Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
DId you laugh or even applaud like all the other priesthood holders listening to that talk that day?Are we talking using appropriate physical force to fight off an attack? Then yes. If he had made a pass then I think there a better ways to handle it. That was not the way we understood the Packer story back in the day.
Not so, because Joseph Smith restored true church government as a “theodemocracy” but after his martyrdom Brigham Young changed it to an “autocracy.” It is because of this change that non-members describe Mormonism as a “cult.” Church leaders can deny this until the cows come home but it will never convince the world until proper church government is again restored as a “theodemocracy.” This is a major reason the church has gone apostate! This is a major reason homosexuality has found inroads into the church due to the unilateral decision making of one man—the prophet. But under a “theodemocracy” the people have veto power over the prophet through the “law of common consent” (D&C 26:2; 28:13) If the members (the voice of the people) of the church had the final word on church policy and doctrine as it should be (I Cor. 14:32) we wouldn’t be haggling over the issue of homosexuality in the church today—the people would have the final say in the matter because “it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right.” (Mosiah 29:26) This change in church government is the reason D&C 85:7 tells us “one strong and mighty” will come “to set the house of God in order.” In order “to set the house of God in order” it follows that it must presently be out of order, right?jsk wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 5:50 amSo true...the Church is not a democracy.Mahalanobis Distance wrote: ↑June 30th, 2019, 7:16 pmIf there is to be a schism as suggested by Aprhys, this is the reason. If the message being sent from the top->down is that activist groups, lobbying, and media pressure are the recipe to steering the church, then that is what will happen. Galatians 6:7: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
I have personally battled with this. If I put my time, talents, and resources towards putting pressure on the church, I can't in good conscience stand before my Lord unless I am called by Him specifically to put pressure on the Church. I am quite certain I would bring damnation upon my soul. It boggles my mind that this thought has never occurred to these activist types.
Yes, labels are important, especially the labels we give ourselves. That's why I disagree with the official Church stance that young people can "come out" as gay and lesbian, and as long as they don't "act" on it, they can have every blessing and opportunity in the Church. "Coming out" IS acting on it, at least emotionally. They are parading their unrighteous and unhealthy desires as something fine and noble, and as part of the "perfect" way that God made them. There is so much false doctrine there, I feel like I need a shower.
Why is Tom instructing bishops and stake presidents, and not a GA??Lizzy60 wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 9:59 am https://mormonandgay.churchofjesuschris ... 0&lang=eng
In this 48 second video, Elder Christofferson states that a person who is dealing with same-sex attraction, but is living the law of chastity and the other teachings of the gospel, may participate fully in the Church. They may hold callings, go to the temple, and have ALL the opportunities given to any member of the Church. "All the opportunities and blessings will be available to them."
At the Affirmation conference, his gay brother Tom specified to Bishops and Stake Presidents that this includes full-time missions.
No. There would be no need to hoot and laugh, but a missionary should feel safe and understood. Obviously, the missionary was not hooting and laughing at being able to hit his homosexual companion. There is absolutely no reason a missionary should have another missionary even make a pass. If you're in a gay bar, you should expect it. If you're at the train station, it might happen. If you're on a mission, and a missionary does that, it completely disrupts that.Fiannan wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 11:49 am I wonder what the context of the missionary and President Packer's comments. In my own life I have had some pretty aggressive come-ons by gay men. Only once did I have to make a threat because of the nature of the advance, but in all the rest I merely said I was not interested. Was the missionary subjected to an aggressive come-on or just a mild statement of interest? Naturally that would change the context.
I've wondered that myself and I think that's one of the areas where the church really does need to update. However, what's the alternative? The LAST thing you'd want to do is put two homosexuals together. It'd be a free for all in perversion. And if a straight missionary got wind of his partners preference, would the straight one be admonished or chastised if he raised a fuss about being paired with someone who had perverted desires?MMbelieve wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 6:49 amI don’t understand how a missionary identifying as gay can even live with a companion of the same sex and be considered temple worthy. Isint that the same as an unmarried man and woman cohabitating? If your sexual attraction is such that you are driven to your own sex then it shouldn’t be allowed. Basically, they are then getting a free pass. So maybe another thing to change would be the cohabitation guidelines lifted?Lizzy60 wrote: ↑June 30th, 2019, 7:17 pm There are already antagonists of the Church who spread rumors that some Elders are having gay sex, based on the fact that they are living with each other, and are at an age that hormones are raging. Now we will have Elders telling other people they are homosexuals.......what non-member is going to believe they are chaste? What an unholy mess.
I agree there will be a schism/split in the Church, and one side will have sealings for gay couples, maybe in a temple they have built, or taken over.
No idea but in todays world (gay pride everywhere), I would not want to have to live with a companion who was gay. I would feel weird about it and wouldn’t care what any leader decided to say in return. You just couldnt be as comfortable at your home as you should be allowed to without possibly causing a temptation to your companion. Would smiling, being emotionally supportive or being extra kind be considered flirting? It wouldnt be easy to navigate depending on the personalty of your companion.tdj wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 1:08 pmI've wondered that myself and I think that's one of the areas where the church really does need to update. However, what's the alternative? The LAST thing you'd want to do is put two homosexuals together. It'd be a free for all in perversion. And if a straight missionary got wind of his partners preference, would the straight one be admonished or chastised if he raised a fuss about being paired with someone who had perverted desires?MMbelieve wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 6:49 amI don’t understand how a missionary identifying as gay can even live with a companion of the same sex and be considered temple worthy. Isint that the same as an unmarried man and woman cohabitating? If your sexual attraction is such that you are driven to your own sex then it shouldn’t be allowed. Basically, they are then getting a free pass. So maybe another thing to change would be the cohabitation guidelines lifted?Lizzy60 wrote: ↑June 30th, 2019, 7:17 pm There are already antagonists of the Church who spread rumors that some Elders are having gay sex, based on the fact that they are living with each other, and are at an age that hormones are raging. Now we will have Elders telling other people they are homosexuals.......what non-member is going to believe they are chaste? What an unholy mess.
I agree there will be a schism/split in the Church, and one side will have sealings for gay couples, maybe in a temple they have built, or taken over.
If they aren't practicing homosexuals and aren't promoting it as a lifestyle, then why shouldn't they be able to fully participate in church activities? If the only people allowed to participate in the Church were those who are perfect and who never sin and who never have evil thoughts, it would be mighty lonely. Now if they are actively living it and promoting it, that is a different matter.Lizzy60 wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 9:59 am https://mormonandgay.churchofjesuschris ... 0&lang=eng
In this 48 second video, Elder Christofferson states that a person who is dealing with same-sex attraction, but is living the law of chastity and the other teachings of the gospel, may participate fully in the Church. They may hold callings, go to the temple, and have ALL the opportunities given to any member of the Church. "All the opportunities and blessings will be available to them."
At the Affirmation conference, his gay brother Tom specified to Bishops and Stake Presidents that this includes full-time missions.
A rare voice of reason. If you're LDS and are actively promoting your gay lifestyle, no way I want you teaching SS to the youth, for example. If you are attracted to the same sex and keep your covenants, I see no good reason to exclude you from fellowship, etc.jsk wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 1:46 pmIf they aren't practicing homosexuals and aren't promoting it as a lifestyle, then why shouldn't they be able to fully participate in church activities? If the only people allowed to participate in the Church were those who are perfect and who never sin and who never have evil thoughts, it would be mighty lonely. Now if they are actively living it and promoting it, that is a different matter.Lizzy60 wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 9:59 am https://mormonandgay.churchofjesuschris ... 0&lang=eng
In this 48 second video, Elder Christofferson states that a person who is dealing with same-sex attraction, but is living the law of chastity and the other teachings of the gospel, may participate fully in the Church. They may hold callings, go to the temple, and have ALL the opportunities given to any member of the Church. "All the opportunities and blessings will be available to them."
At the Affirmation conference, his gay brother Tom specified to Bishops and Stake Presidents that this includes full-time missions.
If they aren't acting on it, and they aren't promoting the lifestyle, why do they need to announce their homosexuality to their friends, families, and church leaders? Labeling oneself as a homosexual is a giant step toward embracing the lifestyle.jsk wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 1:46 pmIf they aren't practicing homosexuals and aren't promoting it as a lifestyle, then why shouldn't they be able to fully participate in church activities? If the only people allowed to participate in the Church were those who are perfect and who never sin and who never have evil thoughts, it would be mighty lonely. Now if they are actively living it and promoting it, that is a different matter.Lizzy60 wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 9:59 am https://mormonandgay.churchofjesuschris ... 0&lang=eng
In this 48 second video, Elder Christofferson states that a person who is dealing with same-sex attraction, but is living the law of chastity and the other teachings of the gospel, may participate fully in the Church. They may hold callings, go to the temple, and have ALL the opportunities given to any member of the Church. "All the opportunities and blessings will be available to them."
At the Affirmation conference, his gay brother Tom specified to Bishops and Stake Presidents that this includes full-time missions.
Galatians 5:
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
As for verses 22 and 23: it's worth pointing out that it's a one-way arrow.BruceRGilbert wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 3:41 pmGalatians 5:
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
I agree with much of your post. If you have homosexual tendencies but intend to keep your covenants and the commandments, you don't announce to the world that you're gay. Making an announcement or promoting it is a half-step removed from embracing it and ditching the commandments. Also completely agree that the gay lobby is going to get even more powerful and blood thirsty for compliance, acceptance, or at minimum acquiescence. Also completely agree that families are being splintered b/c some people are embracing the world's sinful view on gay behavior at the expense of what God teaches, therefore causing divisions in families.mike_rumble wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 2:19 pm You don't see people standing up and declaring themselves as non-practicing adulterers, or non-practicing murderers or non-practicing [insert sin of choice here]. If you identify with a group of people who DO practice that sin, then you partake of their sin, in a sense. You can support those who do commit a particular sin, either by speaking on their behalf, or marching in their parades but as long as you don't get caught in the actual act itself, then everythings good? I don't think so. A follower of Christ should identify wilth Christ, not with a former or currently inactive sinful lifestyle. Jesus did meet with sinners, but he was not their friend. He died for his friends, his disciples and those who would follow him in later times. We have to choose who we will follow, either Christ or the world but it can't be both.
To the parents of adult children who are homosexual or identify with being homosexual, I can only say that it would be a very difficult situation. But, we are not left without knowing the right choice. Jesus put it strongly when he said -
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethern, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
There are terrible times coming upon us, especially upon the next generation. Not only will the Church be broken into pieces, but so will our families. Get ready for it to happen. I've said it before, but it's worth saying again; if you do not accept the new morality that is being pushed by our government, our schools, our churches and our "friends", then that little grandchild you now hold in your arms, will be the same grandchild that will call your a hater and a bigot to your face, and if there are laws in place against your "hate speech" they won't hesitate to report you to those who enforce those laws. You will lose your families, your jobs and your property and your freedom in some cases.
I don't understand how members of our Church can just shrug and say all is well in Zion, the Prophet has it under control, don't worry. To me it's a no brainer. Look around at other churches and institutions. They have taken the same path our Church is starting to walk. The end is quite predictable to anyone with open eyes.
I respect the viewpoint that even voicing support of any kind is unpalatable. I really do. It’s my faith in the leaders of the church and the fact that God is at its head that helps me overcome my reticence to accept that approach. Your swingers comparison isn’t analogous for reasons that should be obvious.mike_rumble wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 6:32 pm I'm sorry, but when the Church leadership issues a statement supporting some homosexual event (I know you said "gay event" but I won't use a term that was hijacked by those who want to hide their sin and make even the speaking of it more palatable to our ears), they certainly are on the path to accepting such behaviour. Perhaps we need some events that will bring us together with other specific sinful groups. There are social events held by adulterers (swingers). Why doesn't the Church take part in those kinds of gatherings. After all, we do need to come together on common ground. I just think that supporting group events by sinners who want to celebrate and take pride in their sin is not the way to go.
But how will that appear? Two missionaries of the opposite sex living together and doing every together—and not married.Fiannan wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 10:27 am Maybe we could designate certain missions as same-sex in regards to missionaries and sisters who are lesbian, or young men who are gay, could be paired off as companions so as to avoid situations where non-gay missionaries might feel uncomfortable sharing apartments with a gay companion.
I know at least one. But wait — the one I know is actually not gay — that is, he does not accept the label of “Gay” but he does suffer from same-sex attraction. He struggle with it but doesn’t give up. He’s married to a woman and has children and I think he is a sincere follower of Christ.
It will happen, here's why. The brethren had the chance to extract the church out of the mess they are in before prop 8. If they would have stopped all marriages worldwide by church leaders and gone to "sealings" only before prop 8 they would not be under pressure from the IRS to perform marriages for gays. Let the government own marriages and let the church keep ordinances.Mahalanobis Distance wrote: ↑June 30th, 2019, 7:25 pmI haven't yet decided if I agree with this prediction, but if you are right, I have one question: Do you think there will be a survey between now and then? (I'm not trying to be sarcastic - truly, I'm wondering how to strategize a common group response that can't be dismissed as "hateful" by CoB employees).Aprhys wrote: ↑June 30th, 2019, 6:49 pm I have said it before and I will say it again. This homosexual agenda is this schism that will separate the church into differing factions. Mark my words that within 15 years you will see homosexuals sealed in the holy temples. My SIL has a son who is gay. Five years ago she was against the whole gay agenda until her son came out. Now she is extremely vocal and wont rest until her son and his "husband" can be sealed in the temple. Sadly, she isn't alone.