LDS Freedom Forum

pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2022, 3:16 pm Homosexuality takes that which is fertile and makes it sterile.

Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall:

By this alone, I will counter with:

“not homosexual”

Well considering that one can "identify" as LGBTQ+ in the Church and it's all cool . . .maybe Joseph "identified" as queer, maybe he has queer feelings, attractions, inclinations but he just didn't do the "sex" thing you know.

Look, today in the Church you absolutely can have a Bishop (or a Stake President, a General Authority or even a member of the 12 himself) get up on the stand, tell the whole world he is queer and there is NO, absolutely NO grounds for discipline.

He just can't do the sex thing. . . .shoot he could get up on the stand and identify as a woman---as long as he doesn't "socially transition"-he's totally cool.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... g?lang=eng
"If these members are not attempting to transition to the opposite gender and are worthy, they may receive Church callings, temple recommends, and temple ordinances."
And if you can do temple stuff . ..well you can certainly be in a leadership position.

Shoot where did people think this was going to go....
https://twitter.com/LatterGaySa1nt

This jackweed has been on his mission for almost 2 years now. Openly queer, dresses in make-up and now he is "serving the Lord". Give me a flipping break.

Hells bells would I send my kid on a mission.

krp435 wrote: ↑March 21st, 2022, 9:20 am https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sUbnF4C0z ... e=youtu.be

This is my first post, so I’m not sure if the link above worked or not, but Thomas Wayment (beloved BYU professor) refers to Joseph as effeminate and possibly attracted to boys. I mean he was head of the household (doing Womens work) and obviously he loved fashion with his rainbow coat. Basically, he wouldn’t have been so strong had it been Potiphar seducing him. It starts at minute 14 and goes on and on.
Apparently, later he describes John the beloved and the Savior possibly having a ‘special’ relationship.

Jesus, please come.

Are you serious. Wake up and post something worth discussion. If this is an example of what your future posts will be like don't bother posting anything.

Ivebeenouthere wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2022, 4:43 pm

krp435 wrote: ↑March 21st, 2022, 9:20 am https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sUbnF4C0z ... e=youtu.be

This is my first post, so I’m not sure if the link above worked or not, but Thomas Wayment (beloved BYU professor) refers to Joseph as effeminate and possibly attracted to boys. I mean he was head of the household (doing Womens work) and obviously he loved fashion with his rainbow coat. Basically, he wouldn’t have been so strong had it been Potiphar seducing him. It starts at minute 14 and goes on and on.
Apparently, later he describes John the beloved and the Savior possibly having a ‘special’ relationship.

Jesus, please come.

Are you serious. Wake up and post something worth discussion. If this is an example of what your future posts will be like don't bother posting anything.

His post has generated two long pages of responses, so I would advise that if you don’t think there is something here that people want to discuss.....move along. Scroll and roll.

Ivebeenouthere wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2022, 4:43 pm

krp435 wrote: ↑March 21st, 2022, 9:20 am https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sUbnF4C0z ... e=youtu.be

This is my first post, so I’m not sure if the link above worked or not, but Thomas Wayment (beloved BYU professor) refers to Joseph as effeminate and possibly attracted to boys. I mean he was head of the household (doing Womens work) and obviously he loved fashion with his rainbow coat. Basically, he wouldn’t have been so strong had it been Potiphar seducing him. It starts at minute 14 and goes on and on.
Apparently, later he describes John the beloved and the Savior possibly having a ‘special’ relationship.

Jesus, please come.

Are you serious. Wake up and post something worth discussion. If this is an example of what your future posts will be like don't bother posting anything.

Are you serious?? How is a professor at a church school blaspheming Holy scriptures not worthy of discussion? Please enlighten me.

Ivebeenouthere wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2022, 4:43 pm

krp435 wrote: ↑March 21st, 2022, 9:20 am https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sUbnF4C0z ... e=youtu.be

This is my first post, so I’m not sure if the link above worked or not, but Thomas Wayment (beloved BYU professor) refers to Joseph as effeminate and possibly attracted to boys. I mean he was head of the household (doing Womens work) and obviously he loved fashion with his rainbow coat. Basically, he wouldn’t have been so strong had it been Potiphar seducing him. It starts at minute 14 and goes on and on.
Apparently, later he describes John the beloved and the Savior possibly having a ‘special’ relationship.

Jesus, please come.

Are you serious. Wake up and post something worth discussion. If this is an example of what your future posts will be like don't bother posting anything.

Names blotted out and evil being exposed. What if it is your children being taught this at BYU or anywhere else? People need to be aware of the dangers and the wolves that are among us. Do we fight against evil or just ignore it and let it take over?

I believe Wayment did not follow through
When he and a student associate discovered JS used Adam Clarke ‘s commentary when he concocted the JST.
Perhaps Wayment was pressured to let it be and to not sound any alarms or he would be
ousted from BYU.
I do not know Wayment’s orientation but I believe he is defaming Joseph, John and Jesus when he hints they could have been.
My sense he is dead from and he should watch out for a FP admonishment.
K

Kairos wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2022, 11:24 pm I believe Wayment did not follow through
When he and a student associate discovered JS used Adam Clarke ‘s commentary when he concocted the JST.
Perhaps Wayment was pressured to let it be and to not sound any alarms or he would be
ousted from BYU.
I do not know Wayment’s orientation but I believe he is defaming Joseph, John and Jesus when he hints they could have been.
My sense he is dead from and he should watch out for a FP admonishment.
K

Not sure I understand some of the above: "he is dead from"? Wayment "did not follow through"? On what?

On the JST, the beginning of it was the Book of Moses, which was a revelation, word for word. But most of the rest of the JST is simply Joseph Smith trying to correct perceived textual problems, with sporadic revelatory input. In some places there was no revelatory input, where there was little or no need for a correction or the correction wasn't quite right.

Royal Skousen recently showed in a critical text volume how the JST actually incorporates a few errors found in biblical passages of the 1830 Book of Mormon. Specifically, there is clear textual evidence that Joseph Smith just copied Book of Mormon readings of biblical passages for the JST, even when an error had entered the 1830 Book of Mormon, either from an MS copying error or from a typesetting error or from some other primitive error. So in those contexts it is clear that Joseph didn't get revelation to correct textual errors; he just perpetuated the 1830 Book of Mormon errors in the JST.

Now, I don't know whether Joseph Smith used Adam Clarke's biblical commentaries in formulating some of the JST, or any other commentaries, for that matter. Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't. However, whether Joseph did or didn't use commentaries certainly doesn't negate all the revelatory material he did receive directly from the Lord.

The problem with LDS scholars, whether at BYU or at church HQ or elsewhere, is that they're always coming up with things in which they think they've uncovered some startling new evidence that shows that Joseph didn't receive any revelatory material. They're evil fools, who briefly enjoy the praise of men. They're sell-outs to the corrupt, secular academy.

When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. (2 Nephi 9:28)

whaaaaaat? "we may not know precisely?"

I'll make it simple . . .satan dug up that old evil book (that has been mentioned in the scriptures as being full of bad stuff) and began to teach persons in our society . . .we ignored it, sort of . . . the he told those that he taught this evil practice to . . . go and get others to do it . . . .

how much more obvious does God need to make it . . . it doesn't take a rocket sc . . .woops . . . a prophet to figure this one out . ..

silly as this may seem . . many saints that I know worry a lot about that one third of spirits that followed satan or worry about satan directly . . our BIGGEST worry should be . . .the people that satan teaches . . . then wants them to teach all of us . . .

which falls in line with the social pressure of this practice. . .first those in charge of the rules of society . .
wanted us to see this . . . gay parades, etc. . . in our entertainment
then, they wanted us to accept it . . . change in laws . . no sodomy punishment
now they want us to practice it ourselves . . . and our children to practice it. . .

Watch this hilarious guy

https://thescoop.us/watch-youtuber-pose ... ing-video/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cULeE-lzdgw

I love ‘watcher Palmer’
The first 20 minutes of this are so awesome! Preaching TRUTH!