LDS Freedom Forum

i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 1:41 pm We need to set accurate expectations. We can't assume that just because an organization is owned by the church, it will therefore toe the line of the church. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't.

I am inclined to say that the solution to this problem isn't "more accurate expectations," but for the Church to stop owning organizations that don't share its values.

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 4:26 pm

i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 1:41 pm We need to set accurate expectations. We can't assume that just because an organization is owned by the church, it will therefore toe the line of the church. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't.

I am inclined to say that the solution to this problem isn't "more accurate expectations," but for the Church to stop owning organizations that don't share its values.

Sure. I mean, I'd be overjoyed if the church divested itself of organizations like BYU, KSL, LDS Living, etc.
In the comment you quoted, I'm more concerned with what we each can do to inoculate ourselves.

i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 4:39 pm In the comment you quoted, I'm more concerned with what we each can do to inoculate ourselves.

We've already been told what we can do and ought to be doing. It's written all over the Book of Mormon.

Chip wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 4:25 pm

RocknRoll wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 2:26 pm

Chip wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 2:11 pm

RocknRoll wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 1:57 pm I had never heard of LDS Living until now, but I just book marked it, and it will be one of the web sites I follow from here on.
Thanks for the heads up!

Yeah, typical disingenuous sodomite "friendly" banter. Always the same tone. Just like Rachel Maddow. Let's all just bet that the bible is of no consequence in our existence. It says whatever we want it to say. Because our perversions are NOT negotiable. Our vindication for doing that which is wrong will not be questioned. Nothing can stop us now! Forward, Soviet!!

Typical hate mongering speech. So now you’ve lowered yourself to name calling?

More shaming from you. Homosexuals are always shaming others, while they are engaged in the height of shameful acts, themselves. I've seen them doing this since the 1970's.

-------------
and they will blame others, and justify and defend themselves "to the death"

i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 4:39 pm

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 4:26 pm

i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 1:41 pm We need to set accurate expectations. We can't assume that just because an organization is owned by the church, it will therefore toe the line of the church. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't.

I am inclined to say that the solution to this problem isn't "more accurate expectations," but for the Church to stop owning organizations that don't share its values.

Sure. I mean, I'd be overjoyed if the church divested itself of organizations like BYU, KSL, LDS Living, etc.
In the comment you quoted, I'm more concerned with what we each can do to inoculate ourselves.

Understood. You're right that, for individuals like you and me, the best we can do is to be more cautious about what comes out of these Church-owned sources.

Obviously, you don't have to wait for this kind of event (or the laudatory Studio C coming-out they ran a few months ago) to know that LDS Living is a disaster. The simple banality of the common fare they put out - stuff like the "Who said it? Dieter or Dumbledore?" quiz, should alert you to a lack of intellectual substance or even basic piety in their magazine.

Perhaps LDS Living is the bottom rung as far as ecclesial authority goes, but it's still a part of the ladder. We should be asking ourselves how far up we can expect this sort of thinking to extend in coming years.

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 7:08 pm

i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 4:39 pm

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 4:26 pm

i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 1:41 pm We need to set accurate expectations. We can't assume that just because an organization is owned by the church, it will therefore toe the line of the church. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't.

I am inclined to say that the solution to this problem isn't "more accurate expectations," but for the Church to stop owning organizations that don't share its values.

Sure. I mean, I'd be overjoyed if the church divested itself of organizations like BYU, KSL, LDS Living, etc.
In the comment you quoted, I'm more concerned with what we each can do to inoculate ourselves.

Obviously, you don't have to wait for this kind of event (or the laudatory Studio C coming-out they ran a few months ago) to know that LDS Living is a disaster. The simple banality of the common fare they put out - stuff like the "Who said it? Dieter or Dumbledore?" quiz, should alert you to a lack of intellectual substance or even basic piety in their magazine.

They are just marketing to their audience-millennials.

Just like the Ensign is marketing to them to; I've noticed a dramatic decrease in the quality of Ensign articles. After subscribing to it for 20+ years we are dropping the Ensign, very little of substance and much of it reads like a modern pop-psychology with a spice of religion mixed in.

No thank you.

Fiannan wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 1:19 pm I got banned at LDS Newsroom and all I posted there were statements that were dealing with traditional values that I would easily have shared with people in a sacrament talk.

This LDS newsroom? http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/
... I don’t see anywhere to comment.

Or are you referring to a different newsroom?

"The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals". Talk given to the All-Church Coordinating Council Elder Boyd K. Packer
May 18, 1993http://lds-mormon.com/face.shtml
Like never before in modern times, the doctrines of men and women are not just creeping into the Church and the rest of Christianity, they are speedily advancing! Buckle seat belts, a sifting, a sifting to quote Heber C. Kimball is not coming, it is now here in a big way.

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 7:08 pm

i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 4:39 pm

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 4:26 pm

i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 1:41 pm We need to set accurate expectations. We can't assume that just because an organization is owned by the church, it will therefore toe the line of the church. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't.

I am inclined to say that the solution to this problem isn't "more accurate expectations," but for the Church to stop owning organizations that don't share its values.

Sure. I mean, I'd be overjoyed if the church divested itself of organizations like BYU, KSL, LDS Living, etc.
In the comment you quoted, I'm more concerned with what we each can do to inoculate ourselves.

Understood. You're right that, for individuals like you and me, the best we can do is to be more cautious about what comes out of these Church-owned sources.

Obviously, you don't have to wait for this kind of event (or the laudatory Studio C coming-out they ran a few months ago) to know that LDS Living is a disaster. The simple banality of the common fare they put out - stuff like the "Who said it? Dieter or Dumbledore?" quiz, should alert you to a lack of intellectual substance or even basic piety in their magazine.

Perhaps LDS Living is the bottom rung as far as ecclesial authority goes, but it's still a part of the ladder. We should be asking ourselves how far up we can expect this sort of thinking to extend in coming years.

For others like me who didn’t know about the “studio c coming out” story, and are just wondering what it was about, well, here is a relevant link. (On ldsliving, heh)

http://www.ldsliving.com/Studio-C-Membe ... th/s/89990

marc wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 4:47 pm

i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 4:39 pm In the comment you quoted, I'm more concerned with what we each can do to inoculate ourselves.

We've already been told what we can do and ought to be doing. It's written all over the Book of Mormon.

By all means, if anything I wrote contradicts what you learn in the Book of Mormon, ignore me and go with the Book of Mormon every time.

So I used to have some friends in the book publishing business so I’ve heard a couple of things about Sheri Dew. Apparently she has a really masculine personality and she’s super super type A, domineering, and has to wear the pants in any kind of relationship. She’s the complete opposite of the feminine kind quiet nice nurturing soft spoken ideal. She’s the kinda woman I couldn’t really imagine being a mother. I wonder what influence she has on the church.

ori wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 7:38 pm
For others like me who didn’t know about the “studio c coming out” story, and are just wondering what it was about, well, here is a relevant link. (On ldsliving, heh)

http://www.ldsliving.com/Studio-C-Membe ... th/s/89990

Thanks for posting that.

Here's something he said after talking about how he wrestled with it for awhile and in prayer:

"It was the sweetest feeling and it taught me that God expects me to be who he made me to be and expects me to develop myself and magnify who I am."

The guy who came out at BYU the other day said something similar.

This is why it's hard to support them. In all the "come out" things I've read from latter-day saints, I almost never, if ever, read where they talk about their same-sex attraction as a thorn of the flesh (something to be overcome through Christ...instead, it's always written in a way that suggests thinking of it as a thorn of the flesh is bad), and I almost never read where they affirm the law of chastity and their commitment to keep it. Why is that?
A same-sex attracted person who comes out while also saying these other things is someone I can throw my support behind, 100%.
When speak like their thorn is permanent, and they don't affirm truth, how on Earth am I supposed to support that? I can't while having any semblance of integrity. I mean, I don't have to turn and bully them. But neither can I support what they're doing or saying.

It would behoove us to avoid the "generalization" that a person is "Gay" if they experience same gender attraction. A distinction needs to be made . . . one is not the same as the other and, herein, lies the travesty and confusion. It is part of the "deception" agenda that is "self-condemning" when the potential is considered. A person is "gay" if they have acted upon their same gender attraction and not until.

Confession is a wonderful tool when used to unload a tremendous burden; however, the deception of "coming out" and receiving accolades of approval and support are very different in terms of marketing versus repenting and desiring change.
Of necessity, to unveil that which is hidden and causes shame, is liberating - but not in the context of forwarding an agenda and identifying with an "in your face" group of marketeers who would use that recognition of same gender attraction to leverage naive and innocent souls into "belonging" to their group. It is precisely this "marketing paradox" that sends the "insecure and uncomfortable" to the tipping point of self-condemnation. "Gay" coming out and "same sex attraction" admission are miles apart in terms of labels. One has crossed a line, the other has not and, indeed, is in need of great care and encouragement. Gays are "acting out," whereas, homophilias are being "acted upon" with the resulting "paradox" of belief (another name for "Trial of Faith") leading to self-condemnation and annihilation.

I can love an honest, human being with weaknesses, much more readily than I can someone who is in your face with their sins of "self-justified" commission. Again, the difference being that one cares and the other does not.

I’d only seen the magazine at dentist or doctors offices. I never thought much of it until about a couple years ago, I saw an article in the lds church magazine about several couples - one of them of 2 women - 1 who had transexual surgery and hormones. The magazine writer treated this dysfunctional couple the same as several man/woman couples. I thought, “Maybe this magazine just uses the church’s name” but I looked it up and saw the church affiliation.

Sometimes I wonder if the old men at the top are in their own little worlds and others pulling strings like this are happy to keep them oblivious. In that case - who’s actually running this church and all it’s empire? Or, maybe they know and are ok with it - and have some degree of mental illness when they act contrary to their stated values.

ori wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 7:29 pm

Fiannan wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 1:19 pm I got banned at LDS Newsroom and all I posted there were statements that were dealing with traditional values that I would easily have shared with people in a sacrament talk.

This LDS newsroom? http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/
... I don’t see anywhere to comment.

Or are you referring to a different newsroom?

Their facebook page. I think they recently changed the name to Church Newsroom. I can still read or share articles but cannot comment.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 12:16 pm And to be clear, Susie Augenstein and many others at Mormon Building Bridges and other pro-gay-marriage LDS groups, want nothing less than homosexual marriage sanctioned by the Church. They say the spiritual feelings they have when hearing and associating with LGBTQ couples has witnessed to them that God has ordained marriage between same-sex couples as well as man-woman.

They talk a lot about loving and not judging gays, but they are full of hate and vitriol for any church member or church leader who still claims same-sex relations are sinful.

They can judge us as bigots, haters, homophobes and straight supremacists, and responsible for beautiful children and youth committing suicide, but then tell us not to judge.

So incredibly sad.

I can't understand from your writing if you are pro same-sex marriage or against it? As far as the church stand on same-sex marriage, all we have to do is remember prop 8 in California. The church was behind supporting prop 8. the church and its members have not changed their position on same-sex marriage. We are against it.

As for this young man that got up as validectorian at byu and shared his attraction to men and there was some cheering there's no difference between sharing his attraction feelings and if someone got up in Sacrament and shared their attraction to porn. Is that something that we're supposed to cheer and be happy about. About the fact a person is sharing their trial, there difficulty in life? Why is being gay something to cheer about?

I certainly do not feel the same about BYU, as I did when I was a youth, it has surely lost some of its glory.

Here is a video about a homosexual lady trying to shame a Jewish guy with a MAGA at Starbucks, calling him a Nazi, then trying to figure out how to "get him fired". Well, she managed to get her own shameful butt fired:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb8uA97 ... e=youtu.be

evejaa wrote: ↑May 4th, 2019, 1:15 am I can't understand from your writing if you are pro same-sex marriage or against it? As far as the church stand on same-sex marriage, all we have to do is remember prop 8 in California. The church was behind supporting prop 8. the church and its members have not changed their position on same-sex marriage. We are against it.

As yes, Prop 8, where the opponents of same sex marriage got played for fools and did just what those promoting same sex wanted them to do and to this day don’t understand what happened to them.

gkearney wrote: ↑May 4th, 2019, 6:30 am As yes, Prop 8, where the opponents of same sex marriage got played for fools and did just what those promoting same sex wanted them to do and to this day don’t understand what happened to them.

Say what? What are you talking about? Can you please explain?

ori wrote: ↑May 4th, 2019, 6:34 am

gkearney wrote: ↑May 4th, 2019, 6:30 am As yes, Prop 8, where the opponents of same sex marriage got played for fools and did just what those promoting same sex wanted them to do and to this day don’t understand what happened to them.

Say what? What are you talking about? Can you please explain?

Provocation

ori wrote: ↑May 4th, 2019, 6:34 am

gkearney wrote: ↑May 4th, 2019, 6:30 am As yes, Prop 8, where the opponents of same sex marriage got played for fools and did just what those promoting same sex wanted them to do and to this day don’t understand what happened to them.

Say what? What are you talking about? Can you please explain?

I think it's somewhat like what happened soon after abortion was legalized. There were a few who felt so strongly against abortion that they tried, and sometimes succeeded in killing abortion doctors. Most people do not want to be associated with fanatics killing doctors, so this radical subset of protesters effectually shut the mouths of many people believing in the same thing, who were not so radicalized.

evejaa wrote: ↑May 4th, 2019, 1:15 am

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 12:16 pm And to be clear, Susie Augenstein and many others at Mormon Building Bridges and other pro-gay-marriage LDS groups, want nothing less than homosexual marriage sanctioned by the Church. They say the spiritual feelings they have when hearing and associating with LGBTQ couples has witnessed to them that God has ordained marriage between same-sex couples as well as man-woman.

They talk a lot about loving and not judging gays, but they are full of hate and vitriol for any church member or church leader who still claims same-sex relations are sinful.

They can judge us as bigots, haters, homophobes and straight supremacists, and responsible for beautiful children and youth committing suicide, but then tell us not to judge.

So incredibly sad.

I can't understand from your writing if you are pro same-sex marriage or against it? As far as the church stand on same-sex marriage, all we have to do is remember prop 8 in California. The church was behind supporting prop 8. the church and its members have not changed their position on same-sex marriage. We are against it.

As for this young man that got up as validectorian at byu and shared his attraction to men and there was some cheering there's no difference between sharing his attraction feelings and if someone got up in Sacrament and shared their attraction to porn. Is that something that we're supposed to cheer and be happy about. About the fact a person is sharing their trial, there difficulty in life? Why is being gay something to cheer about?

I certainly do not feel the same about BYU, as I did when I was a youth, it has surely lost some of its glory.

I thought my "so incredibly sad" comment (as well as my other posts) shows where I stand.
Prop 8 was over 10 years ago. The church has changed its official stance on so many things relating to same-sex-attraction and homosexuality since then that it's pretty much irrelevant at this point.

I thought my "so incredibly sad" comment (as well as my other posts) shows where I stand.
Prop 8 was over 10 years ago. The church has changed its official stance on so many things relating to same-sex-attraction and homosexuality since then that it's pretty much irrelevant at this point.

As I said earlier, as the number of single, never-to-marry, women increases, and with it bitterness, expect huge pushes for a more leftist-inclusive LDS Church.

ori wrote: ↑May 4th, 2019, 6:34 am

gkearney wrote: ↑May 4th, 2019, 6:30 am As yes, Prop 8, where the opponents of same sex marriage got played for fools and did just what those promoting same sex wanted them to do and to this day don’t understand what happened to them.

Say what? What are you talking about? Can you please explain?

The promoters of same sex marriage needed to find a way to tie up the efforts of those opposed to their cause in a time consuming and expensive effort, leaving you free to work a host of other states.
So they choose the biggest time and money pit there is, California. And the opponents played right along pouring money and efforts into California in the mistaken belief that somehow California was legally more important than say Iowa, or any other state which of course in our federal system it was not. So while the opponent threw everything they had at California those promoting the cause were the free to work all the other states be it in the court, the legislatures, or as in Maine by popular referendum. They knew all too well that to get the Supreme Court to rule in their favor they needed to flip as many states as possible. This would then invoke the full faith and credit clause one of their key legal arguments.
So they let California suck up all the energy. They knew it wouldn’t matter in the end. The opponents did just what was wanted wasting time, wasting money, wasting influence, all on a lost cause in California which would end up being meaninglessness. They were played for fools.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑May 4th, 2019, 6:50 am I think it's somewhat like what happened soon after abortion was legalized. There were a few who felt so strongly against abortion that they tried, and sometimes succeeded in killing abortion doctors. Most people do not want to be associated with fanatics killing doctors, so this radical subset of protesters effectually shut the mouths of many people believing in the same thing, who were not so radicalized.

As I recall, after Prop 8 passed, it was the LGBT side that went crazy with the vandalism and the death threats. They called it "mob veto."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_ ... supporters