldly proclaim that Joseph Smith saw God 200 years ago, but yet our current Prophets and Apostles proclaim that such things are too sacred to talk about.

If one is going to follow a Prophet as the Church accepts homosexuality, wouldn't it be important to know that for such a momentous change that the Prophet has actually seen and conversed face to face with God.

We're not talking about something that there is evidence for being approved of in scripture, wouldn't that be important to know if he actually conversed with the Almighty. Wouldn't it be important to know that if something that is so foundational as sexual relationships and the desire to have them has changed, that the individual(s) proclaiming that it has changed . . .that they actually have seen God.

For me, I'll gladly follow the prophets; I absolutely will. But if you are going to change something so incredibly basic as to now proclaim that having same-sex desires is not a sin (which is what they have done), then I need to know that you are not a false prophet and I need to know that you have talked with God, seen Him and conversed with Him.

Same-sex desires and relationships are so incredibly foundational that change them without a claim that you talk with God . . .I will reject your claim that you are a true prophet.

[dezNatDefender]

We continue down a very slippery slope, pandering to the world.

Nah. We continue to be guided by Apostles and Prophets, who are led by the Lord, helping to bring Christ’s church into the 21’s century.

LOL. It is hard for me understand how anyone can still think they speak for God when they makes change based on social pressures and study groups.

I couldn't agree more, it's just PR. Oaks essentially says purge the homosexuals one day and pulls back the next after severe backlash. He must be speaking to God because why else would he be inconsistent and say those things knowing his grandson is LGBT and not even mention him. He seems like a caring, sensitive, and loving guy...... lol I hope the alleged current apostate Apostle can do some real change while he's in there. It's desperately needed!

Toast, you are not Christian nor religious (at least you claim not to be).

I firmly believe one can be a moral atheistic person in a religious society. A irreligious society is doomed and will self-destruct.

There are foundational beliefs that you have that are imbedded in you because you grew up in a religious culture, without which you may not have.

The 10 commandments are the basis of a stable society. I am convinced that yes your side will "win", but one day, I can promise you in the name of the Lord Almighty you will regret the day when your side won. The prosperity we have, the wealth, the luxury have come about due to culture which embraced the 10 commandments. It wasn't perfect at it, but it was embraced.

That framework is gone and as we transition to an atheistic society . . this wealth we have will not last. The Scriptures bear record to civilizations which turned away from God. You can deny it-that is fine. But one day you will look back and wish you had repented.

It will appear as a great victory, but it will be hollow and short-lived.

[EmmaLee]

D&C 56
4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good

Here's the whole verse -

"Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord." DC 56:4

Funny how so many members leave off, and otherwise ignore, the last part of the verse.

[Toast]

People should really look at the body language of these two guys. I've studied body language and these guys are suuuuuch snakes. Ignore the words and look at the body language.

When the one guy talks his eyes are half-open like little slits, he talks with his head tilted at an angle. It's like an animal which is eyeing you and bobbing and weaving seeing which way is best to strike at you. When he starts off his eyebrows are up giving the "believe me, believe me you must believe me look".

Then at the other guys says has made me "feel kind of relived" and gives a facial expression like an excited child for what might happen.

He says "we recognize there are blessings, from living within the church and the gospel, and we honor those values and moral and feel like the church teaches those values and morals and that it's a good principle for them to learn as well".

There is a reason why homosexual couples WANT to be in the Church, it is to force the issue. It is to take over the Church.

Mark my words, when the Church accepts homosexual marriage officially, anyone who does not fall in line will be persecuted.

I find your initial comments about stereo typical gays to be hilarious, you're thinking way too hard about it. In reality, you couldn't discern the difference between most gay men you meet for two reasons, 1. you don't have the power of discernment 2. most gays don't act feminine.

Homosexuals who want to remain members don't want to force the issue. They want you to recognize that that's who they are and no amount of therapy or shame can change that. Here are some statistics proving that for those who are willing to consider it. https://youtu.be/0MxCXjfAunk Did God made them that way to see if they'd pass the 'trial' of being unhappy their entire life, if they make it that far without committing suicide or leaving altogether as Oaks once alluded(but redacted after public pressure)? Or is it that the leaders of the church are homophobic and project that "as the word of God"

[Lizzy60]

Toast,
God does not make people gay.
If you believe He "makes" anyone the way they are, you are denying agency, and you are saying He made the third part of heaven choose to follow Satan, and not even come to Earth. We had agency before we were born here, and we have agency now.
God knows who you are, but you had, and continue to have, agency to become who you are.

[Toast]

Toast,
God does not make people gay.
If you believe He "makes" anyone the way they are, you are denying agency, and you are saying He made the third part of heaven choose to follow Satan, and not even come to Earth. We had agency before we were born here, and we have agency now.
God knows who you are, but you had, and continue to have, agency to become who you are.

Okay! So people chose to be gay before they ever came to earth so they would be unhappy and not accepted as a Mormon? Really?

[markharr]

Make sure you have your food storage. Things are going to get ugly very soon.

[Lizzy60]

Toast,
God does not make people gay.
If you believe He "makes" anyone the way they are, you are denying agency, and you are saying He made the third part of heaven choose to follow Satan, and not even come to Earth. We had agency before we were born here, and we have agency now.
God knows who you are, but you had, and continue to have, agency to become who you are.

Okay! So people chose to be gay before they ever came to earth so they would be unhappy and not accepted as a Mormon? Really?

We all bring character traits and essential attributes with us to this mortal probation, that make it difficult to be happy, difficult to be a Mormon, difficult to be obedient to commandments, even difficult to get through the day, without sexual orientation ever brought into the equation. Straight doesn't equal happy. Mormon doesn't equal happy. Every life is hard, but that's because this is a test. For us all. Everyone.

[dezNatDefender]

People should really look at the body language of these two guys. I've studied body language and these guys are suuuuuch snakes. Ignore the words and look at the body language.

When the one guy talks his eyes are half-open like little slits, he talks with his head tilted at an angle. It's like an animal which is eyeing you and bobbing and weaving seeing which way is best to strike at you. When he starts off his eyebrows are up giving the "believe me, believe me you must believe me look".

Then at the other guys says has made me "feel kind of relived" and gives a facial expression like an excited child for what might happen.

He says "we recognize there are blessings, from living within the church and the gospel, and we honor those values and moral and feel like the church teaches those values and morals and that it's a good principle for them to learn as well".

There is a reason why homosexual couples WANT to be in the Church, it is to force the issue. It is to take over the Church.

Mark my words, when the Church accepts homosexual marriage officially, anyone who does not fall in line will be persecuted.

I find your initial comments about stereo typical gays to be hilarious, you're thinking way too hard about it. In reality, you couldn't discern the difference between most gay men you meet for two reasons, 1. you don't have the power of discernment 2. most gays don't act feminine.

You didn't understand what I wrote. I was not commenting on their "homosexual" body language. I was commenting on their body language period. I'd say the same thing regardless of who they are.

It's not power of discernment to be able to read other people's body language. It's a skill that can be learned. You learn the skill by observing people. Strangely enough, most people's body language when they are adults is representative of how they were when they are kids.

So to read body language, learn the body language of kids. And that body language is easy because kids are much more expressive-they haven't learned how to suppress their body language as much.

What does it mean when people tilt their head in a conversation? Generally a tilt of the head an inquisitive, huh? What does tilting of the head back and forth bobbing back and forth mean. Generally bobbing back and forth is a negative, defiant action, (like no no). What does it mean when people slit their eyes? In response a slitting of the eyes is a I'm not sure about that.

You learn more about what people really mean by their body language rather than what they are saying . . .why? Because people lie . . .all the time. Lying with your words . . .that's pretty easy-you just say it. Lying with your body, now that's a much harder task and most people are not good at lying with their body.

The words coming out of their mouths does not match their body language.

Just like in general (it's not fool proof), if someone is saying yes but shaking their head side to side-they be lying.

To your 2nd point "2. most gays don't act feminine.". So does that mean that all these parents who claim they knew their child was homosexual from the time they were 3 b/c they "acted like it" really didn't know.

Whew glad we got that one cleared up b/c I agree with you!

[EmmaLee]

Since God and his Church (same thing, right?) now refer to being in a same-sex relationship/'marriage' as a mere "transgression" - a transgression not generally being an excommunicable offense, or even in many cases having any Church discipline occur at all - I wonder if all the same-sex couples who were excommunicated for apostasy in the last 3-4 years will now be reinstated into the Church? And if not, why not? They are now, all of a sudden, not guilty of apostasy, according to the Church, so their excommunications should be nullified, right?

Same-sex sex/'marriage', according to the Church's most recent statement this week, is now on par with hetero sex sins (fornication, adultery, etc.), which from what I've seen (and I've seen plenty) rarely if ever lead to excommunication these days (some get disfellowshipped, some are put on probation, some have nothing done to them). So since now, same-sex sex/'marriage' and hetero sex sins are to be "treated the same" (the Church's words), I would think the Church would/should reinstate any/all same-sex couples who were ex'd for apostasy in the last few years, since they are now not guilty of apostasy.

[captainfearnot]

Since God and his Church (same thing, right?) now refer to being in a same-sex relationship/'marriage' as a mere "transgression" - a transgression not generally being an excommunicable offense, or even in many cases having any Church discipline occur at all - I wonder if all the same-sex couples who were excommunicated for apostasy in the last 3-4 years will now be reinstated into the Church? And if not, why not? They are now, all of a sudden, not guilty of apostasy, according to the Church, so their excommunications should be nullified, right?

Could somebody please source the definition of transgression vs. sin? Honestly, I don't know where you guys are coming up with this. I never remember learning that there was a difference between the two, and when I went looking I couldn't find it.

What I did find was a talk Oaks gave in 1996 where he says the two words mean the same thing. In fact, he characterizes apostasy as a transgression. Since he's the one calling gay marriage a transgression I don't think we can conclude that his use of the term was intended to convey that it's any less serious of a sin than before.

This redemptive procedure also applies in the definition of the adult transgression of apostasy for teaching false doctrine.

[Lizzy60]

You can start here ---

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/2006/0 ... e?lang=eng

The Gospel Principles puts a very positive spin on Adam and Eve's "transgression".

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-princ ... e?lang=eng

From the forum, 10 years ago ---

viewtopic.php?t=9616

[EmmaLee]

Since God and his Church (same thing, right?) now refer to being in a same-sex relationship/'marriage' as a mere "transgression" - a transgression not generally being an excommunicable offense, or even in many cases having any Church discipline occur at all - I wonder if all the same-sex couples who were excommunicated for apostasy in the last 3-4 years will now be reinstated into the Church? And if not, why not? They are now, all of a sudden, not guilty of apostasy, according to the Church, so their excommunications should be nullified, right?

Could somebody please source the definition of transgression vs. sin? Honestly, I don't know where you guys are coming up with this. I never remember learning that there was a difference between the two, and when I went looking I couldn't find it.

What I did find was a talk Oaks gave in 1996 where he says the two words mean the same thing. In fact, he characterizes apostasy as a transgression. Since he's the one calling gay marriage a transgression I don't think we can conclude that his use of the term was intended to convey that it's any less serious of a sin than before.

This redemptive procedure also applies in the definition of the adult transgression of apostasy for teaching false doctrine.

You pretty much missed the entire point of my post. Don't get too caught up in any definitions of transgressions vs. sins, as you'll find as many definitions as there are people in the Church. The POINT is - the Church has now stated that same-sex 'marriage' is NOT apostasy (which as of last week mandated the parties be excommunicated), and therefore, any/all same-sex 'married' couples who were excommunicated for APOSTASY in the last 3-4 years should be reinstated into the Church (and then let the chips fall where they may). Same-sex sin and hetero-sex sin is now 'equal' ("treated the same"), so any Church discipline should be equal.

[captainfearnot]

You pretty much missed the entire point of my post. Don't get too caught up in any definitions of transgressions vs. sins, as you'll find as many definitions as there are people in the Church. The POINT is - the Church has now stated that same-sex 'marriage' is NOT apostasy (which as of last week mandated the parties be excommunicated), and therefore, any/all same-sex 'married' couples who were excommunicated for APOSTASY in the last 3-4 years should be reinstated into the Church (and then let the chips fall where they may). Same-sex sin and hetero-sex sin is now 'equal' ("treated the same"), so any Church discipline should be equal.

You're right I did. That transgression thing is short-circuiting me.

To your point, I think apostasy is more about subverting authority in the moment than the teaching or action itself. All those gay married excommunicates are still guilty of apostasy because they committed apostasy back when the thing they did was defined as apostasy.

It's like people who have been exed for apostasy because they taught things that were considered anti-Mormon at the time. Even when the church turned around and acknowledged some of that stuff as true, they didn't reinstate everyone who was ever exed for having taught it. Apostasy is not teaching x, it's teaching x when we told you not to teach x.

[EmmaLee]

You pretty much missed the entire point of my post. Don't get too caught up in any definitions of transgressions vs. sins, as you'll find as many definitions as there are people in the Church. The POINT is - the Church has now stated that same-sex 'marriage' is NOT apostasy (which as of last week mandated the parties be excommunicated), and therefore, any/all same-sex 'married' couples who were excommunicated for APOSTASY in the last 3-4 years should be reinstated into the Church (and then let the chips fall where they may). Same-sex sin and hetero-sex sin is now 'equal' ("treated the same"), so any Church discipline should be equal.

You're right I did. That transgression thing is short-circuiting me.

To your point, I think apostasy is more about subverting authority in the moment than the teaching or action itself. All those gay married excommunicates are still guilty of apostasy because they committed apostasy back when the thing they did was defined as apostasy.

It's like people who have been exed for apostasy because they taught things that were considered anti-Mormon at the time. Even when the church turned around and acknowledged some of that stuff as true, they didn't reinstate everyone who was ever exed for having taught it. Apostasy is not teaching x, it's teaching x when we told you not to teach x.

I don't think the Church will actually reinstate any of these couples - I'm just trying to point out the absurdity of all this and the murky waters the Church now finds itself in. Believe me, if I've thought of this, so have the same-sex couples who have been excommunicated for apostasy in the last 3-4 years (or whenever that was put in the CHI). Where the Church thinks this move will make them look "kind" and "inclusive" with the same-sex crowd and their allies, my guess is it has only opened up an even bigger can of wriggling worms. Oh, and there is a HUGE cry from these same people (who do not number a few) for the leaders of the Church to be held accountable for all the suicides gay people/youth supposedly committed due to the previous policy/revelation. Note - *I* am not saying any suicides took place because of that policy/revelation - but THEY are saying it, and loudly. Fascinating times, indeed.

[brlenox]

And that same spirit has led these folks to post angry, bitter remarks about the church leadership?

No one said it did. The connection you are trying to make is a logical fallacy.

I'll happily post my logic even though you've not even begun to back up your accusation of fallcial shenanigans.

President Monson was a prophet.
President Nelson is a prophet.
Maaaaaybe there is a good reason God has inspired these men to make a policy and then adjust that policy especially if you consider that in no way does either policy embrace homosexuality.
Those who pretend either policy embraces homosexuality are engaged in a lie.

There is one logic train for you. Here is another

The same folks who have been attacking the church and its leadership all along are feigning shock at this policy change happen to be the same folks breaking the word of wisdom, the law of tithing, and generally living life after their own desires and yet are taking the high road of justification here. Only this high road suspiciously requires a lot of bitterness maintenance, just like lies require maintenance to be sustained.

I'm not saying all folks who are attacking the leadership have been on this same path for as long as the others, but mark my words. If you are just now discovering "enlightenment" that the brethren are lost laced in bitterness, this will be an itch that won't ever go away. Soon smoking won't seem like a bad idea and worse.

I think in the course of this thread you have proven the point. You have gotten angry it seems in some of these posts. Does that mean this same spirit that led you to anger is the same one responsible for all your previous spiritual experiences? Of course not. That would be absurd. Just as absurd as your logic.

He's not angry. Sometimes I think you folks wouldn't know angry if it bit you in the patooty. You folks never seem to get to know how someone is but delight in casting dispersions of character that just don't apply. Could he be being candid and direct. Does being candid and direct mean someone is angry. Nope. Oh the drama...Alaris goes to great lengths to hold his demeanor to within proper bounds of communication always. What you are claiming is not who he is. THIS JUST MAKES ME ANGRY... JK

[brlenox]

At least other religions have a mechanism whereby splits can occur, the UMC, if congregations want to split from the UMC they are welcome to do so and they keep their buildings. Because it's locally controlled and owned, splits can happen.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMHgiwemNG0[/youtube]

Are you trying to say that the sky isn't falling? Have you listened to the KSL news video? Do you understand what is being promoted and accepted in LDS wards and stakes?

Simply that the sky that hangs over the heads of the church leaders is not falling. I am not a person to rush to judgment preferring to watch the hand of the Lord unfold and reveal the wisdom of the guidance he provides his servants. In time it always make sense.

[Toast]

Part one of MormonStories podcast regarding church rollback of homophobic policy.
https://youtu.be/TiJNRFaf3Mc

[SAM]

Long time reader here, but I haven't posted in quite some time and was never a prolific poster anyway.

Just a couple of questions. For those of you claiming this is opening the door wider to acceptance of gay relationships within the church, where in the verbiage are you getting this idea? When I first read about this policy / revelation / doctrine reversal all it indicated to me was they were going back to treating homosexuality how they were just before the policy / revelation / doctrine was changed in Nov 2015. I don't see them opening the door wider. I don't see how it comes across that way at all. It really just looks like policy reversal and that's it to me.

Also, for those who are concerned that homosexual sin is now equated with heterosexual sin in severity, do you / did you believe homosexual sin more severe than heterosexual sin? I've always looked at them equally, as sexual sin, one not being more severe than the other. I would say the degree of severity increases with the amount of people impacted. I think adultery is a more severe sin because that sin (whether homo or hetero) affects more than just the partners in question. Where is the doctrine / scripture that makes homosexual sin greater in severity than heterosexual sin? I've never understood why people think it's so much worse of a sin than "mainstream" fornication. I'd much rather have a kind and understanding gay child than one who grows up living the law of chastity but is abusive and / or domineering to their spouse / kids. Why is homosexuality looked upon as one of the absolute worst sins ever?

[dezNatDefender]

This is why the battle is sore for those engaged in it. The consequences of losing are tremendous. I believe yes, the homosexuals will completely take over the Church . . .and God's Power will leave it. For followers of Christ, He always provides a way out-even if they must be persecuted to the ninth degree of hell.

[Robin Hood]

They want you to recognize.....

See, there's the problem right there. They require me to do something, when in fact it's they who have the perversion.

[Aprhys]

One way or another homosexual marriages in the Church will be in my lifetime. It will either be by force, like 1890 or by acceptance like 1979, but make no mistake it is coming.

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I could see the government (gadiantons) trying to force gay marriage acceptance. #LOVEWON was such a rich hashtag, because the gay agenda never stops until they are knocking on your door demanding active participation.

I doubt, however, when it occurs there will be an OD3 (unless there is a split). . .it will probably occur like most of these changes have occurred.

OD3?

My generation was for the most part oposed to homosexuality. We didn't accept it and most still find it abnormal. My kids however are quite open and welcoming of it. In fact my wife, who teaches high school, states that some girls claim to be "bi," because by doing so they gain in popularity. I believe that one day you will see gay marriage in the LDS temple. Not because God will have ordained it but because the majority of members will demand and accept it. Why the flip-flop in church policy this week? Is it God will or pandering to a changing society? I do not know for sure but my guess is the later.

[thisisspartaaa]

Has God never said to go left before right? Might he whose thoughts are higher than ours have a purpose here?

Isn't it just as possible to say the leaders were wrong before or are wrong now?

Sure it's possible. Let's say that you did what you shoulda done when President Nelson took the mantle and prayed and received a witness that he is indeed God's prophet. Let's say you did the same for President Monson and got the same answer. Now, would you just willy nilly jump to a conclusion that one of them must have been wrong or would you follow that same pattern to study it out and seek an answer in faith from he who knows much more than you? Might there have been a purpose here that *gasp* you are unable to see or understand?

Or you could just rely on your own pride er understanding. Those who immediately jump all over the Lord's anointed with bitterness and anger are just showing the fruits of he who rewards you no good thing.

What if after honestly seeking, the answer received was that they hold no such mantle? That was my answer. The fruits of the church and leadership that I've seen in the last ten years have been troubling at best.

Um...2 hour church. Best thing ever - the church is true.

[ori]

Not trying to start an argument here, trying to understand how you reconcile "trusting the Lord's authorized servants" with "Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?"

Isn't it incumbent on any man/men claiming to speak for God to reflect God's character in his/their teachings?

Yes

Then it is incumbent on us to ascertain when God's character is being taught and reflect that in our own lives?

I believe so.

Doesn't trusting a servant because he is authorized just remove the trial of faith in God?

Not sure. Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes you just trust because you are taking a leap of faith ... and then your faith is confirmed AFTERWARDS. That sounds like a “trial of faith” to me. Not sure why trusting isn’t a trial of faith in your opinion. Could you elaborate?

Trusting a self-proclaimed prophet solely because they have “authority” is not a good idea — when it’s a false prophet. But when determined to be a true prophet, trust is justified, no?

As I stated in another thread, I have determined that President Nelson actually is the Lord’s approved leader. Therefore I have no problem trusting and following.