LDS Freedom Forum

Here is an opinion piece published in the Deseret News today. Because of who Tom is (brother of D. Todd), and the subject matter, I'm sure this had approval pretty far up the leadership ladder.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900 ... j_yOxnQy_M

The two things that stood out to me are that this poor, deluded soul still believes a man can be "married" to a man, and that a woman can be "married" to a woman. He obviously does not believe the tenets of the LDS Church, such as The Family: A Proclamation to the World. His apostle brother should try to teach him of his errors in this. Only a man and a woman can be married to each other, regardless of what the godless government of any particular country says, and also regardless of what an equally godless society says.

The other thing is the perversion of the word "love" - it's almost like a certain group of people have a desperate need to change our very language and what words mean. I agree with this comment after the article - "I've never met a person who's actually been traumatized over any LDS Church doctrine, only people who are angry they don't get more attention for their cause. Greasing the squeaky wheel only distracts from far more important issues." And we all know the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Our actions have consequences - what's love got to do with it (as Tina Turner would say ). I love my sister who is living in adultery (with a married man), and I love my uncle who is living in a same-sex sexual relationship. They both know that I love them, and they both know that they are grievously sinning - and guess what? They don't care - they CHOOSE to live the way they are - they are not misunderstanding doctrine or anything (both born and raised in the Church, served missions, previously got married in the temple, etc.) - they know there will be consequences, and that knowledge still does not inspire them to repent/change. But of course I love them (with real love, not the mamby-pamby social justice Babylonian fake love that some attempt to define as "anything goes", you have to love my sin as well as me, which is NOT Christ-like love).

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑April 16th, 2019, 4:47 pm Here is an opinion piece published in the Deseret News today. Because of who Tom is (brother of D. Todd), and the subject matter, I'm sure this had approval pretty far up the leadership ladder.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900 ... j_yOxnQy_M

Approval from guys like this:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng

Lizzy you are so worried that the church is going to adopt gay marriage. Not going to happen.

From the article:

"I am grateful that removing the earlier policy reflects, to me, a continued wrestling by church leaders with the many unanswered questions affecting our lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer brothers and sisters. I also feel that this change reflects a unity of the prayers by members of the body of Christ and his prophets for greater light and knowledge, and that all of our hearts will be prepared for what he may choose to reveal in his own time."

Church leaders continue to wrestle with unanswered questions about LGBTQ members, and the change (gay marriage no longer apostasy) reflects further light and knowledge.

drtanner wrote: ↑April 16th, 2019, 5:04 pm

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑April 16th, 2019, 4:47 pm Here is an opinion piece published in the Deseret News today. Because of who Tom is (brother of D. Todd), and the subject matter, I'm sure this had approval pretty far up the leadership ladder.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900 ... j_yOxnQy_M

Approval from guys like this:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng

Lizzy you are so worried that the church is going to adopt gay marriage. Not going to happen.

Yes, it's going to happen. It will either be because they are losing more members by not accepting gay marriage than by holding the line, or it will be because the LDS church is perceived by almost the entire First World as another hateful Westboro Baptist Church.

The only way it won't happen is if that Julie Rowe Earthquake demolishes SLC beforehand

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑April 16th, 2019, 5:24 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 16th, 2019, 5:04 pm

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑April 16th, 2019, 4:47 pm Here is an opinion piece published in the Deseret News today. Because of who Tom is (brother of D. Todd), and the subject matter, I'm sure this had approval pretty far up the leadership ladder.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900 ... j_yOxnQy_M

Approval from guys like this:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng

Lizzy you are so worried that the church is going to adopt gay marriage. Not going to happen.

Yes, it's going to happen. It will either be because they are losing more members by not accepting gay marriage than by holding the line, or it will be because the LDS church is perceived by almost the entire First World as another hateful Westboro Baptist Church.

The only way it won't happen is if that Julie Rowe Earthquake demolishes SLC beforehand

We've already been warned about persecutions coming. In 2011 President Nelson said this:

Why do we need such resilient faith? Because difficult days are ahead. Rarely in the future will it be easy or popular to be a faithful Latter-day Saint. Each of us will be tested. The Apostle Paul warned that in the latter days, those who diligently follow the Lord “shall suffer persecution.”12 That very persecution can either crush you into silent weakness or motivate you to be more exemplary and courageous in your daily lives.

Our numbers may be few and we may lose membership but I don't see these men backing down one bit from the world.

Unfortunately they’ve already backed down.

The homosexual “manifesto” back in the 1980’s stated their goal was to get to churches - even if they had to sneak through the leadership. Their other goals were to get to young children in church groups and other groups, like boy-scouts.

Thinker wrote: ↑April 16th, 2019, 6:08 pm Unfortunately they’ve already backed down.

The homosexual “manifesto” back in the 1980’s stated their goal was to get to churches - even if they had to sneak through the leadership. Their other goals were to get to young children in church groups and other groups, like boy-scouts.

Yes, they have backed down so much that the pro-LGBTQ LDS groups (there are quite a few of them) are becoming very hopeful.

Elder Gong has a gay son. Elder Gong and his wife are accompanying Pres Nelson on his upcoming tour of the Pacific Islands. I'm sure there will be interesting conversations during those long flights.

Im tired of hearing gays talk about being gay and love etc. What a terrible article.

I bought Tom Christofferson's book and few months back. I wanted a new perspective on the subject by someone who "knows" from the inside out. I have brother who is married to a man and it has been a journey for our whole family to learn love and acceptance within the bounds God has set. He has 3 children from a prior marriage, one who is on a mission in Africa. I also have two granddaughters being raised by my lesbian ex daughter-in-law and spouse. It has not been easy to adjust to these circumstances. One thing I know for sure is that love is "key".

I accepted the policy regarding children and baptism. It was easy for me as I could see the contention would bring if my son wanted them baptized. I felt strongly that it would keep families from further fragmenting if this was a conflict with the parents with the children caught in the middle. Not all parents are amicable in situations such as this but have a lot of hurt and bitterness. But I also embrace the new policy from this last conference and felt it was inspired.

I have many gay friends and love and appreciate them in so many ways. I also believe in the Proclamation of the Family and have taught it's doctrine many times and have a testimony of it. God is the same today as he was yesterday and will be tomorrow. President Anderson's talk was right on. God will not change his mind on marriage between a man and a woman. We can love our gay brother's and sisters without approving of lifestyle and expecting God to change. Love does not equal approval. It just means we see the good and share what we can agree upon and then agree to disagree on the rest.

Hmm... you'd think a revelation could sort this all out once and for all?

Some people think there is a difference between The Deseret News and most mainstream globalist media.

Tom Christofferson is an apostate in my view.

Why would the Church ever need to accept homosexual behavior? What percentage of the population is homosexual? What percentage of the homosexual population desires to practice biblical Christianity, of which the Church is a small percentage. Forty to fifty percent of the population is completely secularized and could care less about Christian beliefs. The same people who don’t understand why Christians aren’t more accepting of homosexuals are the same people who don’t understand how we can believe in God. Why would we change our beliefs for people who wouldn’t believe in a biblical God even if we were more accepting of homosexuals? It’s not like becoming more accepting of homosexuals would create a situation where the Church would make significant growth through the addition of all those secularists who all of a sudden decided to become Christian because the Christians accepted homosexuals. This makes no sense.

Centerline wrote: ↑April 17th, 2019, 2:30 am What percentage of the population is homosexual?

It isn't the percentage that matters. It's how loud, how long, and how visceral they scream to the press that gets attention. Tom couldn't get this published in the Ensign, so he did the next best thing: he got the press (I use this term very loosely) to publish it.

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself." - Joseph Goebbels

Fiannan wrote: ↑April 16th, 2019, 11:43 pm Some people think there is a difference between The Deseret News and most mainstream globalist media.

HA! It's nothing but a fluff piece that caters to people who want their news censored and watered down. Nothing too upsetting for the snowflakes.

Centerline wrote: ↑April 17th, 2019, 2:30 am Why would the Church ever need to accept homosexual behavior? What percentage of the population is homosexual? What percentage of the homosexual population desires to practice biblical Christianity, of which the Church is a small percentage. Forty to fifty percent of the population is completely secularized and could care less about Christian beliefs. The same people who don’t understand why Christians aren’t more accepting of homosexuals are the same people who don’t understand how we can believe in God. Why would we change our beliefs for people who wouldn’t believe in a biblical God even if we were more accepting of homosexuals? It’s not like becoming more accepting of homosexuals would create a situation where the Church would make significant growth through the addition of all those secularists who all of a sudden decided to become Christian because the Christians accepted homosexuals. This makes no sense.

Have you read what Mormons Building Bridges, Bryce Cook, Richard Ostler, and other LDS groups are advocating for? Bryce Cook has two adult sons who are gay. He wants them to be able to fully live a "Mormon" life, while also able to be married to men. He says God is on their side, that gay marriage is not sinful. The other pro-LGBTQ LDS groups say the same thing. If the couple are married, their sexual activities are not sinful.

It doesn't matter what percentage are LGBTQ. Their allies are legion. More than 50% of younger Mormons think there's nothing wrong with gays and gay sex. Many older Mormons join their ranks every day. Bishops and Stake Presidents are drinking the Kool-aid. Just this week, Richard Ostler, a SLC temple ordinance worker, in his 50's, twittered that as the church becomes more accepting of LGBTQ, we will most likely convert more people to our faith. Others have said that the more we hold the line on homosexuality being a sin, the less relevant we will become, and we will hemorrhage membership.

I would support becoming a very small church if the alternative is embracing gay marriage. However, I don't believe there are many who agree with me. Missionary work, growing the Church to fill the Earth, these are concepts that define the LDS Church.

The Airbender wrote: ↑April 16th, 2019, 11:14 pm Hmm... you'd think a revelation could sort this all out once and for all?

Well, in his article, Tom says the leaders are "wrestling" over unanswered questions, and gaining new light and knowledge.

So far, they've had a revelation about the Nov 2015 policy, and now they've had a revelation about the rescinding of the Nov 2015 policy. Some people won't be happy until they get the revelation their group wants, and others, like the poster above, will believe anything that's claimed to be revelation. Notice, she said she agreed with the Nov 15 POX, and now she agrees with the rescinding of the POX (policy of exclusion). She also loves and accepts her gay friends and family, but doesn't condone their sin. That ain't gonna fly for long. They don't want anyone to label them as sinners, no matter how much you say you love them.

I have never piped in before on this topic....but I see a lot of people on here are very much against A) homosexuals and B) the church becoming more accepting of them.

I could care less what two consenting adult men care to do with themselves. Same for two women. I was originally against gay marriage in all its forms....but over the last few years I have come to understand that the people get the Government they want, and if they want gay marriage, then they should be allowed to have it. The church has stood still that it believes marriage is between a man and a woman, as they should.

What more can you ask? You cannot be on the "anti gay" side of the equation in our society anymore and hold any credibility whatsoever with society. Oh, society is wicked you say? So what does it matter? Well, it matters. We must live IN the world, even if not OF the world. God did not intend for his kingdom to be a miniscule and insignificant gathering of extremely anti-social and xenophobic people living in the wilderness. He wants it to flourish and be the salt of the Earth. Today, that means you cannot be a racist and you cannot be a homophobe. Anyone who is, simply does not understand the gospel. Do you think Christ loves these gay brothers and sisters any less than he loves heterosexuals? Not a chance.

What I am advocating here is that you dont need to be ok with homosexuality....but what I advocate you DO is understand other people have their rights to be gay and even get married, even if those actions are in contrast with your beliefs. They have their agency, and your charge is to not judge them for it. Also, I exhort you to cut the Church some slack.....this is a difficult issue, they are trying their best to hold onto tradition and doctrine in a society and world that is ever moving further away from these things.

Its very much like the race issue. Back in the day it was probably unacceptable to many of our members that black men should ever get the Priesthood. Today, that type of thinking is totally wicked and unacceptable....society did itself and our church a favor by shedding light on the fact that people of all colors and backgrounds deserve the full blessings and opportunities of both society and the gospel.

Staplean wrote: ↑April 16th, 2019, 9:48 pm I bought Tom Christofferson's book and few months back. I wanted a new perspective on the subject by someone who "knows" from the inside out. I have brother who is married to a man and it has been a journey for our whole family to learn love and acceptance within the bounds God has set. He has 3 children from a prior marriage, one who is on a mission in Africa. I also have two granddaughters being raised by my lesbian ex daughter-in-law and spouse. It has not been easy to adjust to these circumstances. One thing I know for sure is that love is "key".

I accepted the policy regarding children and baptism. It was easy for me as I could see the contention would bring if my son wanted them baptized. I felt strongly that it would keep families from further fragmenting if this was a conflict with the parents with the children caught in the middle. Not all parents are amicable in situations such as this but have a lot of hurt and bitterness. But I also embrace the new policy from this last conference and felt it was inspired.
(Inspired from the pressures of " political correctness" and from many members that have "prodigal" family members and from the feds. But by no means from God.)
I have many gay friends and love and appreciate them in so many ways. (this is just more compromising and concessions that they love) I also believe in the Proclamation of the Family and have taught it's doctrine many times and have a testimony of it. God is the same today as he was yesterday and will be tomorrow. President Anderson's talk was right on. God will not change his mind on marriage between a man and a woman. We can love our gay brother's and sisters without approving of lifestyle and expecting God to change. Love does not equal approval. It just means we see the good and share what we can agree upon and then agree to disagree on the rest.

We may say that "love does not equal approval", but that is exactly what it is. We have already approved of our relatives way of life by simple association and living amongst them. After all what is the best method of teaching? By example.... And so by rubbing shoulders with that lifestyle, and by association, by accepting them through this twisted version of "love", the devil is laughing all the way to the bank.

According to the above, God should not have banished "the son of the morning" from heaven with all his followers. God should of just "loved satan" and associated with him and loved and loved and loved. Then maybe satan would turn from his evil ways.
Why is it that we are commanded to separate from Babylon? For exactly these reasons, the influence of the spirit of Babylon, (which includes sodomy) eventually overcomes the vast majority of mankind, as we are "carnal sensual and devilish" and sodomy is the epitome of being carnal sensual and devilish.

What is going on with this issue is exactly part of satan's plan to ensnare us in his web. He diabolically twisted the meaning of "love" so that we eventually embrace the Sodom and Gommorah lifestyle. "Eventually" is actually the wrong word, "quickly" would be the better .
Nothing better to forward satan's cause than to prey upon the natural feelings of love that family's have for one another. But this is what should apply:

Mathew 19

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Luke 14

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

 Luke 18

Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting...


D&C 1


For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;

33 And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.

34 And again, verily I say unto you, O inhabitants of the earth: I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh;

35 For I am no respecter of persons, and will that all men shall know that the day speedily cometh; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand, when peace shall be taken from the earth, and the devil shall have power over his own dominion.

36 And also the Lord shall have power over his saints, and shall reign in their midst, and shall come down in judgment upon Idumea, or the world.


We all want to be loved, it is a natural God given desire. We are all sinners also. But, God commands us to repent and come clean. And that no unclean person or thing can come into and pollute His kingdom. But, when pride comes in, we still want to be loved and demand that society loves us with our sins and demand entrance into Gods kingdom "just as we are".
The "Shepard's of Israel" are supposed to watch over the flock and suffer not wickedness to corrupt the flock. But instead what is going on today is almost a complete embracing of sodomy.
But we need to be "politically correct".

thestock wrote: ↑April 17th, 2019, 7:05 am I have never piped in before on this topic....but I see a lot of people on here are very much against A) homosexuals and B) the church becoming more accepting of them.

I could care less what two consenting adult men care to do with themselves. Same for two women. I was originally against gay marriage in all its forms....but over the last few years I have come to understand that the people get the Government they want, and if they want gay marriage, then they should be allowed to have it. The church has stood still that it believes marriage is between a man and a woman, as they should.

What more can you ask? You cannot be on the "anti gay" side of the equation in our society anymore and hold any credibility whatsoever with society. Oh, society is wicked you say? So what does it matter? Well, it matters. We must live IN the world, even if not OF the world. God did not intend for his kingdom to be a miniscule and insignificant gathering of extremely anti-social and xenophobic people living in the wilderness. He wants it to flourish and be the salt of the Earth. Today, that means you cannot be a racist and you cannot be a homophobe. Anyone who is, simply does not understand the gospel. Do you think Christ loves these gay brothers and sisters any less than he loves heterosexuals? Not a chance.

What I am advocating here is that you dont need to be ok with homosexuality....but what I advocate you DO is understand other people have their rights to be gay and even get married, even if those actions are in contrast with your beliefs. They have their agency, and your charge is to not judge them for it. Also, I exhort you to cut the Church some slack.....this is a difficult issue, they are trying their best to hold onto tradition and doctrine in a society and world that is ever moving further away from these things.

Its very much like the race issue. Back in the day it was probably unacceptable to many of our members that black men should ever get the Priesthood. Today, that type of thinking is totally wicked and unacceptable....society did itself and our church a favor by shedding light on the fact that people of all colors and backgrounds deserve the full blessings and opportunities of both society and the gospel.

You are completely right in that people have the right to a government of our own choice, the right to marry whomsoever we please, the right do whatsoever appeals to the carnal nature of man as long as we do not step upon or abuse the rights of others. ( and how and where that line is drawn has been and is a very debatable subject), But what you have not addressed is the consequence of those choices. And they are addressed in the scriptures. But most of us are not interested in them.
Another thing I find interesting is how we are making God into a changing God, in that God is changing his stance upon his gospel principles to accommodate society's changing whims.
We are making God into a "politically correct" God. All in the name of appealing to Babylon.

simpleton wrote: ↑April 17th, 2019, 7:50 am

thestock wrote: ↑April 17th, 2019, 7:05 am I have never piped in before on this topic....but I see a lot of people on here are very much against A) homosexuals and B) the church becoming more accepting of them.

I could care less what two consenting adult men care to do with themselves. Same for two women. I was originally against gay marriage in all its forms....but over the last few years I have come to understand that the people get the Government they want, and if they want gay marriage, then they should be allowed to have it. The church has stood still that it believes marriage is between a man and a woman, as they should.

What more can you ask? You cannot be on the "anti gay" side of the equation in our society anymore and hold any credibility whatsoever with society. Oh, society is wicked you say? So what does it matter? Well, it matters. We must live IN the world, even if not OF the world. God did not intend for his kingdom to be a miniscule and insignificant gathering of extremely anti-social and xenophobic people living in the wilderness. He wants it to flourish and be the salt of the Earth. Today, that means you cannot be a racist and you cannot be a homophobe. Anyone who is, simply does not understand the gospel. Do you think Christ loves these gay brothers and sisters any less than he loves heterosexuals? Not a chance.

What I am advocating here is that you dont need to be ok with homosexuality....but what I advocate you DO is understand other people have their rights to be gay and even get married, even if those actions are in contrast with your beliefs. They have their agency, and your charge is to not judge them for it. Also, I exhort you to cut the Church some slack.....this is a difficult issue, they are trying their best to hold onto tradition and doctrine in a society and world that is ever moving further away from these things.

Its very much like the race issue. Back in the day it was probably unacceptable to many of our members that black men should ever get the Priesthood. Today, that type of thinking is totally wicked and unacceptable....society did itself and our church a favor by shedding light on the fact that people of all colors and backgrounds deserve the full blessings and opportunities of both society and the gospel.

You are completely right in that people have the right to a government of our own choice, the right to marry whomsoever we please, the right do whatsoever appeals to the carnal nature of man as long as we do not step upon or abuse the rights of others. ( and how and where that line is drawn has been and is a very debatable subject), But what you have not addressed is the consequence of those choices. And they are addressed in the scriptures. But most of us are not interested in them.
Another thing I find interesting is how we are making God into a changing God, in that God is changing his stance upon his gospel principles to accommodate society's changing whims.
We are making God into a "politically correct" God. All in the name of appealing to Babylon.

People could look at civil rights in the past and make the same argument that of a changing god, but in reality we have all learned that we changed in the treatment of people to become more like god.

The same thing is going on here. Those who hold the keys are firm and steadfast on the doctrine of marriage, but encouraging us to treat people with love as Christ would do. Some here have said they would not sit the same table with a homosexual individual for example.

Others are reading into the changes or efforts to be charitable as acceptance of gay marriage and are spreading false interpretations, doubts, and as a result perpetuating unbelief in the decisions of those who lead the church. A step in the wrong direction in attempting to establishing zion IMO.

love

"do more to love as he loves."

I'm sorry Tom but, "to love",
IS NOT just accepting someone when they're doing something that is wrong.

Real love, is when you love someone , you care enough about them
to tell them when they are doing something wrong,
just like we do to our children - why ? - because we love them.
And that is exactly why Jesus said, and as you said, quote
"he did not condemn her and invited her to forsake sin going forward"

is THIS, what the church is really doing ?
telling them what they're doing is wrong, and to forsake their sin,
and "go, and sin no more" ?

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑April 16th, 2019, 5:24 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 16th, 2019, 5:04 pm

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑April 16th, 2019, 4:47 pm Here is an opinion piece published in the Deseret News today. Because of who Tom is (brother of D. Todd), and the subject matter, I'm sure this had approval pretty far up the leadership ladder.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900 ... j_yOxnQy_M

Approval from guys like this:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng

Lizzy you are so worried that the church is going to adopt gay marriage. Not going to happen.

Yes, it's going to happen. It will either be because they are losing more members by not accepting gay marriage than by holding the line, or it will be because the LDS church is perceived by almost the entire First World as another hateful Westboro Baptist Church.

The only way it won't happen is if that Julie Rowe Earthquake demolishes SLC beforehand

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

someone else's thoughts that I copied
quote

"THREE AND A HALF YEARS
There will be a 3.5 year period of warning before God's judgment is poured out on the earth.
It is my current understanding that this period will begin with the closing of the LDS temples, probably due to government pressure to seal homosexuals there or risk substantial penalty.
The 3.5 year period will end, according to my current understanding, with the performance of a homosexual sealing in an LDS temple.

Until the LDS temples close, I strongly believe that any disasters the US may face, including financial distress that could exceed that sustained after the 2008 collapse, will be very very minimal compared to what comes after the end of the 3.5 year period, though taken in abstract any of the warnings may seem quite extreme to those directly involved."

end quote

simpleton wrote: ↑April 17th, 2019, 7:50 am
You are completely right in that people have the right to a government of our own choice, the right to marry whomsoever we please, the right do whatsoever appeals to the carnal nature of man as long as we do not step upon or abuse the rights of others. ( and how and where that line is drawn has been and is a very debatable subject), But what you have not addressed is the consequence of those choices. And they are addressed in the scriptures. But most of us are not interested in them.

Agreed

Another thing I find interesting is how we are making God into a changing God, in that God is changing his stance upon his gospel principles to accommodate society's changing whims.
We are making God into a "politically correct" God. All in the name of appealing to Babylon.

I dont agree with this. I think God is a constant and his love and truth is a constant. We just discover it little by little, line upon line. I can see why Brigham Young was a racist. He lived in a much more isolated and ignorant world than we live in today. He probably witnesses physical harm as a result of other groups of people coming into contact with his people. Not just him, but our society in general back then. I am not going to say the Church is false because of Brigham's racist teachings or prior racist teachings. What it exposes is that the hero-worship of the leaders of our church has to come to an end, because I will tell you right now......they are no more special than you or me. They are just people trying their best to live right and follow the Spirit.....but they are still influenced by their day.

Our leaders today aren't changing God. They dont allow our membership to be sealed to same-sex marriages in the temple. They have tried to combat what they perceive is an evil of society.....but now they are opening up to the fact that MOST homosexuals are not evil. They are just people who are different, and that difference is an uncomfortable contrast to the social structure of the Church. Now they have the difficult task of trying to find a balance between love, tolerance, and acceptance of people who are different while maintaining the doctrine, culture, and opposition to what they believe to be sinful. Hard to do, I wish them all the best....glad that is not my task to deal with.