LDS Freedom Forum

topcat wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 10:49 am

Sarah wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 10:11 am

topcat wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 8:32 am It's either a case of self-righteousness or a paid troll who can't defend his positions so he must ridicule the truthful, honest, just and scriptural viewpoints that oppose falsehoods.

To me, it's not painful to admit wrongdoing, or to make concessions, or to acknowledge that I wrote something publicly that doesn't make sense upon reflection or upon it being pointed out to me.

I simply make the correction, and fine tune the direction I'm going, with the goal of always pointing to true north.

The hallmark of leadership in the church or defenders of leadership in the church (on this blog for example) is this: NEVER EVER admit wrongdoing or error.

The ironic thing is that by publicly confessing one's sins and fallibility, the leader (or any person) becomes more influential and beloved.

"To err is human", but there is NEVER even a hint of acknowledgement of prior error.

Even this past Friday's reversal of the policy towards gays and their children contained zero contrition.

The leadership is just acting. It's all theater.

The leadership knows full well that members like their defenders on this blog and throughout the church will defend them so they don't have to defend themselves.

The hollow defense is this:

God works in mysterious ways and we may not understand it now but we will understand it later.

This is called the "put your head in the sand" defense.

And when people who have their head out of the sand explain that it was just an error to begin with, they are labeled as doubters and critics and apostate.

And the leaders happily allow this type of culture to exist, and in fact, CREATE this oppressive culture.

Humility would solve all the problems.

It's not an accident or coincidence that one of the five pillars of the doctrine of Christ, as outlined in 3rd Nephi 11 is humility!

Christ expressed it this way, repetitiously in back-to-back verses:

We must become as a little child!

If we don't, we "can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God."

Never acknowledging fault or wrongdoing or error or fallibility is the exact opposite of the doctrine of Christ.

I will give any humble people here who would like to defend the indefensible to go on record and simply state the fact with no judgment and no malice towards the leaders.

Roughly three and a half years ago the church came out with what Pres Nelson essentially called a revelation from God denying baptism to the children of gay parents. That in itself is completely and a hundred percent contradictory to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This past Friday, the church reversed itself on that false doctrine.

Are there any defenders of the Church here, and we know your names, that would like to acknowledge that the first so-called "revelation" was in fact an error?

Or do you want to go ahead and attack and quibble about how I've asked the question or how I summarized things, continuing to avoid an acknowledgement of any form of error coming from the Brethren?

I predict this opportunity being made available to people here at this moment will be greeted by crickets. But I hope I'm wrong, and I hope some of the most outspoken defenders here, even one, will humble themselves as a little child, following Jesus' doctrine, and make the obvious concession and acknowledgement of error.

The answer is pretty simple. Neither policy is a mistake. Just like a parent who decides to restrict phone use, or candy or whatever freedom the parent decides to restrict, for the child's own good, and then at some point gives that child the freedom to have what they want later. Neither is a mistake. It is simply giving the child an option or freedom, or on the other hand, a commandment or restriction.

We need to look at commandments as gifts to keep us safe from bad consequences. The previous policy was meant to protect the child from being in a situation that baptismal covenants could not be kept, and to protect ignorant parents from causing their child to break those covenants. Now that the policy has changed, parents are fully accountable. Children will be more accountable. Good or bad? It's the same choice made in the Garden of Eden. Choose knowledge, choice, and accountability, or choose safety. This doesn't mean we need to break commandments in order to progress, but it does mean that the Lord will give contradictory commandments at times to test where our hearts are in the matter. Is your heart focused on love for God and others, unselfishness, obedience, sacrifice, giving and receiving correctly? That is the real question. Commandments can change, and they can be vague. We are left to choose.

Sarah,

I shared your opinion with one of my kids.

Can I persuade you to bounce your opinion off the scriptures? If your opinion contradicts the scriptures, or if the scriptures don't validate or vouch for your opinion, then perhaps abandoning your opinion would be in order.

Your opinion: The previous policy was meant to protect the child from being in a situation that baptismal covenants could not be kept, and to protect ignorant parents from causing their child to break those covenants.

My 14 year-old child's rebuttal to your opinion: Why should your parents' sins affect the child's ability or inability to be baptized? The parents' sins are THEIR sins, not the child's. The child should be able to choose to be baptized regardless of their parents' sins.

Is there any scripture which supports your opinion that Christ forbids baptism to of-age children whose parents are gay?

Conversely, are there scriptures where Christ commands to be baptized and gives the qualifications for being baptized?

I believe you know some of these scriptures. And upon reviewing those scriptures, do you find any justification for maintaining your belief that the Church can make up their own qualifications for baptism?

Members have been taught a very dangerous even heretical and totally apostate tradition, which is that the handbook IS scripture.

I watched a training video a few years ago in which President Monson himself said the handbook is scripture. My jaw hit the floor.

There is a carefully coordinated and orchestrated effort to gaslight the members into believing that not only is the handbook scripture but whatever the Brethren officially say is the mind and will of God. This latest policy change reversal is the latest example in a long line of examples.

The handbook's authors have the corporation in mind. It's a corporate administrative manual written to protect the interests of the corporation. The Brethren want us to conflate the manual with the scriptures. There is no effort made to distinguish between the corporate administrative rules and the gospel. The one attempt when that distinction attempted to be made was in 1984 in General Conference, of all years. The man attempting to make the distinction was Elder Poelman. He's lucky he wasn't excommunicated for the attempt. And the reason he wasn't excommunicated is because he completely stood down and let the church actually produce a secret re-recording of his talk, with the attempt to make the distinction removed from the talk.

I know it's painful to hear these things.

And as I was driving down the road a few minutes ago, I realized the pain and pleasure principle at work with cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias. It's too painful often for members to think that the Church is a corporate empire run by lawyers and that the pretense of being the mind and will of God is just an act to continue the conflation that the Church and the Lord are one in the same. People want to avoid pain, so they force themselves to not think about the obvious conclusion the facts point to. People would rather experience pleasure than pain, so their minds do not accept or interpret the facts that cause pain.

2Nephi 28
...they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

Isaiah 56
3 ¶ Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
8 The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

topcat wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 10:49 am

Sarah wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 10:11 am

topcat wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 8:32 am It's either a case of self-righteousness or a paid troll who can't defend his positions so he must ridicule the truthful, honest, just and scriptural viewpoints that oppose falsehoods.

To me, it's not painful to admit wrongdoing, or to make concessions, or to acknowledge that I wrote something publicly that doesn't make sense upon reflection or upon it being pointed out to me.

I simply make the correction, and fine tune the direction I'm going, with the goal of always pointing to true north.

The hallmark of leadership in the church or defenders of leadership in the church (on this blog for example) is this: NEVER EVER admit wrongdoing or error.

The ironic thing is that by publicly confessing one's sins and fallibility, the leader (or any person) becomes more influential and beloved.

"To err is human", but there is NEVER even a hint of acknowledgement of prior error.

Even this past Friday's reversal of the policy towards gays and their children contained zero contrition.

The leadership is just acting. It's all theater.

The leadership knows full well that members like their defenders on this blog and throughout the church will defend them so they don't have to defend themselves.

The hollow defense is this:

God works in mysterious ways and we may not understand it now but we will understand it later.

This is called the "put your head in the sand" defense.

And when people who have their head out of the sand explain that it was just an error to begin with, they are labeled as doubters and critics and apostate.

And the leaders happily allow this type of culture to exist, and in fact, CREATE this oppressive culture.

Humility would solve all the problems.

It's not an accident or coincidence that one of the five pillars of the doctrine of Christ, as outlined in 3rd Nephi 11 is humility!

Christ expressed it this way, repetitiously in back-to-back verses:

We must become as a little child!

If we don't, we "can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God."

Never acknowledging fault or wrongdoing or error or fallibility is the exact opposite of the doctrine of Christ.

I will give any humble people here who would like to defend the indefensible to go on record and simply state the fact with no judgment and no malice towards the leaders.

Roughly three and a half years ago the church came out with what Pres Nelson essentially called a revelation from God denying baptism to the children of gay parents. That in itself is completely and a hundred percent contradictory to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This past Friday, the church reversed itself on that false doctrine.

Are there any defenders of the Church here, and we know your names, that would like to acknowledge that the first so-called "revelation" was in fact an error?

Or do you want to go ahead and attack and quibble about how I've asked the question or how I summarized things, continuing to avoid an acknowledgement of any form of error coming from the Brethren?

I predict this opportunity being made available to people here at this moment will be greeted by crickets. But I hope I'm wrong, and I hope some of the most outspoken defenders here, even one, will humble themselves as a little child, following Jesus' doctrine, and make the obvious concession and acknowledgement of error.

The answer is pretty simple. Neither policy is a mistake. Just like a parent who decides to restrict phone use, or candy or whatever freedom the parent decides to restrict, for the child's own good, and then at some point gives that child the freedom to have what they want later. Neither is a mistake. It is simply giving the child an option or freedom, or on the other hand, a commandment or restriction.

We need to look at commandments as gifts to keep us safe from bad consequences. The previous policy was meant to protect the child from being in a situation that baptismal covenants could not be kept, and to protect ignorant parents from causing their child to break those covenants. Now that the policy has changed, parents are fully accountable. Children will be more accountable. Good or bad? It's the same choice made in the Garden of Eden. Choose knowledge, choice, and accountability, or choose safety. This doesn't mean we need to break commandments in order to progress, but it does mean that the Lord will give contradictory commandments at times to test where our hearts are in the matter. Is your heart focused on love for God and others, unselfishness, obedience, sacrifice, giving and receiving correctly? That is the real question. Commandments can change, and they can be vague. We are left to choose.

Sarah,

I shared your opinion with one of my kids.

Can I persuade you to bounce your opinion off the scriptures? If your opinion contradicts the scriptures, or if the scriptures don't validate or vouch for your opinion, then perhaps abandoning your opinion would be in order.

Your opinion: The previous policy was meant to protect the child from being in a situation that baptismal covenants could not be kept, and to protect ignorant parents from causing their child to break those covenants.

My 14 year-old child's rebuttal to your opinion: Why should your parents' sins affect the child's ability or inability to be baptized? The parents' sins are THEIR sins, not the child's. The child should be able to choose to be baptized regardless of their parents' sins.

Is there any scripture which supports your opinion that Christ forbids baptism to of-age children whose parents are gay?

Conversely, are there scriptures where Christ commands to be baptized and gives the qualifications for being baptized?

I believe you know some of these scriptures. And upon reviewing those scriptures, do you find any justification for maintaining your belief that the Church can make up their own qualifications for baptism?

Members have been taught a very dangerous even heretical and totally apostate tradition, which is that the handbook IS scripture.

I watched a training video a few years ago in which President Monson himself said the handbook is scripture. My jaw hit the floor.

There is a carefully coordinated and orchestrated effort to gaslight the members into believing that not only is the handbook scripture but whatever the Brethren officially say is the mind and will of God. This latest policy change reversal is the latest example in a long line of examples.

The handbook's authors have the corporation in mind. It's a corporate administrative manual written to protect the interests of the corporation. The Brethren want us to conflate the manual with the scriptures. There is no effort made to distinguish between the corporate administrative rules and the gospel. The one attempt when that distinction attempted to be made was in 1984 in General Conference, of all years. The man attempting to make the distinction was Elder Poelman. He's lucky he wasn't excommunicated for the attempt. And the reason he wasn't excommunicated is because he completely stood down and let the church actually produce a secret re-recording of his talk, with the attempt to make the distinction removed from the talk.

I know it's painful to hear these things.

And as I was driving down the road a few minutes ago, I realized the pain and pleasure principle at work with cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias. It's too painful often for members to think that the Church is a corporate empire run by lawyers and that the pretense of being the mind and will of God is just an act to continue the conflation that the Church and the Lord are one in the same. People want to avoid pain, so they force themselves to not think about the obvious conclusion the facts point to. People would rather experience pleasure than pain, so their minds do not accept or interpret the facts that cause pain.

Sarah wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 1:22 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 10:49 am

Sarah wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 10:11 am

topcat wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 8:32 am It's either a case of self-righteousness or a paid troll who can't defend his positions so he must ridicule the truthful, honest, just and scriptural viewpoints that oppose falsehoods.

To me, it's not painful to admit wrongdoing, or to make concessions, or to acknowledge that I wrote something publicly that doesn't make sense upon reflection or upon it being pointed out to me.

I simply make the correction, and fine tune the direction I'm going, with the goal of always pointing to true north.

The hallmark of leadership in the church or defenders of leadership in the church (on this blog for example) is this: NEVER EVER admit wrongdoing or error.

The ironic thing is that by publicly confessing one's sins and fallibility, the leader (or any person) becomes more influential and beloved.

"To err is human", but there is NEVER even a hint of acknowledgement of prior error.

Even this past Friday's reversal of the policy towards gays and their children contained zero contrition.

The leadership is just acting. It's all theater.

The leadership knows full well that members like their defenders on this blog and throughout the church will defend them so they don't have to defend themselves.

The hollow defense is this:



This is called the "put your head in the sand" defense.

And when people who have their head out of the sand explain that it was just an error to begin with, they are labeled as doubters and critics and apostate.

And the leaders happily allow this type of culture to exist, and in fact, CREATE this oppressive culture.

Humility would solve all the problems.

It's not an accident or coincidence that one of the five pillars of the doctrine of Christ, as outlined in 3rd Nephi 11 is humility!

Christ expressed it this way, repetitiously in back-to-back verses:



If we don't, we "can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God."

Never acknowledging fault or wrongdoing or error or fallibility is the exact opposite of the doctrine of Christ.

I will give any humble people here who would like to defend the indefensible to go on record and simply state the fact with no judgment and no malice towards the leaders.

Roughly three and a half years ago the church came out with what Pres Nelson essentially called a revelation from God denying baptism to the children of gay parents. That in itself is completely and a hundred percent contradictory to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This past Friday, the church reversed itself on that false doctrine.

Are there any defenders of the Church here, and we know your names, that would like to acknowledge that the first so-called "revelation" was in fact an error?

Or do you want to go ahead and attack and quibble about how I've asked the question or how I summarized things, continuing to avoid an acknowledgement of any form of error coming from the Brethren?

I predict this opportunity being made available to people here at this moment will be greeted by crickets. But I hope I'm wrong, and I hope some of the most outspoken defenders here, even one, will humble themselves as a little child, following Jesus' doctrine, and make the obvious concession and acknowledgement of error.

The answer is pretty simple. Neither policy is a mistake. Just like a parent who decides to restrict phone use, or candy or whatever freedom the parent decides to restrict, for the child's own good, and then at some point gives that child the freedom to have what they want later. Neither is a mistake. It is simply giving the child an option or freedom, or on the other hand, a commandment or restriction.

We need to look at commandments as gifts to keep us safe from bad consequences. The previous policy was meant to protect the child from being in a situation that baptismal covenants could not be kept, and to protect ignorant parents from causing their child to break those covenants. Now that the policy has changed, parents are fully accountable. Children will be more accountable. Good or bad? It's the same choice made in the Garden of Eden. Choose knowledge, choice, and accountability, or choose safety. This doesn't mean we need to break commandments in order to progress, but it does mean that the Lord will give contradictory commandments at times to test where our hearts are in the matter. Is your heart focused on love for God and others, unselfishness, obedience, sacrifice, giving and receiving correctly? That is the real question. Commandments can change, and they can be vague. We are left to choose.

Sarah,

I shared your opinion with one of my kids.

Can I persuade you to bounce your opinion off the scriptures? If your opinion contradicts the scriptures, or if the scriptures don't validate or vouch for your opinion, then perhaps abandoning your opinion would be in order.

Your opinion: The previous policy was meant to protect the child from being in a situation that baptismal covenants could not be kept, and to protect ignorant parents from causing their child to break those covenants.

My 14 year-old child's rebuttal to your opinion: Why should your parents' sins affect the child's ability or inability to be baptized? The parents' sins are THEIR sins, not the child's. The child should be able to choose to be baptized regardless of their parents' sins.

Is there any scripture which supports your opinion that Christ forbids baptism to of-age children whose parents are gay?

Conversely, are there scriptures where Christ commands to be baptized and gives the qualifications for being baptized?

I believe you know some of these scriptures. And upon reviewing those scriptures, do you find any justification for maintaining your belief that the Church can make up their own qualifications for baptism?

Members have been taught a very dangerous even heretical and totally apostate tradition, which is that the handbook IS scripture.

I watched a training video a few years ago in which President Monson himself said the handbook is scripture. My jaw hit the floor.

There is a carefully coordinated and orchestrated effort to gaslight the members into believing that not only is the handbook scripture but whatever the Brethren officially say is the mind and will of God. This latest policy change reversal is the latest example in a long line of examples.

The handbook's authors have the corporation in mind. It's a corporate administrative manual written to protect the interests of the corporation. The Brethren want us to conflate the manual with the scriptures. There is no effort made to distinguish between the corporate administrative rules and the gospel. The one attempt when that distinction attempted to be made was in 1984 in General Conference, of all years. The man attempting to make the distinction was Elder Poelman. He's lucky he wasn't excommunicated for the attempt. And the reason he wasn't excommunicated is because he completely stood down and let the church actually produce a secret re-recording of his talk, with the attempt to make the distinction removed from the talk.

I know it's painful to hear these things.

And as I was driving down the road a few minutes ago, I realized the pain and pleasure principle at work with cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias. It's too painful often for members to think that the Church is a corporate empire run by lawyers and that the pretense of being the mind and will of God is just an act to continue the conflation that the Church and the Lord are one in the same. People want to avoid pain, so they force themselves to not think about the obvious conclusion the facts point to. People would rather experience pleasure than pain, so their minds do not accept or interpret the facts that cause pain.

There were restrictions on baptism when the Lord instructed the disciples to preach the gospel only to the Jews at first. Then there was a change made and they were able to take the gospel to the gentiles.

Sarah wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 1:34 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 10:49 am

Sarah wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 10:11 am

topcat wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 8:32 am It's either a case of self-righteousness or a paid troll who can't defend his positions so he must ridicule the truthful, honest, just and scriptural viewpoints that oppose falsehoods.

To me, it's not painful to admit wrongdoing, or to make concessions, or to acknowledge that I wrote something publicly that doesn't make sense upon reflection or upon it being pointed out to me.

I simply make the correction, and fine tune the direction I'm going, with the goal of always pointing to true north.

The hallmark of leadership in the church or defenders of leadership in the church (on this blog for example) is this: NEVER EVER admit wrongdoing or error.

The ironic thing is that by publicly confessing one's sins and fallibility, the leader (or any person) becomes more influential and beloved.

"To err is human", but there is NEVER even a hint of acknowledgement of prior error.

Even this past Friday's reversal of the policy towards gays and their children contained zero contrition.

The leadership is just acting. It's all theater.

The leadership knows full well that members like their defenders on this blog and throughout the church will defend them so they don't have to defend themselves.

The hollow defense is this:



This is called the "put your head in the sand" defense.

And when people who have their head out of the sand explain that it was just an error to begin with, they are labeled as doubters and critics and apostate.

And the leaders happily allow this type of culture to exist, and in fact, CREATE this oppressive culture.

Humility would solve all the problems.

It's not an accident or coincidence that one of the five pillars of the doctrine of Christ, as outlined in 3rd Nephi 11 is humility!

Christ expressed it this way, repetitiously in back-to-back verses:



If we don't, we "can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God."

Never acknowledging fault or wrongdoing or error or fallibility is the exact opposite of the doctrine of Christ.

I will give any humble people here who would like to defend the indefensible to go on record and simply state the fact with no judgment and no malice towards the leaders.

Roughly three and a half years ago the church came out with what Pres Nelson essentially called a revelation from God denying baptism to the children of gay parents. That in itself is completely and a hundred percent contradictory to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This past Friday, the church reversed itself on that false doctrine.

Are there any defenders of the Church here, and we know your names, that would like to acknowledge that the first so-called "revelation" was in fact an error?

Or do you want to go ahead and attack and quibble about how I've asked the question or how I summarized things, continuing to avoid an acknowledgement of any form of error coming from the Brethren?

I predict this opportunity being made available to people here at this moment will be greeted by crickets. But I hope I'm wrong, and I hope some of the most outspoken defenders here, even one, will humble themselves as a little child, following Jesus' doctrine, and make the obvious concession and acknowledgement of error.

The answer is pretty simple. Neither policy is a mistake. Just like a parent who decides to restrict phone use, or candy or whatever freedom the parent decides to restrict, for the child's own good, and then at some point gives that child the freedom to have what they want later. Neither is a mistake. It is simply giving the child an option or freedom, or on the other hand, a commandment or restriction.

We need to look at commandments as gifts to keep us safe from bad consequences. The previous policy was meant to protect the child from being in a situation that baptismal covenants could not be kept, and to protect ignorant parents from causing their child to break those covenants. Now that the policy has changed, parents are fully accountable. Children will be more accountable. Good or bad? It's the same choice made in the Garden of Eden. Choose knowledge, choice, and accountability, or choose safety. This doesn't mean we need to break commandments in order to progress, but it does mean that the Lord will give contradictory commandments at times to test where our hearts are in the matter. Is your heart focused on love for God and others, unselfishness, obedience, sacrifice, giving and receiving correctly? That is the real question. Commandments can change, and they can be vague. We are left to choose.

Sarah,

I shared your opinion with one of my kids.

Can I persuade you to bounce your opinion off the scriptures? If your opinion contradicts the scriptures, or if the scriptures don't validate or vouch for your opinion, then perhaps abandoning your opinion would be in order.

Your opinion: The previous policy was meant to protect the child from being in a situation that baptismal covenants could not be kept, and to protect ignorant parents from causing their child to break those covenants.

My 14 year-old child's rebuttal to your opinion: Why should your parents' sins affect the child's ability or inability to be baptized? The parents' sins are THEIR sins, not the child's. The child should be able to choose to be baptized regardless of their parents' sins.

Is there any scripture which supports your opinion that Christ forbids baptism to of-age children whose parents are gay?

Conversely, are there scriptures where Christ commands to be baptized and gives the qualifications for being baptized?

I believe you know some of these scriptures. And upon reviewing those scriptures, do you find any justification for maintaining your belief that the Church can make up their own qualifications for baptism?

Members have been taught a very dangerous even heretical and totally apostate tradition, which is that the handbook IS scripture.

I watched a training video a few years ago in which President Monson himself said the handbook is scripture. My jaw hit the floor.

There is a carefully coordinated and orchestrated effort to gaslight the members into believing that not only is the handbook scripture but whatever the Brethren officially say is the mind and will of God. This latest policy change reversal is the latest example in a long line of examples.

The handbook's authors have the corporation in mind. It's a corporate administrative manual written to protect the interests of the corporation. The Brethren want us to conflate the manual with the scriptures. There is no effort made to distinguish between the corporate administrative rules and the gospel. The one attempt when that distinction attempted to be made was in 1984 in General Conference, of all years. The man attempting to make the distinction was Elder Poelman. He's lucky he wasn't excommunicated for the attempt. And the reason he wasn't excommunicated is because he completely stood down and let the church actually produce a secret re-recording of his talk, with the attempt to make the distinction removed from the talk.

I know it's painful to hear these things.

And as I was driving down the road a few minutes ago, I realized the pain and pleasure principle at work with cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias. It's too painful often for members to think that the Church is a corporate empire run by lawyers and that the pretense of being the mind and will of God is just an act to continue the conflation that the Church and the Lord are one in the same. People want to avoid pain, so they force themselves to not think about the obvious conclusion the facts point to. People would rather experience pleasure than pain, so their minds do not accept or interpret the facts that cause pain.

The policy was that a child could be baptized if approved at the highest levels, after interviews and a judgment made. So there was an option open to young children to pursue if they still wanted to be baptized despite their parents.
A child under 18 is dependent upon a parent for survival, and parents are held accountable for their children legally until this age. Someone who is dependent to such a high degree is forced in a sense to obey out of need to survive. We also have the commandment to Honor thy Father and Mother, plus various other verses that tell children to obey their parents. If a parent is teaching a child that gay sex is good and not breaking any commandments, then the child, will most likely ignorantly, follow in that behavior or teach others that that behavior is good, despite what the Law of Chastity is. The child therefore will not be keeping "His commandments," and will unknowingly break his or her covenant made at baptism.

topcat wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 2:50 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 1:34 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 10:49 am

Sarah wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 10:11 am

The answer is pretty simple. Neither policy is a mistake. Just like a parent who decides to restrict phone use, or candy or whatever freedom the parent decides to restrict, for the child's own good, and then at some point gives that child the freedom to have what they want later. Neither is a mistake. It is simply giving the child an option or freedom, or on the other hand, a commandment or restriction.

We need to look at commandments as gifts to keep us safe from bad consequences. The previous policy was meant to protect the child from being in a situation that baptismal covenants could not be kept, and to protect ignorant parents from causing their child to break those covenants. Now that the policy has changed, parents are fully accountable. Children will be more accountable. Good or bad? It's the same choice made in the Garden of Eden. Choose knowledge, choice, and accountability, or choose safety. This doesn't mean we need to break commandments in order to progress, but it does mean that the Lord will give contradictory commandments at times to test where our hearts are in the matter. Is your heart focused on love for God and others, unselfishness, obedience, sacrifice, giving and receiving correctly? That is the real question. Commandments can change, and they can be vague. We are left to choose.

Sarah,

I shared your opinion with one of my kids.

Can I persuade you to bounce your opinion off the scriptures? If your opinion contradicts the scriptures, or if the scriptures don't validate or vouch for your opinion, then perhaps abandoning your opinion would be in order.

Your opinion: The previous policy was meant to protect the child from being in a situation that baptismal covenants could not be kept, and to protect ignorant parents from causing their child to break those covenants.

My 14 year-old child's rebuttal to your opinion: Why should your parents' sins affect the child's ability or inability to be baptized? The parents' sins are THEIR sins, not the child's. The child should be able to choose to be baptized regardless of their parents' sins.

Is there any scripture which supports your opinion that Christ forbids baptism to of-age children whose parents are gay?

Conversely, are there scriptures where Christ commands to be baptized and gives the qualifications for being baptized?

I believe you know some of these scriptures. And upon reviewing those scriptures, do you find any justification for maintaining your belief that the Church can make up their own qualifications for baptism?

Members have been taught a very dangerous even heretical and totally apostate tradition, which is that the handbook IS scripture.

I watched a training video a few years ago in which President Monson himself said the handbook is scripture. My jaw hit the floor.

There is a carefully coordinated and orchestrated effort to gaslight the members into believing that not only is the handbook scripture but whatever the Brethren officially say is the mind and will of God. This latest policy change reversal is the latest example in a long line of examples.

The handbook's authors have the corporation in mind. It's a corporate administrative manual written to protect the interests of the corporation. The Brethren want us to conflate the manual with the scriptures. There is no effort made to distinguish between the corporate administrative rules and the gospel. The one attempt when that distinction attempted to be made was in 1984 in General Conference, of all years. The man attempting to make the distinction was Elder Poelman. He's lucky he wasn't excommunicated for the attempt. And the reason he wasn't excommunicated is because he completely stood down and let the church actually produce a secret re-recording of his talk, with the attempt to make the distinction removed from the talk.

I know it's painful to hear these things.

And as I was driving down the road a few minutes ago, I realized the pain and pleasure principle at work with cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias. It's too painful often for members to think that the Church is a corporate empire run by lawyers and that the pretense of being the mind and will of God is just an act to continue the conflation that the Church and the Lord are one in the same. People want to avoid pain, so they force themselves to not think about the obvious conclusion the facts point to. People would rather experience pleasure than pain, so their minds do not accept or interpret the facts that cause pain.

The policy was that a child could be baptized if approved at the highest levels, after interviews and a judgment made. So there was an option open to young children to pursue if they still wanted to be baptized despite their parents.
A child under 18 is dependent upon a parent for survival, and parents are held accountable for their children legally until this age. Someone who is dependent to such a high degree is forced in a sense to obey out of need to survive. We also have the commandment to Honor thy Father and Mother, plus various other verses that tell children to obey their parents. If a parent is teaching a child that gay sex is good and not breaking any commandments, then the child, will most likely ignorantly, follow in that behavior or teach others that that behavior is good, despite what the Law of Chastity is. The child therefore will not be keeping "His commandments," and will unknowingly break his or her covenant made at baptism.

Sarah,

To restate your reasoning: It is okay for the Church to impose new, non scriptural qualifications for baptism, even if opposing Jesus Christ's own specified qualifications, if a candidate for baptism (a child between 8 - 17 years old who lives under legal guardianship) may be influenced to "unknowingly break his or her covenant made at baptism."

Doesn't this train of logic introduce a very slippery slope?

And isn't it based in fear, which is the emotion that Satan employed by persuading 1/3 of the people to follow him, "Do it my way and not one soul shall be lost? Or do it Father's way, and the casualties will be catastrophically high."

Your instinct appears to be preventive in nature, or in politics we say, you want to "legislate morality". You want to prevent circumstances where children 8 - 17 years old might sin because of the influence of their parents. I'm curious, are their heterosexual parents whose influence might "cause" their children to sin?

See the slippery slope?

THOSE parents with THAT ideology or values or lifestyle (preppers, Constitution-loyalists, communists, Libertarians, socialists, blacks, Indians, the indigent, Zionists, non Utahans, foreigners, or those "conniving Jews" (as Hitler branded them), etc., etc.) might lead their children astray so they couldn't keep the commandments of God, so we can't let their children be baptized.

Do you see how your proposal is an attempt to legislate morality? The Church does it as a matter of course. Legislating morality is second nature. Consider the honor code for BYU and other Church-owned schools.

Or how about anytime the Church supports legislation for a social issue. Take the Drug War. The Church has been pro Drug War and still is. Not a peep from the Church on exiting the Drug War, which is a UN adopted program to destroy a nation. It corrupts the police and government, creates a huge prison-industrial complex, creates a massive bureacratic government and police state, creates enormous national debt, destroys natural rights that our Constitution is supposed to protect, destroys individuals and families, enriches certain insider companies who run the prisons and supply the police state with weapons and technology, gear, cars, etc. and destroys Liberty in countless ways.

Sounds like an idea from Satan? And it is. And the Church is all in. It's called legislating YOUR morality. It's called virtue signaling. It's wicked at its core.

Granted, most Mormons don't understand the true nature of the Drug War because they're ignorant of these facts which I've only touched on, so they're not pure evil like those in gov't and secret combinations who hatched the idea.

Liberty is risky.

Yes, OF COURSE, children may be influenced by their wayward parents, but if they seek baptism, Christ says to baptize them.

Last thought, we are ALL wayward parents. All of us parents screw up and show bad examples at times to our kids. A good parent will apologize or acknowledge fault, and point to Christ.

For me, it's much easier to be at peace with errant policies when I know that the Lord's will isn't necessarily manifested in every paragraph of a corporate handbook written by lawyers and Church bureaucrats. And such an understanding releases me of any obligation or need to try to explain things (mental gymnastics) that aren't in harmony with the Gospel. Discrepancies or variances from the Gospel are simply explained: it's human error or often more than likely the institutional/ corporate needs must be satisfied in order to protect the corporation from litigation so the corporation can survive and profit.

Sarah wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 4:55 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 2:50 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 1:34 pm

topcat wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 10:49 am


Sarah,

I shared your opinion with one of my kids.

Can I persuade you to bounce your opinion off the scriptures? If your opinion contradicts the scriptures, or if the scriptures don't validate or vouch for your opinion, then perhaps abandoning your opinion would be in order.

Your opinion: The previous policy was meant to protect the child from being in a situation that baptismal covenants could not be kept, and to protect ignorant parents from causing their child to break those covenants.

My 14 year-old child's rebuttal to your opinion: Why should your parents' sins affect the child's ability or inability to be baptized? The parents' sins are THEIR sins, not the child's. The child should be able to choose to be baptized regardless of their parents' sins.

Is there any scripture which supports your opinion that Christ forbids baptism to of-age children whose parents are gay?

Conversely, are there scriptures where Christ commands to be baptized and gives the qualifications for being baptized?

I believe you know some of these scriptures. And upon reviewing those scriptures, do you find any justification for maintaining your belief that the Church can make up their own qualifications for baptism?

Members have been taught a very dangerous even heretical and totally apostate tradition, which is that the handbook IS scripture.

I watched a training video a few years ago in which President Monson himself said the handbook is scripture. My jaw hit the floor.

There is a carefully coordinated and orchestrated effort to gaslight the members into believing that not only is the handbook scripture but whatever the Brethren officially say is the mind and will of God. This latest policy change reversal is the latest example in a long line of examples.

The handbook's authors have the corporation in mind. It's a corporate administrative manual written to protect the interests of the corporation. The Brethren want us to conflate the manual with the scriptures. There is no effort made to distinguish between the corporate administrative rules and the gospel. The one attempt when that distinction attempted to be made was in 1984 in General Conference, of all years. The man attempting to make the distinction was Elder Poelman. He's lucky he wasn't excommunicated for the attempt. And the reason he wasn't excommunicated is because he completely stood down and let the church actually produce a secret re-recording of his talk, with the attempt to make the distinction removed from the talk.

I know it's painful to hear these things.

And as I was driving down the road a few minutes ago, I realized the pain and pleasure principle at work with cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias. It's too painful often for members to think that the Church is a corporate empire run by lawyers and that the pretense of being the mind and will of God is just an act to continue the conflation that the Church and the Lord are one in the same. People want to avoid pain, so they force themselves to not think about the obvious conclusion the facts point to. People would rather experience pleasure than pain, so their minds do not accept or interpret the facts that cause pain.

The policy was that a child could be baptized if approved at the highest levels, after interviews and a judgment made. So there was an option open to young children to pursue if they still wanted to be baptized despite their parents.
A child under 18 is dependent upon a parent for survival, and parents are held accountable for their children legally until this age. Someone who is dependent to such a high degree is forced in a sense to obey out of need to survive. We also have the commandment to Honor thy Father and Mother, plus various other verses that tell children to obey their parents. If a parent is teaching a child that gay sex is good and not breaking any commandments, then the child, will most likely ignorantly, follow in that behavior or teach others that that behavior is good, despite what the Law of Chastity is. The child therefore will not be keeping "His commandments," and will unknowingly break his or her covenant made at baptism.

Sarah,

To restate your reasoning: It is okay for the Church to impose new, non scriptural qualifications for baptism, even if opposing Jesus Christ's own specified qualifications, if a candidate for baptism (a child between 8 - 17 years old who lives under legal guardianship) may be influenced to "unknowingly break his or her covenant made at baptism."

Doesn't this train of logic introduce a very slippery slope?

And isn't it based in fear, which is the emotion that Satan employed by persuading 1/3 of the people to follow him, "Do it my way and not one soul shall be lost? Or do it Father's way, and the casualties will be catastrophically high."

Your instinct appears to be preventive in nature, or in politics we say, you want to "legislate morality". You want to prevent circumstances where children 8 - 17 years old might sin because of the influence of their parents. I'm curious, are their heterosexual parents whose influence might "cause" their children to sin?

See the slippery slope?

THOSE parents with THAT ideology or values or lifestyle (preppers, Constitution-loyalists, communists, Libertarians, socialists, blacks, Indians, the indigent, Zionists, non Utahans, foreigners, or those "conniving Jews" (as Hitler branded them), etc., etc.) might lead their children astray so they couldn't keep the commandments of God, so we can't let their children be baptized.

Do you see how your proposal is an attempt to legislate morality? The Church does it as a matter of course. Legislating morality is second nature. Consider the honor code for BYU and other Church-owned schools.

Or how about anytime the Church supports legislation for a social issue. Take the Drug War. The Church has been pro Drug War and still is. Not a peep from the Church on exiting the Drug War, which is a UN adopted program to destroy a nation. It corrupts the police and government, creates a huge prison-industrial complex, creates a massive bureacratic government and police state, creates enormous national debt, destroys natural rights that our Constitution is supposed to protect, destroys individuals and families, enriches certain insider companies who run the prisons and supply the police state with weapons and technology, gear, cars, etc. and destroys Liberty in countless ways.

Sounds like an idea from Satan? And it is. And the Church is all in. It's called legislating YOUR morality. It's called virtue signaling. It's wicked at its core.

Granted, most Mormons don't understand the true nature of the Drug War because they're ignorant of these facts which I've only touched on, so they're not pure evil like those in gov't and secret combinations who hatched the idea.

Liberty is risky.

Yes, OF COURSE, children may be influenced by their wayward parents, but if they seek baptism, Christ says to baptize them.

Last thought, we are ALL wayward parents. All of us parents screw up and show bad examples at times to our kids. A good parent will apologize or acknowledge fault, and point to Christ.

For me, it's much easier to be at peace with errant policies when I know that the Lord's will isn't necessarily manifested in every paragraph of a corporate handbook written by lawyers and Church bureaucrats. And such an understanding releases me of any obligation or need to try to explain things (mental gymnastics) that aren't in harmony with the Gospel. Discrepancies or variances from the Gospel are simply explained: it's human error or often more than likely the institutional/ corporate needs must be satisfied in order to protect the corporation from litigation so the corporation can survive and profit.

Every law from man and God is legislating morality. Morality is simply defining what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior. If you don't want the church or our government to legislate morality, then you are basically saying you don't want any laws. And don't fall into the trap of saying that such and such behavior affects no one else but me, because it's simply not true. Or saying that you accept laws that prevent someone from hurting another and nothing else - same false belief.

Every rule or law could have the slippery slope argument applied to it. You give people an inch, they'll take a mile. I guess that leaves you with never giving your children even an inch of freedom. And, your children could argue that once you give them one rule, you're bound to give them another, so you're being a tyrannt.

Sarah wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 6:59 pm So you only believe in laws to protect right of life and property, and where "force" is involved. Why then has God given us the Law of Chastity and other laws regarding non-forceful behavior?

Sarah wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 7:03 pm Would you support the absence of laws regulating all forms of drugs? What about laws about driving, who can drive and how they drive - no laws?

lemuel wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 9:01 pm I know both Henry J Eyring and Clark Gilbert a bit. Both smart dudes.

topcat wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 8:49 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑April 8th, 2019, 6:59 pm So you only believe in laws to protect right of life and property, and where "force" is involved. Why then has God given us the Law of Chastity and other laws regarding non-forceful behavior?

God, as you know, doesn't coerce obedience, does He? Ever.

Is He not our model?

That should answer your inquiries.

God is Libertarian. Thus I am.

topcat wrote: ↑April 7th, 2019, 10:02 am

TheSnail wrote: ↑April 7th, 2019, 9:01 am The OP launched a scathing attack against a superb school and program with zero actual evidence of wrong doing.

I completed the pathway program, which was excellent, and have obtained my programming certificate through byui which has really helped me in my career.

I can tell you that it's a excellent school, and if anyone is picking a University, you'd be crazy not to choose byui in almost any circumstance.

The school is extremely well run and affordable, in stark contrast to most universities today.

You can accuse them of whatever, but the results speak for themselves. I'm disgusted by this nit-picking.

If you think a familial relation is evidence of nepotism, you could learn something from the book of Mormon. Alma son of Alma, Helaman soon of Alma, Helaman son of Helaman, Nephi son of Helaman, Nephi son of Nephi. That's 5 generations of great men who were the sons of great men. If you read your scriptures more you will learn why that is often the case.

Instead of being jealous, you could look at the sacrifices that the Lord's anointed make, and be grateful, and hope you don't get called to similar position.

Are you part of the family?

I would agree with you about your attack on the relevance of nepotism, if the facts backed you up.

Your comparison of the patriarchal order of God calling sons of true messengers of God to the patriarchal order doesn't apply, does it?

None of the men save Joseph Smith in the last days have claimed to have been chosen and sent by God. However, the prophets in the scriptures do make the claim, and the revelations back up their claim, and we have the Holy Ghost to discern whether those revelations and scriptures in print are true or not.

As to the son of a member of the First Presidency who runs BYU Hawaii, I think you will find this expose of his lack of competence in critical thinking astounding, if you have the stomach to listen to it:

https://radiofreemormon.org/2018/12/rad ... me-part-1/

Also, I would ask you, if there was mountains of evidence (and there is!) of nepotism in the church from the days of Brigham Young forward, in other words, the apostles themselves and their family members, including sons and daughters, and brothers and sisters, and close business associates who are friends, were found to occupy the seats of corporate boards, and corporate officers, of dozens and dozens of corporations worth tens of billions of dollars, would that change your mind about nepotism, or would you consider that to be appropriate way to disperse the sacred funds of tithing?

Also, in case you are not aware, there is only one person who has ABSOLUTE power and authority in the Church. And that would be the president of the church. Look it up.

In fact the Church is a DBA. The real name is The President of the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Look it up.

The reason why the general authorities are fond of constantly quoting the president of the church, is because he is their boss, literally. He pays them their salary, and gives them their positions on corporate boards, etc.

Dallin H. Oaks has been a board member of companies that are connected with the true Gadianton powers of our day. Wikipedia, the curated biography of famous people, even acknowledges that fact:

Additionally, over the course of his career, Oaks served as a director of the Union Pacific Corporation and Union Pacific Railroad.

Those corporations are directly connected and run by the ruling oligarchy which has destroyed liberty in all nations of the world just as Moroni prophesied in Ether 8.

We even have a former CFR apostle who was just called last year. The CFR is long documented and proven to be an enemy to freedom and to the United States of America's very existence.

Only a completely ignorant and unpatriotic person would ever consider associating with the CFR. Or it could just be an accident, and Elder Gong could be clueless and innocently deceived.

If you can show me any type of evidence that any of our living apostles give a flying fart about freedom and liberty, in the mold of even 2% of Ezra Taft Benson, I'd be very impressed. We're on the LDS freedom forum. Surley you have an appreciation for liberty and such talks
of defending the Constitution or defending freedom or talks that are calculated to enlarge liberty would have caught your attention over the years. Start with President Nelson and go down the line. Please produce some talks.

buffalo_girl wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 7:47 am Assuming there is 'corruption' in high places within the Church (not saying there isn't; I don't know.), WHAT can the common member of Christ's Church do?

I'm having enough trouble addressing the corruption in our county and village 'leadership'.

I'm being worn down by constant 'alarms' that keep me from the work we have on our land.

Ezek 34

2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?

3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock.

4 The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.

5 And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered.

“I do not think I will continue to fight the church’s effort to cast me out. The trends are all so distressing that I do not foresee any future… They do not want me… I do not intend to provoke them, but will not do anything to appease them.”

captainfearnot wrote: ↑April 5th, 2019, 5:30 pm If you really want to blow your mind, read some D. Michael Quinn. He documents how virtually every apostle has been related by blood or marriage to some other general authority since the days of Brigham Young.

kittycat51 wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 1:52 pm

captainfearnot wrote: ↑April 5th, 2019, 5:30 pm If you really want to blow your mind, read some D. Michael Quinn. He documents how virtually every apostle has been related by blood or marriage to some other general authority since the days of Brigham Young.

Elder Uchtdorf, Elder Gong, Elder Soares....

kittycat51 wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 1:52 pm

captainfearnot wrote: ↑April 5th, 2019, 5:30 pm If you really want to blow your mind, read some D. Michael Quinn. He documents how virtually every apostle has been related by blood or marriage to some other general authority since the days of Brigham Young.

Elder Uchtdorf, Elder Gong, Elder Soares....

kittycat51 wrote: ↑April 9th, 2019, 1:52 pm Elder Uchtdorf, Elder Gong, Elder Soares....