LDS Freedom Forum

Edit:
I never liked this post much.

But I like all you guys

caburnha wrote: ↑April 4th, 2019, 3:33 pm With these new "revelatory changes", please help me understand what would be considered a more serious transgression... If I'm understanding correctly, #2 below can get you excommunicated, while #1 will not. Is my questioning of the modern-day church worse than if I married a man (since I'm a man)?

1. Homosexual marriage

2. Continuing to post messages on a blog, podcast, or online forums about your journey in seeking Christ, while sometimes questioning if current church practices and doctrines are consistent with the scriptural definition of institutional apostasy.

Pretty sure they'll still excommunicate people guilty of sexual sins, they just aren't classifying those sins as apostasy anymore, that doesn't justify #2 though.

Stahura wrote: ↑April 4th, 2019, 3:40 pm

caburnha wrote: ↑April 4th, 2019, 3:33 pm With these new "revelatory changes", please help me understand what would be considered a more serious transgression... If I'm understanding correctly, #2 below can get you excommunicated, while #1 will not. Is my questioning of the modern-day church worse than if I married a man (since I'm a man)?

1. Homosexual marriage

2. Continuing to post messages on a blog, podcast, or online forums about your journey in seeking Christ, while sometimes questioning if current church practices and doctrines are consistent with the scriptural definition of institutional apostasy.

Pretty sure they'll still excommunicate people guilty of sexual sins, they just aren't classifying those sins as apostasy anymore, that doesn't justify #2 though.

My ex wife lived with someone, committing adultery regularly, for the last year and a half of my marriage. Her bishop told her this was wrong and instead of considering his counsel she tot angry, left, and never came back then continued in adultery for well over a year. She was never excommunicated.

A good friend's ex husband was regularly committing adultery and even gave her an STD. He didn't hide his adultery at the end of their marriage, got engaged very quickly after the divorce was finalized, and applied for a sealing clearance. She provided documentation to prove he committed adultery, including a transcript of his admitting to it in court, evidence that he has not made any payments on the over $300,000 the court ordered him to give her, and evidence that he had been committing adultery with his fiancee for months before the marriage ended. He wasn't excommunicated; instead his sealing clearance was approved. And her request for a cancellation was denied.

So these days I think you can tell your bishop and stake president that you are an adulterer and a deadbeat dad then get rewarded with a temple recommend. You can tell the same things to the First Presidency and be rewarded with a sealing clearance. So if you want to get excommunicated you don't have to sin, you just have to piss off church leaders.

Is this one of those rhetorical questions?

Centerline wrote: ↑April 4th, 2019, 9:56 pm Is this one of those rhetorical questions?

No. Was yours?

I find it very hard to believe that the church will no longer excommunicate members who decide on gay marriage. If gay marriage were no longer excommunicable, then it seems that they would then be considering scenario number 2 to be a more serious transgression, in terms of church discipline... I'd really struggle trying to wrap my head around that scenario...

Do you know of or have you heard of any gay married couples who are active members of the church?

Centerline wrote: ↑April 4th, 2019, 10:42 pm Do you know of or have you heard of any gay married couples who are active members of the church?

No. But after after today's policy change, many people (on another thread on this site) feel this may be changing. I am not one of them.

I haven’t heard of any either and other Christian denominations are struggling with the same issue. I come from a Baptist background and I can tell you they have not softened their position in any way. I have a hard time believing active homosexuals, who have no desire to repent, would have any interest in biblical Christianity.

Centerline wrote: ↑April 4th, 2019, 10:42 pm Do you know of or have you heard of any gay married couples who are active members of the church?

I've heard of a few. One couple in Hawaii, and another on a Polynesian island. Also some Eastern states in the US are very tolerant of gay couples, but I don't know if they have callings. I haven't heard of any with temple recommends.

Back to the subject, there are some active members of the Church posting under their real names ( Facebook accounts) on Mormons Building Bridges who fit the description of acting against the Church, and lobbying for the Church to change. They spew hate toward some of the Brethren, and they recommend people leave the church, stop paying tithing, or find wards that are pro-LGBTQ. Some of them are taking credit for today's policy change. Bottom-up revelation.......

Is it apostasy to fornicate or commit adultry? If thats not considered abandoning the beliefs of your faith then why would committing those acts with the same gender be?

Centerline wrote: ↑April 4th, 2019, 11:16 pm I haven’t heard of any either and other Christian denominations are struggling with the same issue. I come from a Baptist background and I can tell you they have not softened their position in any way. I have a hard time believing active homosexuals, who have no desire to repent, would have any interest in biblical Christianity.

There are some active homosexuals who very much want to be part of traditional Mormonism, for various reasons.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 4th, 2019, 11:24 pm Is it apostasy to fornicate or commit adultry? If thats not considered abandoning the beliefs of your faith then why would committing those acts with the same gender be?

The LGBT members and their allies say that when gay couples are legally married under the law of the land, they are not fornicating, and if they only have sex with their spouse, there is no adultery. Whether it's apostasy or unchastity doesn't matter to them. They say they are living righteously in God's eyes, and we homophobes need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Ask yourself which one affects the bottom line of the corporations bank account? If the church accepts more homosexuals then the coffers increase. If someone reveals something sketchy about the churchs history then tithing decreases.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑April 4th, 2019, 11:28 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 4th, 2019, 11:24 pm Is it apostasy to fornicate or commit adultry? If thats not considered abandoning the beliefs of your faith then why would committing those acts with the same gender be?

The LGBT members and their allies say that when gay couples are legally married under the law of the land, they are not fornicating, and if they only have sex with their spouse, there is no adultery. Whether it's apostasy or unchastity doesn't matter to them. They say they are living righteously in God's eyes, and we homophobes need to wake up and smell the coffee.

I know at least one gay man not currently in a relationship (but who was for a long time) who thinks this way. He has been very clear in his belief that the Church needs to accept gay marriage and seal gay couples i the temple. To my knowledge (and I would know) he hasn’t been subject to Church discipline. He does not have an active Temple Recommend and rarely if ever attends Church. His parents are very active members.

I can’t speak as to why neither he nor the many people of both genders (gay or straight) in my ward who have very obviously and publicly committed sexual sin have not been subjected to Church discipline, one of which is my own daughter. It could be a myriad of reasons including leadership lack of time, prioritization of other things, the fact that these folks are generally inactive and don’t darken the doorsteps anyways, they typically (but not in every case) have not been endowed, the sin is generally (but again not always) fornication as oppposed to adultery.

I wonder if my Ward is unique in this, but can’t believe that it is. I live on the East Coast outside the Utah/Idaho bubble, so perhaps that makes a difference? I am currently in a Bishopric and while we have had a few Church courts, they involved individuals who came directly to the Bishop and confessed certain things. In a Bishopric I served in several years ago, one of the a Counselors who had lived in the area his whole life made a list of everyone in the Ward he was aware of who had obviously and publicly broken the Law of Chastity. There never was any follow up with any of these people.

So...I guess what I’m saying is that from where I sit, I think how vigorously any of this stuff is enforced will depend on the Bishop and Stake President in a particular area.

Centerline wrote: ↑April 4th, 2019, 11:16 pm I haven’t heard of any either and other Christian denominations are struggling with the same issue. I come from a Baptist background and I can tell you they have not softened their position in any way. I have a hard time believing active homosexuals, who have no desire to repent, would have any interest in biblical Christianity.

You are right they don't have a desire to repent. That's not the point.

Their desire is to change hearts and minds of everyone else to see just how bigoted and backward they are b/c we think they should repent. The goal is to make sin not sin.

jsk wrote: ↑April 5th, 2019, 4:31 am

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑April 4th, 2019, 11:28 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 4th, 2019, 11:24 pm Is it apostasy to fornicate or commit adultry? If thats not considered abandoning the beliefs of your faith then why would committing those acts with the same gender be?

The LGBT members and their allies say that when gay couples are legally married under the law of the land, they are not fornicating, and if they only have sex with their spouse, there is no adultery. Whether it's apostasy or unchastity doesn't matter to them. They say they are living righteously in God's eyes, and we homophobes need to wake up and smell the coffee.

So...I guess what I’m saying is that from where I sit, I think how vigorously any of this stuff is enforced will depend on the Bishop and Stake President in a particular area.

Yeap, I have heard directly from a counselor in the SP that the Church has "demphasized" sexual sins.

This absolutely means that in some Stakes married homosexual couples will be excommunicated post hast and in others they will be given callings.

Aprhys wrote: ↑April 5th, 2019, 3:12 am Ask yourself which one affects the bottom line of the corporations bank account? If the church accepts more homosexuals then the coffers increase. If someone reveals something sketchy about the churchs history then tithing decreases.

Nail on the head

Does it matter which is worse? Don't do either...don't sin.

A glimpse into what LDS couples may look like in the future?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKcWfADDPAE&t=258s

Another interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGKGlVaSWAE&t=483s

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑April 4th, 2019, 11:28 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 4th, 2019, 11:24 pm Is it apostasy to fornicate or commit adultry? If thats not considered abandoning the beliefs of your faith then why would committing those acts with the same gender be?

The LGBT members and their allies say that when gay couples are legally married under the law of the land, they are not fornicating, and if they only have sex with their spouse, there is no adultery. Whether it's apostasy or unchastity doesn't matter to them. They say they are living righteously in God's eyes, and we homophobes need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Obviously they are wrong, they can cry all day of their persecution and it wont change the fact that their union is unfruitful and forever always will be and that their chosen “immitation” will always be inferior. They seek to take away from something else to add to them...first sign to any rational mind that the issue lies with them. They are combating that by making themselves appear as valid and comparable to regular marriages thus turning the tables saying traditional marriage is trying to take away from them by simply existing as they always have been. Thus heterosexuals are the problem.
Its immature behavior and dysfunctional.

Is there any other sin we accomodate in the church? I dont think we even listen to habitual porn users and give them voice to lessen how wrong porn usage is. Certainly wouldnt for adultry or abuses.

Yes, they are legal in marriage per the law of the land so I ask, if pedophilia became legal or polygamy became legal per laws of the land, would the church have to soften on them as well? Not accept or embrace but to give some allowance to some degree simply because its okay under the law of the land.

The scriptures lay out procedures and laws and policy for actions and situations that the people chose to do even though God would have preferred people simply not do it, like divorce. I wonder if we are simply doing exactly the same thing today as the prophets did back then, if so then our error is first believing that God accepts or directs how we chose to try and accomodate the wordly situations that arise.

The pro-gay-marriage LDS and allies are countering the "unfruitful" claim. Their reasoning is that with IVF, surrogacy and adoption, homosexual couples can have children in exactly the same alternate ways as heterosexual infertile couples. In fact, some have them have claimed that the avenues to forming their families in this day age are "proof" that God planned for them to be born into the LDS church at this time in history, so they can help in changing the hearts and minds of the homophobic members and leaders of the Church.

Their claim is also that if we don't theologically invalidate the marriages of infertile couples, along with couples who marry after they have passed child-bearing years (Wendy Watson Nelson?) then we (the LDS Church) don't have a right to invalidate a gay married couple for the inability to procreate.

Again, I'm stunned that so-called believing LDS have bought into Satan's lies.

Fiannan wrote: ↑April 5th, 2019, 7:40 am A glimpse into what LDS couples may look like in the future?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKcWfADDPAE&t=258s

To me, things like this always seem fake (fake happiness) or forced or not real in a way. The people seem off and unhappy too. Maybe its just that something is missing that puts that spark of light into people naturally. Maybe its the weight they have being subject to the devils snare and playing his game. Not sure if others have felt this way also, but I see them the same as a drug addict thats lost self control and is completely controlled by the drug instead and appears unhappy and unwell.

The second video, the people seem just as weird to me.

The gay and other sexual deviant lifestyles are simply wrong and for me its getting easy to see the bad fruit of sexual sin.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑April 5th, 2019, 8:04 am The pro-gay-marriage LDS and allies are countering the "unfruitful" claim. Their reasoning is that with IVF, surrogacy and adoption, homosexual couples can have children in exactly the same alternate ways as heterosexual infertile couples. In fact, some have them have claimed that the avenues to forming their families in this day age are "proof" that God planned for them to be born into the LDS church at this time in history, so they can help in changing the hearts and minds of the homophobic members and leaders of the Church.

Their claim is also that if we don't theologically invalidate the marriages of infertile couples, along with couples who marry after they have passed child-bearing years (Wendy Watson Nelson?) then we (the LDS Church) don't have a right to invalidate a gay married couple for the inability to procreate.

Again, I'm stunned that so-called believing LDS have bought into Satan's lies.

It seems many have believed the lies and reasoning.
A heterosexual marriage is fruitful beyond having children, they are not factoring in everything.
Besides, an infertile couple in this life will be fertile after this life, the potential is still there. Not so in gay marriage.

This is one big reason I chose not to read their blogs or group pages, their arguments and reasoning and rational are not something I care too much about to entertain. They can try all day and night for their whole life, they will always be inferior by their choice. (Which is why heterosexuality must be demeaned, which we do ourselves when we pin the sexes against one another and divorce and shirk our covenants)
Their union is not compatable, despite IVF, adoption, love, loyalty etc.

Sad situation all around.

Everything is such a mess right now. I think what bothers me the most out of everything at the moment are the 12 essays and dozens of shorter essays that are buried on the church's website where only those who are aware they exist will find them. In my view, the church has an obligation to share all of the pieces its written with its membership and informing them of all the troubling, controversial and even faith-challenging aspects of church history. The church proclaims it is the only true one while it hides vital and important information on its website. Instead of Sunday lessons from the Old Testament, New Testament, etc., how about lessons centered around those essay topics including the shorter ones so members don't find out about something later on their own, feel deceived and betrayed and then suffer a faith crisis because of it?

The church pounds and pounds us about the importance of truth, honesty, integrity, etc. while it isn't even being any of those with it's own members with regard to church history. Most members of the church still don't even know that JS didn't even use the plates during the alleged 'translation' process but rather stuck his head in a hat peering at seer stones. Or that he gave a bogus translation of a set of hoaxed plates. Or that the Egyptian papyri he used to write the Book of Abraham had nothing to do with Abraham. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Yet, here we are doing mental gymnastics trying to justify the church's flip-flopping on certain policies and debating what's more serious now in terms of sexual transgression since the church has now softened its stance against homosexuality.