LDS Freedom Forum

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/29/us/b ... index.html

Thoughts? the media often uses framing to give the audience not just a picture but also a feeling (most important) about stories.

Is it just me, or does it seem like half the time that Mormons are in the news it's for some iteration of this controversy on which the Church has still not changed its position. We literally hold the same position we've always held, and that every other church held till recently, but the newsmongers still feel like it's the defining trait of our religion and that the main reason to mention us is to talk about what bigots we are.

It reminds me of the obituary that the New York Times published for President Monson last year where the first sentence was a mention of the changes - ordaining women and approving same sex marriage - that liberals wanted but that he didn't make.

So his most noteworthy characteristic is that he did the same thing as every previous LDS president . . . and every Pope . . . and every Protestant leader up until half a century ago.

I really wish the media would start taking our religion more seriously and report the actual goings-on, rather than making more hay about a belief which, while it's unpopular with the world, has pretty-much stayed the same and therefore isn't news in the real sense of the word.

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 2:44 pm Is it just me, or does it seem like half the time that Mormons are in the news it's for some iteration of this controversy on which the Church has still not changed its position. We literally hold the same position we've always held, and that every other church held till recently, but the newsmongers still feel like it's the defining trait of our religion and that the main reason to mention us is to talk about what bigots we are.

It reminds me of the obituary that the New York Times published for President Monson last year where the first sentence was a mention of the changes - ordaining women and approving same sex marriage - that liberals wanted but that he didn't make.

So his most noteworthy characteristic is that he did the same thing as every previous LDS president . . . and every Pope . . . and every Protestant leader up until half a century ago.

I really wish the media would start taking our religion more seriously and report the actual goings-on, rather than making more hay about a belief which, while it's unpopular with the world, has pretty-much stayed the same and therefore isn't news in the real sense of the word.

The world is changing and the Church and its institutions like BYU are getting left behind. Imagine if we stayed true to the racist doctrines? Can you even imagine what our church might look like today if we preached the racist teachings from the past and refused the Priesthood to black people still? I dont think the Church has much, if any, "changing" to do with regard to LGBT but they have historically, even recently, been very cold towards that segment of our population and people won't stand for it. They will come to define bigotry and hatred with our church.....and they wont necessarily be wrong if we don't change.

thestock wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 2:50 pm

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 2:44 pm Is it just me, or does it seem like half the time that Mormons are in the news it's for some iteration of this controversy on which the Church has still not changed its position. We literally hold the same position we've always held, and that every other church held till recently, but the newsmongers still feel like it's the defining trait of our religion and that the main reason to mention us is to talk about what bigots we are.

It reminds me of the obituary that the New York Times published for President Monson last year where the first sentence was a mention of the changes - ordaining women and approving same sex marriage - that liberals wanted but that he didn't make.

So his most noteworthy characteristic is that he did the same thing as every previous LDS president . . . and every Pope . . . and every Protestant leader up until half a century ago.

I really wish the media would start taking our religion more seriously and report the actual goings-on, rather than making more hay about a belief which, while it's unpopular with the world, has pretty-much stayed the same and therefore isn't news in the real sense of the word.

The world is changing and the Church and its institutions like BYU are getting left behind. Imagine if we stayed true to the racist doctrines? Can you even imagine what our church might look like today if we preached the racist teachings from the past and refused the Priesthood to black people still? I dont think the Church has much, if any, "changing" to do with regard to LGBT but they have historically, even recently, been very cold towards that segment of our population and people won't stand for it. They will come to define bigotry and hatred with our church.....and they wont necessarily be wrong if we don't change.

The withholding of priesthood was BY's opinion mistakenly taken as doctrine. The counsel against homosexual activity goes back to the Old Testament. It is a perversion of the powers of procreation that are meant to be employed between a husband and wife. The fact that the world accepts this now does not mean God will change to accommodate the world, unless you believe He is a changeable God. Our attitude towards people dealing with this condition should be similar to how we treat anyone who battles a proclivity towards sin. For instance, with a reformed alcoholic, we should be their friend, help them deal with stress and encourage them to fill their time with meaningful activities. For someone who is depressed and contemplating suicide, we'd do the same thing - be their friend, help them deal with stress and encourage them to fill their time with meaningful activities. Health is also a factor. Improper diet leads to poor gut health and subsequently poor mental health as neurotoxins bypass the damaged gut lining into the bloodstream and impact the brain. Environmental toxins from plastics also make their way in and can affect our hormone levels. We might also encourage improvement of diet and health which will strengthen bodies and minds and make it easier to endure and triumph over temptation.

thestock wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 2:50 pm

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 2:44 pm Is it just me, or does it seem like half the time that Mormons are in the news it's for some iteration of this controversy on which the Church has still not changed its position. We literally hold the same position we've always held, and that every other church held till recently, but the newsmongers still feel like it's the defining trait of our religion and that the main reason to mention us is to talk about what bigots we are.

It reminds me of the obituary that the New York Times published for President Monson last year where the first sentence was a mention of the changes - ordaining women and approving same sex marriage - that liberals wanted but that he didn't make.

So his most noteworthy characteristic is that he did the same thing as every previous LDS president . . . and every Pope . . . and every Protestant leader up until half a century ago.

I really wish the media would start taking our religion more seriously and report the actual goings-on, rather than making more hay about a belief which, while it's unpopular with the world, has pretty-much stayed the same and therefore isn't news in the real sense of the word.

The world is changing and the Church and its institutions like BYU are getting left behind. Imagine if we stayed true to the racist doctrines? Can you even imagine what our church might look like today if we preached the racist teachings from the past and refused the Priesthood to black people still? I dont think the Church has much, if any, "changing" to do with regard to LGBT but they have historically, even recently, been very cold towards that segment of our population and people won't stand for it. They will come to define bigotry and hatred with our church.....and they wont necessarily be wrong if we don't change.

The priesthood restriction was not racist.

And teaching that homosexuality is a sin is not bigoted, hateful, homophobic, or straight supremacy. It's hateful if you call people names, bully them, or harass them, but declaring a sin a sin is sometimes necessary.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 3:57 pm And teaching that homosexuality is a sin is not bigoted, hateful, homophobic, or straight supremacy. It's hateful if you call people names, bully them, or harass them, but declaring a sin a sin is sometimes necessary.

I agree. Let's see if we can, in a respectful mature manner, tease this discussion out a bit further. We all know the concept of where much is given much is required etc. Lizzy, if i'm not confused on posters, has shared a couple times a story of a very faithful member friend who faced same sex attraction yet lived out her life chaste. I know other such cases within the church. These have my full sympathy and admiration and I am sure God has a great reward for them that we do not fully comprehend yet. There are others within the church that have light and knowledge but succumb to the natural man. These also have my sympathy and leave their situation to God. Within this light and knowledge I do not think we softpedal that some things are a sin yet we still deal with charity.

But what about the vast number of people who do not yet have are understanding and have not made covenants. How do we deal with them? Too often in times past they had no support from society and overreact with promiscuous lifestyles. But now within society many of them, not all, are finding a monogomous commited lifestyle. Is this not better till they learn more? how do we respond to that?

And at the very least we simply must get past the era of aggression and violence and belittling.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 3:40 pm

thestock wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 2:50 pm

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 2:44 pm Is it just me, or does it seem like half the time that Mormons are in the news it's for some iteration of this controversy on which the Church has still not changed its position. We literally hold the same position we've always held, and that every other church held till recently, but the newsmongers still feel like it's the defining trait of our religion and that the main reason to mention us is to talk about what bigots we are.

It reminds me of the obituary that the New York Times published for President Monson last year where the first sentence was a mention of the changes - ordaining women and approving same sex marriage - that liberals wanted but that he didn't make.

So his most noteworthy characteristic is that he did the same thing as every previous LDS president . . . and every Pope . . . and every Protestant leader up until half a century ago.

I really wish the media would start taking our religion more seriously and report the actual goings-on, rather than making more hay about a belief which, while it's unpopular with the world, has pretty-much stayed the same and therefore isn't news in the real sense of the word.

The world is changing and the Church and its institutions like BYU are getting left behind. Imagine if we stayed true to the racist doctrines? Can you even imagine what our church might look like today if we preached the racist teachings from the past and refused the Priesthood to black people still? I dont think the Church has much, if any, "changing" to do with regard to LGBT but they have historically, even recently, been very cold towards that segment of our population and people won't stand for it. They will come to define bigotry and hatred with our church.....and they wont necessarily be wrong if we don't change.

The priesthood restriction was not racist.

Try convincing anyone else of that, Bishop.

"The withholding of priesthood was BY's opinion mistakenly taken as doctrine."

So how many prophets after him continued the "opinion"?

Why didn't those prophets get revelation telling them it was a mistake?

Not sure how missionaries can tell people we are led by a prophet that gets revelation when it appears they don't.

Or do we just determine the opinions that turn out right to be revelation?

thestock wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 6:29 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 3:40 pm

thestock wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 2:50 pm

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 2:44 pm Is it just me, or does it seem like half the time that Mormons are in the news it's for some iteration of this controversy on which the Church has still not changed its position. We literally hold the same position we've always held, and that every other church held till recently, but the newsmongers still feel like it's the defining trait of our religion and that the main reason to mention us is to talk about what bigots we are.

It reminds me of the obituary that the New York Times published for President Monson last year where the first sentence was a mention of the changes - ordaining women and approving same sex marriage - that liberals wanted but that he didn't make.

So his most noteworthy characteristic is that he did the same thing as every previous LDS president . . . and every Pope . . . and every Protestant leader up until half a century ago.

I really wish the media would start taking our religion more seriously and report the actual goings-on, rather than making more hay about a belief which, while it's unpopular with the world, has pretty-much stayed the same and therefore isn't news in the real sense of the word.

The world is changing and the Church and its institutions like BYU are getting left behind. Imagine if we stayed true to the racist doctrines? Can you even imagine what our church might look like today if we preached the racist teachings from the past and refused the Priesthood to black people still? I dont think the Church has much, if any, "changing" to do with regard to LGBT but they have historically, even recently, been very cold towards that segment of our population and people won't stand for it. They will come to define bigotry and hatred with our church.....and they wont necessarily be wrong if we don't change.

The priesthood restriction was not racist.

Try convincing anyone else of that, Bishop.

I don't need to.
It wasn't racist and anyone who understaands the true nature of the restriction knows it.

You know, the goal of the powers-that-be is that in 20 years your daughter comes home and says she is engaged to a woman and you'll not even notice that it is a lesbian relationship.

Oh, and as for all the single men here who are dating, are you discriminating if you would not date a trans?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... X-PgHSZh6U

Get with the times folks.

This last conference the prophet told us to repent. I would think it is much harder to repent when you get before the entire world and declare that you are proud of your sin (or perhaps temptation in this case). Imagine - I'm a proud adulterous child of God, I'm a proud lustful son of God, I'm a proud bigoted child of God, I'm a proud racist...etc. And then to have the Saints cheer you on for it. This is not what repentance looks like to me. This was sickening. And to have this speech approved by BYU, turning a special day for many into a giant coming out party for his 15 minutes of fame, also sickening.

nvr wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 3:31 pm The withholding of priesthood was BY's opinion mistakenly taken as doctrine.

That's convenient. A little "philosophies of men mingled with scripture" eh? Does this excuse work for when I am wrong?

The counsel against homosexual activity goes back to the Old Testament. It is a perversion of the powers of procreation that are meant to be employed between a husband and wife. The fact that the world accepts this now does not mean God will change to accommodate the world, unless you believe He is a changeable God.

Agreed

Our attitude towards people dealing with this condition should be similar to how we treat anyone who battles a proclivity towards sin.

You're right...it should be. Unfortunately, our church has a culture of being very cold and dismissive of people with certain issues. Not just homosexuals. But also homosexuals. I cannot even imagine what it must be like to be a gay person trying to walk the path of a Latter-day Saint. Until this changes, you can expect the world to give our church the same treatment we give to homosexuals.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 12:34 am

thestock wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 6:29 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 3:40 pm

thestock wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 2:50 pm

The world is changing and the Church and its institutions like BYU are getting left behind. Imagine if we stayed true to the racist doctrines? Can you even imagine what our church might look like today if we preached the racist teachings from the past and refused the Priesthood to black people still? I dont think the Church has much, if any, "changing" to do with regard to LGBT but they have historically, even recently, been very cold towards that segment of our population and people won't stand for it. They will come to define bigotry and hatred with our church.....and they wont necessarily be wrong if we don't change.

The priesthood restriction was not racist.

Try convincing anyone else of that, Bishop.

I don't need to.
It wasn't racist and anyone who understaands the true nature of the restriction knows it.

Right. A small and insignificant fraction of the world's population has true understanding of a doctrine that claims black people rejected the Priesthood in the premortal existence and everyone else is just misguided. Sheesh....its comments like this that make the world justified in attacking us.

Fiannan wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 12:54 am Oh, and as for all the single men here who are dating, are you discriminating if you would not date a trans?

Get with the times folks.

I don't think the general membership of the church or even the general authorities really understand how difficult it is for single members of the church that follow the teachings of the church and the gospel of Jesus Christ to actually find members of the church that fully believe as well. SO many young members of the church don't believe a lot of the teaching of the church nowadays and a major point of disagreement is LGBT+. Too many single members of the church are being lead away by the teachings of the world that it is hard for gospel abiding members to get very good mate compatibility anymore. I've encountered too many single members of the church that are more than just sympathetic to the LGBT+ cause. Point in case, is this BYU incident where so many were clapping. I personally could not date any of those members that associate, promote, condone or applaud sinful actions as my moral ideals do not match theirs. I want to find an eternal companion that follows the teachings of Christ and are not swayed by the philosophies of man.

Three times in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord uses the phrase “beware of pride,” and I believe that in our day, this is a double meaning. I think what is even worse is how many people are prideful of their 'moral high ground' in the whole LGBT+ pride campaign. Even our leaders have been swayed by the peer pressure, so what do we expect of the youth if the leaders fall victim to pride?!

thestock wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:35 am

Our attitude towards people dealing with this condition should be similar to how we treat anyone who battles a proclivity towards sin.

You're right...it should be. Unfortunately, our church has a culture of being very cold and dismissive of people with certain issues. Not just homosexuals. But also homosexuals. I cannot even imagine what it must be like to be a gay person trying to walk the path of a Latter-day Saint. Until this changes, you can expect the world to give our church the same treatment we give to homosexuals.

I believe the church has already gone too far to accommodate those members that choose to be homosexual. God did not make anyone a homosexual as that would be against His plan of salvation for His children. Temptation, peer pressure and environment is what leads people to be homosexual which is why their campaign is to get the idea that homosexuality is normal into the culture of society.

“Beware of pride, lest ye become as the Nephites of old.” (D&C 38:39.)

Sunain wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:52 am I believe the church has already gone too far to accommodate those members that choose to be homosexual. God did not make anyone a homosexual as that would be against His plan of salvation for His children. Temptation, peer pressure and environment is what leads people to be homosexual which is why their campaign is to get the idea that homosexuality is normal into the culture of society.

“Beware of pride, lest ye become as the Nephites of old.” (D&C 38:39.)

Your opinion holds no credibility with me whatsoever when you issue statements like this. Why would anyone choose a life of isolation from parents, family, church, and where they get randomly beat up to the point of hospitalization as recently as the two decades ago? Seriously.....being gay in this country used to get you beat to a bloody pulp at times. Why would anyone choose that? If you think this struggle for people is their CHOICE.....then I have nothing more to say to you. Its a choice for them about as much as you thinking women with nice butts and a good chest are hot is a choice for you! That physical reaction you get in your body when you see those women....yeah...that's a choice for you.

[...]

thestock wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 7:02 am

Sunain wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:52 am I believe the church has already gone too far to accommodate those members that choose to be homosexual. God did not make anyone a homosexual as that would be against His plan of salvation for His children. Temptation, peer pressure and environment is what leads people to be homosexual which is why their campaign is to get the idea that homosexuality is normal into the culture of society.

“Beware of pride, lest ye become as the Nephites of old.” (D&C 38:39.)

Your opinion holds no credibility with me whatsoever when you issue statements like this. Why would anyone choose a life of isolation from parents, family, church, and where they get randomly beat up to the point of hospitalization as recently as the two decades ago? Seriously.....being gay in this country used to get you beat to a bloody pulp at times. Why would anyone choose that? If you think this struggle for people is their CHOICE.....then I have nothing more to say to you. Its a choice for them about as much as you thinking women with nice butts and a good chest are hot is a choice for you! That physical reaction you get in your body when you see those women....yeah...that's a choice for you.

Pathetic.

I'm also sorry that your opinion is deeply rooted in the deceitfulness of Satan that tempts Heavenly Fathers children to think that way. The Lord nor our Father in Heaven did not tell anyone to have a "life of isolation from parents, family, church, and where they get randomly beat up to the point of hospitalization" and those that do injure others are just as sinful and nothing I said condones those actions, so your misguided defense to discredit me is not appreciated. We all have the Light of Christ to know good from evil and those members of the church that have been confirmed also have the Holy Ghost which also guides us to know what is right. Our Heavenly Father made us attracted to the opposite sex and I will leave it at that.

I don't think the general membership of the church or even the general authorities really understand how difficult it is for single members of the church that follow the teachings of the church and the gospel of Jesus Christ to actually find members of the church that fully believe as well. SO many young members of the church don't believe a lot of the teaching of the church nowadays and a major point of disagreement is LGBT+. Too many single members of the church are being lead away by the teachings of the world that it is hard for gospel abiding members to get very good mate compatibility anymore. I've encountered too many single members of the church that are more than just sympathetic to the LGBT+ cause. Point in case, is this BYU incident where so many were clapping. I personally could not date any of those members that associate, promote, condone or applaud sinful actions as my moral ideals do not match theirs.

This is indeed a problem. Maybe we could break down single LDS women this way:

a) Personal rule followers, doctrinal rule followers, socially conservative

b) Personal rule followers, doctrinal rule followers, socially liberal

c) Socially liberal on rules (evaluates each on perceived social merit) doctrinal believers, socially conservative

d) Socially liberal on rules (evaluates each on perceived social merit) doctrinal believers, socially liberal

e) Liberal on all counts.

I realize there are sub-categories but overall the worse would be an "e" then followed by a "d" and then "b." With an "e" you may as well date a non-member. At least she might become more conservative. The "d" LDS woman would probably be extremely arrogant and undermining. The "b" would be naive and the only person she would judge harshly would be her husband. The "a" would be consistent and traditional, while the "c" would be more analytical but stronger in testimony when times might get rough.

There are many more single LDS women out there than men. Chose your one and only wisely.

Sunain wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 7:11 am

thestock wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 7:02 am

Sunain wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:52 am I believe the church has already gone too far to accommodate those members that choose to be homosexual. God did not make anyone a homosexual as that would be against His plan of salvation for His children. Temptation, peer pressure and environment is what leads people to be homosexual which is why their campaign is to get the idea that homosexuality is normal into the culture of society.

“Beware of pride, lest ye become as the Nephites of old.” (D&C 38:39.)

Your opinion holds no credibility with me whatsoever when you issue statements like this. Why would anyone choose a life of isolation from parents, family, church, and where they get randomly beat up to the point of hospitalization as recently as the two decades ago? Seriously.....being gay in this country used to get you beat to a bloody pulp at times. Why would anyone choose that? If you think this struggle for people is their CHOICE.....then I have nothing more to say to you. Its a choice for them about as much as you thinking women with nice butts and a good chest are hot is a choice for you! That physical reaction you get in your body when you see those women....yeah...that's a choice for you.

Pathetic.

I'm also sorry that your opinion is deeply rooted in the deceitfulness of Satan that tempts Heavenly Fathers children to think that way. The Lord nor our Father in Heaven did not tell anyone to have a "life of isolation from parents, family, church, and where they get randomly beat up to the point of hospitalization" and those that do injure others are just as sinful and nothing I said condones those actions, so your misguided defense to discredit me is not appreciated. We all have the Light of Christ to know good from evil and those members of the church that have been confirmed also have the Holy Ghost which also guides us to know what is right. Our Heavenly Father made us attracted to the opposite sex and I will leave it at that.

Right. Everyone is just like you, unless they are not, at which point they are deceived by Satan and clearly in the wrong....while you are in the right. Got it. That's a winning position, let me tell you. I am sure people are lining up to accept a gospel like that. Good luck with that.

thestock wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:37 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 12:34 am

thestock wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 6:29 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 3:40 pm

The priesthood restriction was not racist.

Try convincing anyone else of that, Bishop.

I don't need to.
It wasn't racist and anyone who understaands the true nature of the restriction knows it.

Right. A small and insignificant fraction of the world's population has true understanding of a doctrine that claims black people rejected the Priesthood in the premortal existence and everyone else is just misguided. Sheesh....its comments like this that make the world justified in attacking us.

If you don't mind me saying, you appear to be poorly informed.
That was a theory as to why the restriction was in place, but it wasn't the reason.
The reason for the restriction was because God required it at the time.

Personally, I think it is all tied up in the first shall be last and the last shall be first doctrine.

You do know, of course, that God has a history of being quite selective about who can hold his priesthood. The situation we have now, where everyone can, appears to be unique.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 8:34 am

thestock wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:37 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 12:34 am

thestock wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 6:29 pm

Try convincing anyone else of that, Bishop.

I don't need to.
It wasn't racist and anyone who understaands the true nature of the restriction knows it.

Right. A small and insignificant fraction of the world's population has true understanding of a doctrine that claims black people rejected the Priesthood in the premortal existence and everyone else is just misguided. Sheesh....its comments like this that make the world justified in attacking us.

If you don't mind me saying, you appear to be poorly informed.
That was a theory as to why the restriction was in place, but it wasn't the reason.
The reason for the restriction was because God required it at the time.

Personally, I think it is all tied up in the first shall be last and the last shall be first doctrine.

You do know, of course, that God has a history of being quite selective about who can hold his priesthood. The situation we have now, where everyone can, appears to be unique.

Bishop Hood. Forgive me but it is you who is poorly informed. Unless you think our latter-day Prophets and Apostles are in the business of throwing around theories in General Conference....then the below is DOCTRINE by APOSTLES and PROPHETS of the lord in our times.....and racist doctrine at that. But of course.....I guess this is the brand of "throw doctrines at the wall and see what sticks and blame us for speaking as 'men' when it doesnt work out" Mormonism that so many people seem to defend these days because reasonable defenses of this sort of racist crap just doesnt cut it.


I know of no scriptural basis for denying the Priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26); however, I believe, as you suggest that the real reason dates back to our pre-existent life. - David O. Mckay

Wonderful! Now is the preparatory state to prove your worthiness to obey God's commandments.....unless of course you are black. That just means you had some chance in the pre-mortal life that you screwed up!

There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits. - Joseph Fielding Smith

Yep. Thats not racist at all, Bishop Hood.

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we come here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less. -Joseph Fielding Smith

Again.....I am sure Joseph Fielding Smith had some grand vision of the pre-mortal life with God where all the black Spirits were in someway living and behaving so much more inferior than the white people. Yep, that has to be it. Nope, actually I dont believe that. I think Fielding Smith is "speaking as a man" again.....but thats ok in our Church right? Sometimes they are just men, right?

Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them.... Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned... Bruce R. McConkie

Nope, not racist at all. Also, under no circumstances CAN THEY HOLD the priesthood......I guess he was speaking as a man again because that all went down the drain in 1978.

I can go on and on. The sad fact is this is racist bullspit, and if you continue to push these teaching then you are teaching racist bullspit....and the world, and all its inhabitants who you claim to love and reach out to will reject you, as rightly they should, for your racist attitudes towards them and how inferior they must have been in another life, regardless of the fact that you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever of this aside from your feelings on the subject.....which like all other racists with racists feelings, makes you a racist if you do not change.

Was the doctrine that only men from the tribe of Levi could be made priests in the Old Testament a form of racism as well?

Sunain wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:52 am Three times in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord uses the phrase “beware of pride,” and I believe that in our day, this is a double meaning. I think what is even worse is how many people are prideful of their 'moral high ground' in the whole LGBT+ pride campaign. Even our leaders have been swayed by the peer pressure, so what do we expect of the youth if the leaders fall victim to pride?!

It seems to me that you are labeling people (including the leaders of the church) as prideful, yet it is you who comes off as prideful in this post. It is you that seems “prideful of your moral high ground”. I guess your morals are higher than those of Prophets and Apostles? I think not.

I believe the church has already gone too far to accommodate those members that choose to be homosexual. God did not make anyone a homosexual as that would be against His plan of salvation for His children. Temptation, peer pressure and environment is what leads people to be homosexual which is why their campaign is to get the idea that homosexuality is normal into the culture of society.

You can go on thinking that homosexuals choose their sexuality (when did you choose yours?) if you’d like. You can also believe in bigfoot and unicorns. Hey, it’s a free country. You can also believe that you know how God would or would not make a person, but I fear you’re walking on shaky ground if you think you know the mind of the Lord.