LDS Freedom Forum

Don't follow the majority of the twelve or the records of the church. Follow God.

Gay marriage will not happen in the temples of God. Plenty will end up falling away from the church and letting their faith whither moving forward. There wont be a parrelel church formed that’s liberalized. Liberals are leaving churches and will continue to do so. They conduct their bloody rights in the halls of planned parenthood and consummate their deal with satan at their pride parades and ally dens. There won’t be a split because Christ through his prophet leads this church. The liberal members will continue to leave. Others will join the cause of Christ and the work will role forth.

Mindfields wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 7:08 pm Don't follow the majority of the twelve or the records of the church. Follow God.

Mindfields, a very good thought. I would just say that all truth will align for our good if we are humbly seeking. Line upon line God has returned and restored. What He will yet give will be built upon what has been revealed. It is good to learn both.

...or, The Family, A Proclamation to the World will be canonized as OD-3 and this thread will end.

Mindfields wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 7:08 pm Don't follow the majority of the twelve or the records of the church. Follow God.

When you follow the majority of the brethren, you are following God....they'll be following him.

Absolom wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 8:36 pm Gay marriage will not happen in the temples of God. Plenty will end up falling away from the church and letting their faith whither moving forward. There wont be a parrelel church formed that’s liberalized. Liberals are leaving churches and will continue to do so. They conduct their bloody rights in the halls of planned parenthood and consummate their deal with satan at their pride parades and ally dens. There won’t be a split because Christ through his prophet leads this church. The liberal members will continue to leave. Others will join the cause of Christ and the work will role forth.

Absolom, this is golden...

Isn't endorsing a gender phobia which results in long term relationships where the sexes are incompatible with biological reproduction, a war crime?

BKColt wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 9:47 pm ...or, The Family, A Proclamation to the World will be canonized as OD-3 and this thread will end.

That would be awesome . . .except it's been close to 25 years and it hasn't been canonized. No reason to think now it would be-especially considering the discord on it has grown by leaps and bounds.

gkearney wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 4:57 pm

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 3:09 pm

Benaishtart wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 1:53 pm Let’s just say that the church goes off the deep end and starts sealing gays and having women hold priesthood keys and yada yada yada. What happens? Will a mighty and strong man rise up? Will the church split. Would the liberal church retain all of the legally incorporated assets. Would the conservative/charismatic church not have any resources? What about globally, most places outside of the US I assume church members would be more conservative. Would you have competing priesthood hierarchies all of the sudden and would the saints be at war amongst themselves? Or would it be a wheat and tares where all the liberals will be owned and destroyed by tribulations. Or would the charismatic mighty and strong guy just do miracles and convince everyone that he’s right? Or would it be even more complicated with anti-Christ figures. I really hope it doesn’t come down to this.

The church will never marry gay couples. Where does this come from?

Likely from the same place as "the church will never abandon plural marriage" did in the 1890's

It's terrible logic to assume that because it backtracked on one thing they must certainly do on all other accounts.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 3:59 pm

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 3:09 pm

Benaishtart wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 1:53 pm Let’s just say that the church goes off the deep end and starts sealing gays and having women hold priesthood keys and yada yada yada. What happens? Will a mighty and strong man rise up? Will the church split. Would the liberal church retain all of the legally incorporated assets. Would the conservative/charismatic church not have any resources? What about globally, most places outside of the US I assume church members would be more conservative. Would you have competing priesthood hierarchies all of the sudden and would the saints be at war amongst themselves? Or would it be a wheat and tares where all the liberals will be owned and destroyed by tribulations. Or would the charismatic mighty and strong guy just do miracles and convince everyone that he’s right? Or would it be even more complicated with anti-Christ figures. I really hope it doesn’t come down to this.

The church will never marry gay couples. Where does this come from?

The first thing that will happen is that the Church will announce that, because of the Equality Laws, they will no longer consider gay marriage (civil) a sin or transgression, and gay married Mormons will have full fellowship as church members, except they won't be sealed. When people get used to that, sealings will happen, unless the Zombie Apocalypse comes first.

Baloney.

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 9th, 2019, 7:20 am

gkearney wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 4:57 pm

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 3:09 pm

Benaishtart wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 1:53 pm Let’s just say that the church goes off the deep end and starts sealing gays and having women hold priesthood keys and yada yada yada. What happens? Will a mighty and strong man rise up? Will the church split. Would the liberal church retain all of the legally incorporated assets. Would the conservative/charismatic church not have any resources? What about globally, most places outside of the US I assume church members would be more conservative. Would you have competing priesthood hierarchies all of the sudden and would the saints be at war amongst themselves? Or would it be a wheat and tares where all the liberals will be owned and destroyed by tribulations. Or would the charismatic mighty and strong guy just do miracles and convince everyone that he’s right? Or would it be even more complicated with anti-Christ figures. I really hope it doesn’t come down to this.

The church will never marry gay couples. Where does this come from?

Likely from the same place as "the church will never abandon plural marriage" did in the 1890's

It's terrible logic to assume that because it backtracked on one thing they must certainly do on all other accounts.

I agree it is terrible logic; except when you consider the circumstances as to why the Church abandoned polygamy in 1890 . . .b/c of the government. The Church wanted to become a State and become part of the United States, in order to do so it had to give up polygamy. So it did.

Same will happen with homosexuality.

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 9th, 2019, 7:20 am

gkearney wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 4:57 pm

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 3:09 pm The church will never marry gay couples. Where does this come from?

Likely from the same place as "the church will never abandon plural marriage" did in the 1890's

It's terrible logic to assume that because it backtracked on one thing they must certainly do on all other accounts.

Not all other accounts, only the ones where outside pressure is great enough, like it was in 1890 and 1978. And the 1978 change took less pressure - it seems that yielding on one thing sets a precedent and softens you up for the next one.

Taking a stance against racial equality, and then abandoning it when it became too unpopular, left the Brethren's authority with a self-inflicted wound that isn't going away. It is very easy for pro-LGBT Mormons to draw parallels with what is happening to them now and what happened to blacks in the '60s and '70s. And a lot of the leadership (not the Q15 yet, that I'm aware of, but it is working its way up the ladder) is buying into the narrative.

And don't forget that the internal pressure is more intense this time around. You did not, for instance, have any middle-aged TBMs becoming disillusioned with the Church in the '70s because one day they wake up and find out that their teenage kid is black...

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑May 9th, 2019, 7:30 am

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 9th, 2019, 7:20 am

gkearney wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 4:57 pm

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 3:09 pm The church will never marry gay couples. Where does this come from?

Likely from the same place as "the church will never abandon plural marriage" did in the 1890's

It's terrible logic to assume that because it backtracked on one thing they must certainly do on all other accounts.

Not all other accounts, only the ones where outside pressure is great enough, like it was in 1890 and 1978. And the 1978 change took less pressure - it seems that yielding on one thing sets a precedent and softens you up for the next one.

Taking a stance against racial equality, and then abandoning it when it became too unpopular, left the Brethren's authority with a self-inflicted wound that isn't going away. It is very easy for pro-LGBT Mormons to draw parallels with what is happening to them now and what happened to blacks in the '60s and '70s. And a lot of the leadership (not the Q15 yet, that I'm aware of, but it is working its way up the ladder) is buying into the narrative.

And don't forget that the internal pressure is more intense this time around. You did not, for instance, have any middle-aged TBMs becoming disillusioned with the Church in the '70s because one day they wake up and find out that their teenage kid is black...

It's just not true that a lot of "the leadership" are buying into it. That's a complete lie.

dezNatDefender wrote: ↑May 9th, 2019, 7:27 am

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 9th, 2019, 7:20 am

gkearney wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 4:57 pm

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 3:09 pm

The church will never marry gay couples. Where does this come from?

Likely from the same place as "the church will never abandon plural marriage" did in the 1890's

It's terrible logic to assume that because it backtracked on one thing they must certainly do on all other accounts.

I agree it is terrible logic; except when you consider the circumstances as to why the Church abandoned polygamy in 1890 . . .b/c of the government. The Church wanted to become a State and become part of the United States, in order to do so it had to give up polygamy. So it did.

Same will happen with homosexuality.

No, completely different issue.

There is a precedent for monogomy (Book of Jacob, The Gospels, the Pauline Letters)
There is a precedent for a Priestesshood in the scriptures (Deborah in the Old Testament, Junia in Romans, Possibly the sister of Moses).
There is a precedent of the priesthood being extended (Only the sons of Aaron extended to all Levites, the Gospel in general being just for the Jews then extended to the Gentiles.)

There is no precedent, there is no reason, there is NOTHING that indicates that the Lord will ever accept homosexuality, pedophilia, etc. This is why same-sex marriage, or God forbid sealings will never occur. If the church accepts homosexuality then the church as we know it will be in apostasy. Everything the church has done thus far has precedent, acceptance of homosexuality has NO precedent.

Before the test of this hypothetical is carried out with gay sealing it is far more likely, to me anyway, that we will face the issue of woman’s ordination.

It is my impression that this issue would be no where’s near as divisive as the sealing of gays would be. We would see a few leave but it seems to me we would not see the kind of parallel church structures like we saw develop in the period following the death of Joseph Smith or the abandonment of plural marriage but I could be wrong in that.

gigarath24 wrote: ↑May 9th, 2019, 7:43 am There is a precedent for monogomy (Book of Jacob, The Gospels, the Pauline Letters)
There is a precedent for a Priestesshood in the scriptures (Deborah in the Old Testament, Junia in Romans, Possibly the sister of Moses).
There is a precedent of the priesthood being extended (Only the sons of Aaron extended to all Levites, the Gospel in general being just for the Jews then extended to the Gentiles.)

There is no precedent, there is no reason, there is NOTHING that indicates that the Lord will ever accept homosexuality, pedophilia, etc. This is why same-sex marriage, or God forbid sealings will never occur. If the church accepts homosexuality then the church as we know it will be in apostasy. Everything the church has done thus far has precedent, acceptance of homosexuality has NO precedent.

"accepting homosexuality" is exactly the phrase that is problematic. I have yet to hear a reasonable answer from the forum on how we are to handle our beloved LGBTQ brothers and sisters. There is a lot of vile name calling. But at sunday dinner, family reunions, hallways of the church and temples, etc how are we to treat them. The one thing we know for sure is how the Lord will eventually treat them. They will be saved by the Atonement and granted a kingdom of glory that surpasses all understanding. That is simply what the scriptures, namely DC 76, clearly teaches.

gigarath24 wrote: ↑May 9th, 2019, 7:43 am There is a precedent for monogomy (Book of Jacob, The Gospels, the Pauline Letters)
There is a precedent for a Priestesshood in the scriptures (Deborah in the Old Testament, Junia in Romans, Possibly the sister of Moses).
There is a precedent of the priesthood being extended (Only the sons of Aaron extended to all Levites, the Gospel in general being just for the Jews then extended to the Gentiles.)

There is no precedent, there is no reason, there is NOTHING that indicates that the Lord will ever accept homosexuality, pedophilia, etc. This is why same-sex marriage, or God forbid sealings will never occur. If the church accepts homosexuality then the church as we know it will be in apostasy. Everything the church has done thus far has precedent, acceptance of homosexuality has NO precedent.

To the bold, not there is not. People really need to understand the scriptures better. We don't know if Junia was even female. But if Junia was the only verse says that "Junia was of note among the apostles". Ever single translation, renders that to mean Junia was known to the apostles, not that she was an apostle.

In the old testament, the word prophet is used quite liberally. Basically anyone who had any modicum of spiritual ability was labeled a prophet. When you read the account of David or in Chronicles prophets are all over the place, at one point there was a group of about 400 prophets. David hide among prophets. A prophet was anyone who had a vision, or anyone who prophesied, a prophesy is simply a prediction one has that one claims is from God, i.e. a prediction from God. Of course using that definition (which is the definition the OT uses) women could be prophetesses. Plenty of women today are prophetesses, i.e. they predict things based upon a revelation from God.

That's not the same thing as Priesthood. No recorded instances of women holding the Priesthood, absolutely none. No recorded instances of women officiating in Priesthood ordinances, absolutely none.

To your second paragraph, you haven't read "Papa" Olslers theological groundwork. You haven't read the LGBTQ+ members who are laying a theological justification based upon OT, NT, BoM to allow homosexuality.

If you want to defeat your enemy, you need to know what they think and just saying "it's not gonna happen" isn't going to work to defeat the enemy.

justme wrote: ↑May 9th, 2019, 7:51 am

gigarath24 wrote: ↑May 9th, 2019, 7:43 am There is a precedent for monogomy (Book of Jacob, The Gospels, the Pauline Letters)
There is a precedent for a Priestesshood in the scriptures (Deborah in the Old Testament, Junia in Romans, Possibly the sister of Moses).
There is a precedent of the priesthood being extended (Only the sons of Aaron extended to all Levites, the Gospel in general being just for the Jews then extended to the Gentiles.)

There is no precedent, there is no reason, there is NOTHING that indicates that the Lord will ever accept homosexuality, pedophilia, etc. This is why same-sex marriage, or God forbid sealings will never occur. If the church accepts homosexuality then the church as we know it will be in apostasy. Everything the church has done thus far has precedent, acceptance of homosexuality has NO precedent.

There is a lot of vile name calling. But at sunday dinner, family reunions, hallways of the church and temples, etc how are we to treat them. The one thing we know for sure is how the Lord will eventually treat them. They will be saved by the Atonement and granted a kingdom of glory that surpasses all understanding.

Really "vile name callling" . . .hate speech I guess.

Saved by the Atonement? They don't believe they are doing anything wrong. You can't be saved if you believe what you are doing is right.

gkearney wrote: ↑May 9th, 2019, 7:49 am Before the test of this hypothetical is carried out with gay sealing it is far more likely, to me anyway, that we will face the issue of woman’s ordination.

Once woman's ordination happens, the Church is dead. Homosexuality will come quite quickly afterwards.

justme wrote: ↑May 9th, 2019, 7:51 am

gigarath24 wrote: ↑May 9th, 2019, 7:43 am There is a precedent for monogomy (Book of Jacob, The Gospels, the Pauline Letters)
There is a precedent for a Priestesshood in the scriptures (Deborah in the Old Testament, Junia in Romans, Possibly the sister of Moses).
There is a precedent of the priesthood being extended (Only the sons of Aaron extended to all Levites, the Gospel in general being just for the Jews then extended to the Gentiles.)

There is no precedent, there is no reason, there is NOTHING that indicates that the Lord will ever accept homosexuality, pedophilia, etc. This is why same-sex marriage, or God forbid sealings will never occur. If the church accepts homosexuality then the church as we know it will be in apostasy. Everything the church has done thus far has precedent, acceptance of homosexuality has NO precedent.

"accepting homosexuality" is exactly the phrase that is problematic. I have yet to hear a reasonable answer from the forum on how we are to handle our beloved LGBTQ brothers and sisters. There is a lot of vile name calling. But at sunday dinner, family reunions, hallways of the church and temples, etc how are we to treat them. The one thing we know for sure is how the Lord will eventually treat them. They will be saved by the Atonement and granted a kingdom of glory that surpasses all understanding. That is simply what the scriptures, namely DC 76, clearly teaches.

On the saved condition of man in his perfected resurrected state, there won't be any homosexual people saved.

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 9th, 2019, 8:12 am

justme wrote: ↑May 9th, 2019, 7:51 am

gigarath24 wrote: ↑May 9th, 2019, 7:43 am There is a precedent for monogomy (Book of Jacob, The Gospels, the Pauline Letters)
There is a precedent for a Priestesshood in the scriptures (Deborah in the Old Testament, Junia in Romans, Possibly the sister of Moses).
There is a precedent of the priesthood being extended (Only the sons of Aaron extended to all Levites, the Gospel in general being just for the Jews then extended to the Gentiles.)

There is no precedent, there is no reason, there is NOTHING that indicates that the Lord will ever accept homosexuality, pedophilia, etc. This is why same-sex marriage, or God forbid sealings will never occur. If the church accepts homosexuality then the church as we know it will be in apostasy. Everything the church has done thus far has precedent, acceptance of homosexuality has NO precedent.

"accepting homosexuality" is exactly the phrase that is problematic. I have yet to hear a reasonable answer from the forum on how we are to handle our beloved LGBTQ brothers and sisters. There is a lot of vile name calling. But at sunday dinner, family reunions, hallways of the church and temples, etc how are we to treat them. The one thing we know for sure is how the Lord will eventually treat them. They will be saved by the Atonement and granted a kingdom of glory that surpasses all understanding. That is simply what the scriptures, namely DC 76, clearly teaches.

On the saved condition of man in his perfected resurrected state, there won't be any homosexual people saved.

Wrong. Unless you reject the scriptures.

There is so much apostasy on this thread and forum. Maybe it is time to change the name of the forum.

I wish there was another forum with so much ease of communication but where the people actually believed. Any suggestions?

Absolom wrote: ↑May 8th, 2019, 8:36 pm Gay marriage will not happen in the temples of God. Plenty will end up falling away from the church and letting their faith whither moving forward. There wont be a parrelel church formed that’s liberalized. Liberals are leaving churches and will continue to do so. They conduct their bloody rights in the halls of planned parenthood and consummate their deal with satan at their pride parades and ally dens. There won’t be a split because Christ through his prophet leads this church. The liberal members will continue to leave. Others will join the cause of Christ and the work will role forth.

You’re right, gay marriage will probably never happen in the temples. I also believe it won’t be long (maybe a few more years) before NO marriages will be performed in temples. Only sealings. And I for one, don’t have a problem with that for various reasons.

justme wrote: ↑May 9th, 2019, 8:36 am There is so much apostasy on this thread and forum. Maybe it is time to change the name of the forum.

I wish there was another forum with so much ease of communication but where the people actually believed. Any suggestions?

Google is your friend.

I enjoy discussing these issues and I enjoy discussing them with you. I'm glad the forum isn't an echo-chamber it would make it real boring.