LDS Freedom Forum

And I respect wanting to have faith in the leaders of God's Church, but I don't see how this kind of faith in leadership differs from that of hard line catholics who stand with the pope no matter what, because they believe their church has God as its head. There are Scriptures that tell us in no uncertain terms not to place our trust in men, and others have posted here with quotes from Joseph Smith and Brigham Young also saying the same thing. I really hope you're not saying that our Prophet is infallible or that he is infallible only when speaking as a prophet, because that, too, is exactly how the catholics view their church leader.
Joseph Smith talked about their being only two churches, one of God and one of the devil. In the 1800's everyone knew what church of the devil he was talking about, so it surprises me all the time to see just how much in the last 150 years or so that the LDS Church has come to resemble that other church. Somewhere along the way, like that other church, we have come to think of faith in Christ as being the same as faith in the Church, which it is not. When I was baptised, I was not baptised into a church but into Christ, and that's where my faith is directed. Sadly, I have found that more is talked about the Church than about Christ, at least in the meetings I've attended.
If history has taught us anything over the last 6000 years, especially when it comes to having faith, is that having faith in man rather than God never ends well. Thanks, as always, for the nice exchange of ideas. It's what this forum is all about.

justme wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 11:16 am

pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 9:59 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 6:49 am

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.

I 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?

Neither did Boyd K. Packer. He related a story of a young missionary that punched his companion due to homosexual advances.

There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.
While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.
After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."
"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.
"But I floored him," he said.
After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"
I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.

When I was a missionary over 30 years ago and first heard that Packer statement it was obvious then that he was simply wrong. I am glad that the world and the church including the Apostles have caught up to the times and realize that you can not physically assault someone like that.

Strongly disagree!!!! Moroni (not the one that buried the plates) was a violent person towards the evil invading Lamanites, and the treasonous king-men. But he was righteous. You don’t think there is a time and place for the “laying on of hands”? I’m surprised you would speak that way about an apostle of the Lord. Were you kidding? Your words almost sounded facetious.

If someone is making advances on you that you do not want... ahem, that’s sexual assault— and rape if insertion occurs. If it was a man advancing on a woman, do you also believe that the women would be wrong to use force? (Say, a well-placed kick in the male’s sensitive area.)

“You must protect yourself.” !!

mike_rumble wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 2:19 pm 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.

Sorry Mike, but Christ died for everyone that comes to this Earth and gets body.

Vision wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 8:47 pm

Mahalanobis Distance wrote: ↑June 30th, 2019, 7:25 pm

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.

I 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).

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.

I would love to see a line in the sand. A fighting line. For Jesus it was the temple. That's what ours should be IMO. That's why I always hoped the church would not give up sealings+marriages... To see some Abinadi backbone.

And the ideal would be for the government to get out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches. The only reason governments got involved in the marriages of the common folk was for social fabric and raising of children. It was game-thoretic: if other countries had strong social fabric and you didn't, then you would get out-competed within a generation. Now we don't care about that stuff. Marriages are about inheritances, and social justice. They are status symbol. The institution is train-wrecked thanks to Hollywood, the media, and our own unrighteous culture.

I think you know what I meant.
Of course Christ died for everybody. Any reader of Scripture knows that.

ori wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 8:51 pm

justme wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 11:16 am

pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 9:59 am

MMbelieve wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 6:49 am

I 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?

Neither did Boyd K. Packer. He related a story of a young missionary that punched his companion due to homosexual advances.

There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.
While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.
After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."
"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.
"But I floored him," he said.
After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"
I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.

When I was a missionary over 30 years ago and first heard that Packer statement it was obvious then that he was simply wrong. I am glad that the world and the church including the Apostles have caught up to the times and realize that you can not physically assault someone like that.

Strongly disagree!!!! Moroni (not the one that buried the plates) was a violent person towards the evil invading Lamanites, and the treasonous king-men. But he was righteous. You don’t think there is a time and place for the “laying on of hands”? I’m surprised you would speak that way about an apostle of the Lord. Were you kidding? Your words almost sounded facetious.

If someone is making advances on you that you do not want... ahem, that’s sexual assault— and rape if insertion occurs. If it was a man advancing on a woman, do you also believe that the women would be wrong to use force? (Say, a well-placed kick in the male’s sensitive area.)

“You must protect yourself.” !!

The Packer story as I heard it and even as summarized above is missing details so it is hard to say what happened. Of course if you are being physically assaulted fight back. But the way that I understood the story at the time, and this was over 30 years ago so forgive me if details are off, was that a missionary had made a pass at his companion. And the thought was in that case you tell the president after hitting the companion. I respectfully but completely disagree.

Lets say that you found out that your companion was a smoker. Of course you should tell the president after discussing it with the companion. But would you deck him first? What about any other transgression? Can you think of one that you would first deck the companion before going to the president? Other than physically defending yourself from assault as we already discussed. But in that era it was not uncommon to physically bully and beat homosexuals. Remember Matthew Shepherd among others. The story was dog whistling that it is okay to beat them. Of course it is not. And the brethren have been appropriately saying so recently including a quote from Elder Renlund if I remember correctly that has been argued here on this forum. I am glad they are getting it right now.

justme wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 9:07 pm

ori wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 8:51 pm

justme wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 11:16 am

pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 9:59 am

Neither did Boyd K. Packer. He related a story of a young missionary that punched his companion due to homosexual advances.

When I was a missionary over 30 years ago and first heard that Packer statement it was obvious then that he was simply wrong. I am glad that the world and the church including the Apostles have caught up to the times and realize that you can not physically assault someone like that.

Strongly disagree!!!! Moroni (not the one that buried the plates) was a violent person towards the evil invading Lamanites, and the treasonous king-men. But he was righteous. You don’t think there is a time and place for the “laying on of hands”? I’m surprised you would speak that way about an apostle of the Lord. Were you kidding? Your words almost sounded facetious.

If someone is making advances on you that you do not want... ahem, that’s sexual assault— and rape if insertion occurs. If it was a man advancing on a woman, do you also believe that the women would be wrong to use force? (Say, a well-placed kick in the male’s sensitive area.)

“You must protect yourself.” !!

The Packer story as I heard it and even as summarized above is missing details so it is hard to say what happened. Of course if you are being physically assaulted fight back. But the way that I understood the story at the time, and this was over 30 years ago so forgive me if details are off, was that a missionary had made a pass at his companion. And the thought was in that case you tell the president after hitting the companion. I respectfully but completely disagree.

Lets say that you found out that your companion was a smoker. Of course you should tell the president after discussing it with the companion. But would you deck him first? What about any other transgression? Can you think of one that you would first deck the companion before going to the president? Other than physically defending yourself from assault as we already discussed. But in that era it was not uncommon to physically bully and beat homosexuals. Remember Matthew Shepherd among others. The story was dog whistling that it is okay to beat them. Of course it is not. And the brethren have been appropriately saying so recently including a quote from Elder Renlund if I remember correctly that has been argued here on this forum. I am glad they are getting it right now.

I don't know what the answer is, but I would have decked him, and I would tell my sons to do the same thing. This is what my mother taught me since I was young: If someone tries to touch you, you make a scene and defend yourself.

The predators out there thrive on the "let's talk about it" folks. It's been proven in studies that the pedophiles stay away from the gregarious outgoing kids because they are the ones who will talk! By making a scene, these people will learn consequences from actions.

I would request a Mission-President-sanctioned restraining order (100 yards) with an ultimatum. If I didn't get my way, I'd head home and I'd back up my position with the scriptures (Joseph in Egypt). If it means going to figurative prison, so be it.

Mahalanobis Distance wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 9:15 pm

justme wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 9:07 pm

ori wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 8:51 pm

justme wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 11:16 am
When I was a missionary over 30 years ago and first heard that Packer statement it was obvious then that he was simply wrong. I am glad that the world and the church including the Apostles have caught up to the times and realize that you can not physically assault someone like that.

Strongly disagree!!!! Moroni (not the one that buried the plates) was a violent person towards the evil invading Lamanites, and the treasonous king-men. But he was righteous. You don’t think there is a time and place for the “laying on of hands”? I’m surprised you would speak that way about an apostle of the Lord. Were you kidding? Your words almost sounded facetious.

If someone is making advances on you that you do not want... ahem, that’s sexual assault— and rape if insertion occurs. If it was a man advancing on a woman, do you also believe that the women would be wrong to use force? (Say, a well-placed kick in the male’s sensitive area.)

“You must protect yourself.” !!

The Packer story as I heard it and even as summarized above is missing details so it is hard to say what happened. Of course if you are being physically assaulted fight back. But the way that I understood the story at the time, and this was over 30 years ago so forgive me if details are off, was that a missionary had made a pass at his companion. And the thought was in that case you tell the president after hitting the companion. I respectfully but completely disagree.

Lets say that you found out that your companion was a smoker. Of course you should tell the president after discussing it with the companion. But would you deck him first? What about any other transgression? Can you think of one that you would first deck the companion before going to the president? Other than physically defending yourself from assault as we already discussed. But in that era it was not uncommon to physically bully and beat homosexuals. Remember Matthew Shepherd among others. The story was dog whistling that it is okay to beat them. Of course it is not. And the brethren have been appropriately saying so recently including a quote from Elder Renlund if I remember correctly that has been argued here on this forum. I am glad they are getting it right now.

I don't know what the answer is, but I would have decked him, and I would tell my sons to do the same thing. This is what my mother taught me since I was young: If someone tries to touch you, you make a scene and defend yourself.

The predators out there thrive on the "let's talk about it" folks. It's been proven in studies that the pedophiles stay away from the gregarious outgoing kids because they are the ones who will talk! By making a scene, these people will learn consequences from actions.

So maybe we are disagreeing on if we should think of missionaries as adults or not.

If I found myself in any context in which a man made a pass at me today I would think 99 times out of a 100 a polite response would deflect the situation. If I was physically attacked of course I would respond appropriately. But that would be the 1 out of 100. And my understanding of the story was that it wasn't a physical attack.

Mahalanobis Distance wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 9:02 pm

Vision wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 8:47 pm

Mahalanobis Distance wrote: ↑June 30th, 2019, 7:25 pm

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.

I 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).

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.

I would love to see a line in the sand. A fighting line. For Jesus it was the temple. That's what ours should be IMO. That's why I always hoped the church would not give up sealings+marriages... To see some Abinadi backbone.

And the ideal would be for the government to get out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches. The only reason governments got involved in the marriages of the common folk was for social fabric and raising of children. It was game-thoretic: if other countries had strong social fabric and you didn't, then you would get out-competed within a generation. Now we don't care about that stuff. Marriages are about inheritances, and social justice. They are status symbol. The institution is train-wrecked thanks to Hollywood, the media, and our own unrighteous culture.

The irony of this whole marriage deal today is that the Edmunds Tucker Act that was passed to stop polygamy contained a clause that required marriage certificates issued by the government.

I have a new theory on why the church suddenly embraced LBGTQ. I will be the first to admit that it's wild speculation but it is based on some knowns.

I think towards the end of his term, the Obama admin, or Hillary campaign reached out to all major religions behind the scenes and basically told them that they had better adopt a more tolerant policy towards gays under the threat of loss of tax exempt status. Notice around that time this became a major issue for all Judeo-christian religions.

I actually think that it was more the Hillary campaign. Remember that everyone at the time was predicting that it was going to be a landslide for Hillary and Hillary has been known to threaten other nations over the LBGTQ issue as secretary of state. If she wasn't above threatening other nations I don't know why she would be above threatening churches.

https://catholicexchange.com/why-is-hil ... pon-africa

markharr wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 8:05 am I have a new theory on why the church suddenly embraced LBGTQ. I will be the first to admit that it's wild speculation but it is based on some knowns.

I think towards the end of his term, the Obama admin, or Hillary campaign reached out to all major religions behind the scenes and basically told them that they had better adopt a more tolerant policy towards gays under the threat of loss of tax exempt status. Notice around that time this became a major issue for all Judeo-christian religions.

I actually think that it was more the Hillary campaign. Remember that everyone at the time was predicting that it was going to be a landslide for Hillary and Hillary has been known to threaten other nations over the LBGTQ issue as secretary of state. If she wasn't above threatening other nations I don't know why she would be above threatening churches.

https://catholicexchange.com/why-is-hil ... pon-africa

Or maybe they just decided to do the right thing...

justme wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 8:06 am
Or maybe they just decided to do the right thing...

'As I have loved you, love one another'

this commandment has always been there since the day the church was founded. It always applied to LBGTQ groups and everyone else. Any member of the church who hated those people was breaking that commandment.

There was and still is no need to make a huge point out of applying it to certain groups of people. It doesn't even make sense to do so.

"I struggle with thoughts of killing people. But I haven't done so yet."

Such a person, I presume, is also open to ALL Church callings?

JohnnyL wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 10:19 am "I struggle with thoughts of killing people. But I haven't done so yet."

Such a person, I presume, is also open to ALL Church callings?

Yes.

Those who are LGBTQ the Lord desires to save ye on his own terms, ye must desire to repent and diligently pray for him to aid you to be free of such programming of those desires that have overtaken ye, if ye sincerely pray and are willing to repent of all your sins and cease not to ask and do not promote such sins or any agenda contrary to the laws of God, then behold the Lord shall aid ye and forgive ye of thy sins and ye shall no longer have such desires but shall be reborn a new. But the Lord will not accept such sins or allow them in his coming kingdom, it must be understood it is a abomination to God which brings desolation upon the soul, thus ye must let such things go and cease without end to seeking his forgiveness and mercy. In this manner it is acceptable.

justme wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 10:22 am

JohnnyL wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 10:19 am "I struggle with thoughts of killing people. But I haven't done so yet."

Such a person, I presume, is also open to ALL Church callings?

Yes.

I'll publicly announce it this Sunday during testimony meeting, see how fast I get released...

Then see what the First Presidency says about getting me reinstated. Or better yet, get switched to the nursery.

Yeah.

JohnnyL wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 11:40 am

justme wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 10:22 am

JohnnyL wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 10:19 am "I struggle with thoughts of killing people. But I haven't done so yet."

Such a person, I presume, is also open to ALL Church callings?

Yes.

I'll publicly announce it this Sunday during testimony meeting, see how fast I get released...

Then see what the First Presidency says about getting me reinstated. Or better yet, get switched to the nursery.

Yeah.

So if you want to play the extreme game lets look at the other end of the spectrum.
"I struggle with temptations of FILL IN ANY BLANK, but I haven't given in yet."

Should only hold a calling if there is no FILL IN BLANK for you?

Remember all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
If you insist that you can't hold a calling if you sin or are tempted to sin then nobody gets a calling.
If you admit that some sins and temptations are okay but not others where do you draw the line?

Vision wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 8:47 pm

Mahalanobis Distance wrote: ↑June 30th, 2019, 7:25 pm

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.

I 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).

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.

The church is under pressure from the IRS to perform marriages for gays? CFR

ThePowerofEternity111 wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 10:57 am Those who are LGBTQ the Lord desires to save ye on his own terms, ye must desire to repent and diligently pray for him to aid you to be free of such programming of those desires that have overtaken ye, if ye sincerely pray and are willing to repent of all your sins and cease not to ask and do not promote such sins or any agenda contrary to the laws of God, then behold the Lord shall aid ye and forgive ye of thy sins and ye shall no longer have such desires but shall be reborn a new. But the Lord will not accept such sins or allow them in his coming kingdom, it must be understood it is a abomination to God which brings desolation upon the soul, thus ye must let such things go and cease without end to seeking his forgiveness and mercy. In this manner it is acceptable.

Oh yeah? Well, I know a few who have done exactly this, and the Lord has not made it so they “no longer have such desires”. What gives?

RocknRoll wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 2:07 pm

ThePowerofEternity111 wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 10:57 am Those who are LGBTQ the Lord desires to save ye on his own terms, ye must desire to repent and diligently pray for him to aid you to be free of such programming of those desires that have overtaken ye, if ye sincerely pray and are willing to repent of all your sins and cease not to ask and do not promote such sins or any agenda contrary to the laws of God, then behold the Lord shall aid ye and forgive ye of thy sins and ye shall no longer have such desires but shall be reborn a new. But the Lord will not accept such sins or allow them in his coming kingdom, it must be understood it is a abomination to God which brings desolation upon the soul, thus ye must let such things go and cease without end to seeking his forgiveness and mercy. In this manner it is acceptable.

Oh yeah? Well, I know a few who have done exactly this, and the Lord has not made it so they “no longer have such desires”. What gives?

You’re right- the Lord will fix things in His own time, not before. Most seekers of Christ that earnestly seek to overcome homosexuality will struggle with SSA their entire lives.

justme wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 1:55 pm

JohnnyL wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 11:40 am

justme wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 10:22 am

JohnnyL wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 10:19 am "I struggle with thoughts of killing people. But I haven't done so yet."

Such a person, I presume, is also open to ALL Church callings?

Yes.

I'll publicly announce it this Sunday during testimony meeting, see how fast I get released...

Then see what the First Presidency says about getting me reinstated. Or better yet, get switched to the nursery.

Yeah.

So if you want to play the extreme game lets look at the other end of the spectrum.
"I struggle with temptations of FILL IN ANY BLANK, but I haven't given in yet."

Should only hold a calling if there is no FILL IN BLANK for you?

Remember all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
If you insist that you can't hold a calling if you sin or are tempted to sin then nobody gets a calling.
If you admit that some sins and temptations are okay but not others where do you draw the line?

Well, the Church already disagrees with you.

For example: if you are a sex offender--even if it was 20 years ago--you cannot be called to Primary.

It's not based on who you are, but who you WERE, and what you COULD do.

So how does homosexuality really enter in to this?

As I said similarly before, when the Church starts getting sued by members for homosexual molestations/ seductions/ etc., it might stem the tide of homosexuality doing any calling.

JohnnyL wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 6:52 pm

justme wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 1:55 pm

JohnnyL wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 11:40 am

justme wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 10:22 am

Yes.

I'll publicly announce it this Sunday during testimony meeting, see how fast I get released...

Then see what the First Presidency says about getting me reinstated. Or better yet, get switched to the nursery.

Yeah.

So if you want to play the extreme game lets look at the other end of the spectrum.
"I struggle with temptations of FILL IN ANY BLANK, but I haven't given in yet."

Should only hold a calling if there is no FILL IN BLANK for you?

Remember all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
If you insist that you can't hold a calling if you sin or are tempted to sin then nobody gets a calling.
If you admit that some sins and temptations are okay but not others where do you draw the line?

Well, the Church already disagrees with you.

For example: if you are a sex offender--even if it was 20 years ago--you cannot be called to Primary.

It's not based on who you are, but who you WERE, and what you COULD do.

So how does homosexuality really enter in to this?

As I said similarly before, when the Church starts getting sued by members for homosexual molestations/ seductions/ etc., it might stem the tide of homosexuality doing any calling.

apples and oranges. If you are a sex offender then that violates your stated clause "but I haven't given in yet".

JohnnyL wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 6:52 pm

justme wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 1:55 pm

JohnnyL wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 11:40 am

justme wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 10:22 am

Yes.

I'll publicly announce it this Sunday during testimony meeting, see how fast I get released...

Then see what the First Presidency says about getting me reinstated. Or better yet, get switched to the nursery.

Yeah.

So if you want to play the extreme game lets look at the other end of the spectrum.
"I struggle with temptations of FILL IN ANY BLANK, but I haven't given in yet."

Should only hold a calling if there is no FILL IN BLANK for you?

Remember all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
If you insist that you can't hold a calling if you sin or are tempted to sin then nobody gets a calling.
If you admit that some sins and temptations are okay but not others where do you draw the line?

Well, the Church already disagrees with you.

For example: if you are a sex offender--even if it was 20 years ago--you cannot be called to Primary.

It's not based on who you are, but who you WERE, and what you COULD do.

So how does homosexuality really enter in to this?

As I said similarly before, when the Church starts getting sued by members for homosexual molestations/ seductions/ etc., it might stem the tide of homosexuality doing any calling.

How about the heterosexual molestations and seductions?

justme wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 6:57 pm

JohnnyL wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 6:52 pm

justme wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 1:55 pm

JohnnyL wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 11:40 am
I'll publicly announce it this Sunday during testimony meeting, see how fast I get released...

Then see what the First Presidency says about getting me reinstated. Or better yet, get switched to the nursery.

Yeah.

So if you want to play the extreme game lets look at the other end of the spectrum.
"I struggle with temptations of FILL IN ANY BLANK, but I haven't given in yet."

Should only hold a calling if there is no FILL IN BLANK for you?

Remember all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
If you insist that you can't hold a calling if you sin or are tempted to sin then nobody gets a calling.
If you admit that some sins and temptations are okay but not others where do you draw the line?

Well, the Church already disagrees with you.

For example: if you are a sex offender--even if it was 20 years ago--you cannot be called to Primary.

It's not based on who you are, but who you WERE, and what you COULD do.

So how does homosexuality really enter in to this?

As I said similarly before, when the Church starts getting sued by members for homosexual molestations/ seductions/ etc., it might stem the tide of homosexuality doing any calling.

apples and oranges. If you are a sex offender then that violates your stated clause "but I haven't given in yet".

Not quite.

So, if anyone acts on their SSA, then they can't be given any calling?

justme wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 6:58 pm

JohnnyL wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 6:52 pm

justme wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 1:55 pm

JohnnyL wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 11:40 am
I'll publicly announce it this Sunday during testimony meeting, see how fast I get released...

Then see what the First Presidency says about getting me reinstated. Or better yet, get switched to the nursery.

Yeah.

So if you want to play the extreme game lets look at the other end of the spectrum.
"I struggle with temptations of FILL IN ANY BLANK, but I haven't given in yet."

Should only hold a calling if there is no FILL IN BLANK for you?

Remember all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
If you insist that you can't hold a calling if you sin or are tempted to sin then nobody gets a calling.
If you admit that some sins and temptations are okay but not others where do you draw the line?

Well, the Church already disagrees with you.

For example: if you are a sex offender--even if it was 20 years ago--you cannot be called to Primary.

It's not based on who you are, but who you WERE, and what you COULD do.

So how does homosexuality really enter in to this?

As I said similarly before, when the Church starts getting sued by members for homosexual molestations/ seductions/ etc., it might stem the tide of homosexuality doing any calling.

How about the heterosexual molestations and seductions?

Lawyer: Did you, stake president, know the bishop was open about being an adulterer?
SP: No.
vs.
Lawyer: Did you, stake president, know the bishop was open about being an open homosexual, and you still called him to lead the Priests quorum/ work in YM?
SP: Yes.

Tell me the difference from a jury's point of view.