General Conference April 2022 - Rumors / and live thread

[spiritMan]

So someone who is saying they are "tempted" just self-identifies as LGBTQ+.
And someone who is saying they go beyond "tempted" self-identify as . . . what?

What do I care what terms people use? I only care about what is sin and what isn't. Temptation isn't.

What do I care about what words mean? It's only the mechanism by which people can communicate with each other. I only care about what "sin" is-which given that I don't care about what words mean, I only care about what I define as "sin".

I mean to say, I don't care how people define themselves or things that for the purposes of church membership. I do care about sin.

So when someone says they are openly sexually desire the same sex you don't believe them?

That is what it means to "come out" the very definition of the word has nothing to do with "temptations". It is simply sexual desire. You don't really believe they mean it when they say they sexually desire the same sex?

[Artaxerxes]

Sorry, my post was unclear. I was saying I did not agree with what he was saying.

So someone who is saying they are "tempted" just self-identifies as LGBTQ+.
And someone who is saying they go beyond "tempted" self-identify as . . . what?

What do I care what terms people use? I only care about what is sin and what isn't. Temptation isn't.

If I have a "temptation" (as you call it) to sexually desire trees. Why would I need to "come out", why would I need to tell the entire world. WORLD, I AM SEXUALLY TEMPTED BY TREES!!!!!!

What purpose would that serve, except to get people acclimated to my ungodly sexual temptations? If I talk about it enough, make it seem like "no big deal" enough that when I actually do it it's not a big deal anymore.

Some people do it to get help. Some do it for bad reasons.

[spiritMan]

So someone who is saying they are "tempted" just self-identifies as LGBTQ+.
And someone who is saying they go beyond "tempted" self-identify as . . . what?

What do I care what terms people use? I only care about what is sin and what isn't. Temptation isn't.

What do I care about what words mean? It's only the mechanism by which people can communicate with each other. I only care about what "sin" is-which given that I don't care about what words mean, I only care about what I define as "sin".

I mean to say, I don't care how people define themselves or things that for the purposes of church membership. I do care about sin.

So I could identify as a squirrel, get up on the stand and tell everyone I'm John the Baptist and you wouldn't care?

That's good to know.

[Artaxerxes]

What do I care what terms people use? I only care about what is sin and what isn't. Temptation isn't.

What do I care about what words mean? It's only the mechanism by which people can communicate with each other. I only care about what "sin" is-which given that I don't care about what words mean, I only care about what I define as "sin".

I mean to say, I don't care how people define themselves or things that for the purposes of church membership. I do care about sin.

So when someone says they are openly sexually desire the same sex you don't believe them?

That is what it means to "come out" the very definition of the word has nothing to do with "temptations". It is simply sexual desire. You don't really believe they mean it when they say they sexually desire the same sex?

They're saying they're tempted. I don't care what term they attach to it.

[Artaxerxes]

What do I care what terms people use? I only care about what is sin and what isn't. Temptation isn't.

What do I care about what words mean? It's only the mechanism by which people can communicate with each other. I only care about what "sin" is-which given that I don't care about what words mean, I only care about what I define as "sin".

I mean to say, I don't care how people define themselves or things that for the purposes of church membership. I do care about sin.

So I could identify as a squirrel, get up on the stand and tell everyone I'm John the Baptist and you wouldn't care?

That's good to know.

... I wouldn't have a disciplinary council for them, no.

[spiritMan]

So someone who is saying they are "tempted" just self-identifies as LGBTQ+.
And someone who is saying they go beyond "tempted" self-identify as . . . what?

What do I care what terms people use? I only care about what is sin and what isn't. Temptation isn't.

If I have a "temptation" (as you call it) to sexually desire trees. Why would I need to "come out", why would I need to tell the entire world. WORLD, I AM SEXUALLY TEMPTED BY TREES!!!!!!

What purpose would that serve, except to get people acclimated to my ungodly sexual temptations? If I talk about it enough, make it seem like "no big deal" enough that when I actually do it it's not a big deal anymore.

Some people do it to get help. Some do it for bad reasons.

What help can they get from a stranger?

Oh you mean they openly tell everyone about their sexual deviancy in order to gain sympathy? Yes I agree with that.

[spiritMan]

What do I care about what words mean? It's only the mechanism by which people can communicate with each other. I only care about what "sin" is-which given that I don't care about what words mean, I only care about what I define as "sin".

I mean to say, I don't care how people define themselves or things that for the purposes of church membership. I do care about sin.

So I could identify as a squirrel, get up on the stand and tell everyone I'm John the Baptist and you wouldn't care?

That's good to know.

... I wouldn't have a disciplinary council for them, no.

So you would do nothing to stop them? You would do nothing to tell the ward that what they are doing is wrong and shouldn't be done?

[farmerchick]

Somehow you believe that serving a mission is a RIGHT. It is not.

All that crap about "raising the bar", just a bunch of hypocrites. "Raise the bar" on everyone else . . .unless you are a homosexual. Now you are part of a special class of God's children that everyone must bow down to and are exempt from any need to repent.

Nope. I didn't say anything like that.

Having a temptation is not a sin. Neither does it make them special.

So it would be appropriate in your mind for someone to openly proclaim they have a "temptation" as you call it for little children.

You think someone openly proclaiming they are a "minor-attracted person" is completely fine?

Not alright, but not a sin. Sin is a very specific thing. It's not just things we don't like.

You should seriously revisit the conference talks.......we have been instructed very clearly on the expectations for celestial glory..we are supposed to be going for the top.....not the bottom....but there will be kingdoms for everyone in every level of obedience...so we are all comfortable....if it's not alright...then it most likely isn't something you can do and be included in the top tier of obedience.....we aren't striving for the telestial....some of us may end up there but the goal of the church is to teach the ideal which leads us to the ck if we adhere to the covenant path and prove ourselves as well as grace.....sin is a specific and not subjective just because you like it....but I tire of your word salad....oaks talk was pretty clear...

[spiritMan]

What do I care about what words mean? It's only the mechanism by which people can communicate with each other. I only care about what "sin" is-which given that I don't care about what words mean, I only care about what I define as "sin".

I mean to say, I don't care how people define themselves or things that for the purposes of church membership. I do care about sin.

So when someone says they are openly sexually desire the same sex you don't believe them?

That is what it means to "come out" the very definition of the word has nothing to do with "temptations". It is simply sexual desire. You don't really believe they mean it when they say they sexually desire the same sex?

They're saying they're tempted. I don't care what term they attach to it.

So you just AUTOMATICALLY assume that they are saying they are tempted.
So you have no mechanism to understand whether or not they believe internally that it 100% okay for them to have sexual desire for the same-sex?

In other words, if a missionary "comes out" you think he is just saying he is "tempted", but you have no mechanism to understand if HE believes he is being "tempted" or if HE believes it is good, right and just to have sexual desire for the same-sex?

[Artaxerxes]

I mean to say, I don't care how people define themselves or things that for the purposes of church membership. I do care about sin.

So when someone says they are openly sexually desire the same sex you don't believe them?

That is what it means to "come out" the very definition of the word has nothing to do with "temptations". It is simply sexual desire. You don't really believe they mean it when they say they sexually desire the same sex?

They're saying they're tempted. I don't care what term they attach to it.

So you just AUTOMATICALLY assume that they are saying they are tempted.
So you have no mechanism to understand whether or not they believe internally that it 100% okay for them to have sexual desire for the same-sex?

In other words, if a missionary "comes out" you think he is just saying he is "tempted", but you have no mechanism to understand if HE believes he is being "tempted" or if HE believes it is good, right and just to have sexual desire for the same-sex?

They are saying they're tempted. If you had other questions of them you can just ask them.

[Artaxerxes]

Nope. I didn't say anything like that.

Having a temptation is not a sin. Neither does it make them special.

So it would be appropriate in your mind for someone to openly proclaim they have a "temptation" as you call it for little children.

You think someone openly proclaiming they are a "minor-attracted person" is completely fine?

Not alright, but not a sin. Sin is a very specific thing. It's not just things we don't like.

You should seriously revisit the conference talks.......we have been instructed very clearly on the expectations for celestial glory..we are supposed to be going for the top.....not the bottom....but there will be kingdoms for everyone in every level of obedience...so we are all comfortable....if it's not alright...then it most likely isn't something you can do and be included in the top tier of obedience.....we aren't striving for the telestial....some of us may end up there but the goal of the church is to teach the ideal which leads us to the ck if we adhere to the covenant path and prove ourselves as well as grace.....sin is a specific and not subjective just because you like it....but I tire of your word salad....oaks talk was pretty clear...

It was clear. Does Satan tempting you qualify as a sin?

[Artaxerxes]

I mean to say, I don't care how people define themselves or things that for the purposes of church membership. I do care about sin.

So I could identify as a squirrel, get up on the stand and tell everyone I'm John the Baptist and you wouldn't care?

That's good to know.

... I wouldn't have a disciplinary council for them, no.

So you would do nothing to stop them? You would do nothing to tell the ward that what they are doing is wrong and shouldn't be done?

Warn people that they're going to steal their nuts or something?

[spiritMan]

Nope. I didn't say anything like that.

Having a temptation is not a sin. Neither does it make them special.

So it would be appropriate in your mind for someone to openly proclaim they have a "temptation" as you call it for little children.

You think someone openly proclaiming they are a "minor-attracted person" is completely fine?

Not alright, but not a sin. Sin is a very specific thing. It's not just things we don't like.

You should seriously revisit the conference talks.......we have been instructed very clearly on the expectations for celestial glory..we are supposed to be going for the top.....not the bottom....but there will be kingdoms for everyone in every level of obedience...so we are all comfortable....if it's not alright...then it most likely isn't something you can do and be included in the top tier of obedience.....we aren't striving for the telestial....some of us may end up there but the goal of the church is to teach the ideal which leads us to the ck if we adhere to the covenant path and prove ourselves as well as grace.....sin is a specific and not subjective just because you like it....but I tire of your word salad....oaks talk was pretty clear...

No, no, this is a really good conversation. This is extremely instructive for others who are reading this back and forth as it this conversation illuminates exactly what is going on.

The wicked in the Church say very pleasing things on the surface, it sounds nice and wonderful and all cotton-candy like. All you have to do is to keep scratching beneath the surface. As soon as you do, it becomes extremely obvious that their cotton-candy theology is internally inconsistent and that in order for it to be internally consistent they end up saying and advocating for things that are so incredibly outlandish it boggles the mind.

It truly is impressive to see how far down the rabbit hole they will go in order to defend evil.

[Artaxerxes]

What do I care what terms people use? I only care about what is sin and what isn't. Temptation isn't.

If I have a "temptation" (as you call it) to sexually desire trees. Why would I need to "come out", why would I need to tell the entire world. WORLD, I AM SEXUALLY TEMPTED BY TREES!!!!!!

What purpose would that serve, except to get people acclimated to my ungodly sexual temptations? If I talk about it enough, make it seem like "no big deal" enough that when I actually do it it's not a big deal anymore.

Some people do it to get help. Some do it for bad reasons.

What help can they get from a stranger?

Oh you mean they openly tell everyone about their sexual deviancy in order to gain sympathy? Yes I agree with that.

Recognizing and admitting your problems is important.

[spiritMan]

So when someone says they are openly sexually desire the same sex you don't believe them?

That is what it means to "come out" the very definition of the word has nothing to do with "temptations". It is simply sexual desire. You don't really believe they mean it when they say they sexually desire the same sex?

They're saying they're tempted. I don't care what term they attach to it.

So you just AUTOMATICALLY assume that they are saying they are tempted.
So you have no mechanism to understand whether or not they believe internally that it 100% okay for them to have sexual desire for the same-sex?

In other words, if a missionary "comes out" you think he is just saying he is "tempted", but you have no mechanism to understand if HE believes he is being "tempted" or if HE believes it is good, right and just to have sexual desire for the same-sex?

They are saying they're tempted. If you had other questions of them you can just ask them.

So if I "come out" and say that I am a MAP, all I'm really doing is telling you that I'm "tempted". So I'm only tempted, why is it not acceptable to be a primary teacher? As long as there are always non-MAPs around, what is the harm?

In other words, you do not actually believe them. When a person "comes out" you believe they aren't actually desiring it themselves that they think it's okay, you twist it in your head that they really, really don't want this.

[JohnnyL]

Some good talks today...

....then Rasband.

Religious freedom????

These are the same leaders who REFUSED a religious exemption to those who wanted to stay clear of the deadly-jab.

Hmmmmmm.......

In most states a religious exemption has nothing to do with the organized religion you support. Catholics at my work got exemptions. Religious liberty is a person, not institutional belief.

Sometimes.
Utah at least used to be--don't know if it still is--religious exemption by institution, not personal religious belief.

[Artaxerxes]

They're saying they're tempted. I don't care what term they attach to it.

So you just AUTOMATICALLY assume that they are saying they are tempted.
So you have no mechanism to understand whether or not they believe internally that it 100% okay for them to have sexual desire for the same-sex?

In other words, if a missionary "comes out" you think he is just saying he is "tempted", but you have no mechanism to understand if HE believes he is being "tempted" or if HE believes it is good, right and just to have sexual desire for the same-sex?

They are saying they're tempted. If you had other questions of them you can just ask them.

So if I "come out" and say that I am a MAP, all I'm really doing is telling you that I'm "tempted". So I'm only tempted, why is it not acceptable to be a primary teacher? As long as there are always non-MAPs around, what is the harm?

In other words, you do not actually believe them. When a person "comes out" you believe they aren't actually desiring it themselves that they think it's okay, you twist it in your head that they really, really don't want this.

Because we, as a society, take prophylactic steps to protect children that we don't for adults.

[JohnnyL]

I thought that this last sessions extended exit was different. Usually they cut right to a commercial for some modest clothing or food storage company. But today (Sunday) it's was this long drawn out scene of Rusty & Co walking off stage. Is this new?

No, I've seen it many times before.

Likely it finished early, yeah?

[Subcomandante]

That post aged very well!

I would also like to add the manner that Elder Renlund addressed the women tonight. It is as anti-woke as one can get, without sounding to the outsider or cursory insider as anti-woke. This is the best that we are going to be able to hope for, which isn't bad. Imagine if he were to break out about LGBT+ issues like Presidents Kimball or Benson back in the day. The Church's ability to send its message out to the world would be severely impacted. So for now, we wait upon the Lord, while we do good things. This is called SBR in the Semitic languages, an active patience, not a passive one.

this is the first time I have heard you sound woke . . .how can you judge woke when you are it . . . . your comment about not being honest regarding LGBTQ, . . but following social pressure to not mention it is woke . . . you are woke . . . the large and spacious building mocking Kimball and Benson . . I'm feeling it . . .

btw . . .our brothers and sisters cannot obtain progress when they do not live the laws of Christ and his gospel . . but what do we care . . we all have a chance to get to the CK . . . less people to share it with . . .hmmmmmm . . .maybe I'm liking the trend of this gospel after all . . . I can get along with the whole program if I just lower my standards . . .

It's not lowering standards, it's not having anything to do with "caving" to the woke agenda.

If the Church were to proclaim tomorrow that starting the next month they would allow homosexual couples to get married in the temple, THAT would be caving to the woke agenda.

No such thing has been done. Nor will it. As evidenced by Renlund's words in General Conference today, and Renlund is probably one of the more liberal Apostles out there.

The only thing is that Renlund did not say "homosexuality is a sin." He simply said that those that insist on living in sin will not get back to God in the way that they desire; that the way back is by following God and His covenants. We can't pretend to be somebody we are not. If we need to make changes to our lives, we need to do so.

To an outsider or even a casual insider in the faith, not a single word of that was offensive. But if you insist on following the Kimball/Benson approach re homosexuality, the Church would NOT be able to fulfill its mission; its leaders would not be allowed into different countries for fomenting hate speech, and the Church's social media accounts would be closed. Perhaps financial accounts would become negatively affected too, depending on the country. So the Church treads lightly. It is up to us, the members of the Church, to gain personal revelation; we can't be spoon-fed stuff by the prophets always.

Some audible teachings have to be sacrificed from time to time in order to advance the Church's mission. That is a reality in today's world. I wish it weren't, but it is.

I get what you're saying. But if we look at the patterns all throughout the scriptures, what you're describing isn't the pattern of the Lord or his true disciples. They lived the truth boldly always, no excuses or justifications. Disregarding their own well being or the church's. What you're describing is just what the leaders already did once with the manifestos. Using their own counsel instead of the Lord's. Hoping to appease the world/gov. We made a covenant with death and joined the world at that time, just as Isaiah said we would. We now refer to a manifesto as a revelation to cover falsehoods and men trying to, "beat the devil at his own game". Whether the leaders speak truth boldly or not, does not change our responsibility as individuals to seek out truth and live it boldly, despite what may happen to the church or ourselves.

As you and the others have seen by now, my comment did NOT age well. #eatingHumblePie

[spiritMan]

If I have a "temptation" (as you call it) to sexually desire trees. Why would I need to "come out", why would I need to tell the entire world. WORLD, I AM SEXUALLY TEMPTED BY TREES!!!!!!

What purpose would that serve, except to get people acclimated to my ungodly sexual temptations? If I talk about it enough, make it seem like "no big deal" enough that when I actually do it it's not a big deal anymore.

Some people do it to get help. Some do it for bad reasons.

What help can they get from a stranger?

Oh you mean they openly tell everyone about their sexual deviancy in order to gain sympathy? Yes I agree with that.

Recognizing and admitting your problems is important.

So if I find a particular woman sexually attractive, I should tell the entire world that I am "tempted" by this particular woman?

I'm recognizing and admitting my problems right?

The secretary at work is smoking hot. I should go to my wife and tell my wife that the secretary is smoking hot? I should "come out" to my wife and to everyone. I should post on Facebook "my work's secretary is hot and I'm tempted by her".

It's recognizing and admitting my problem right?

[EvanLM]

So there is not sin in having and openly proclaiming feelings and thoughts which if enacted in the world would be condemned?

Let's see you weasel out of this one.

So according to you, having sexual/romantic desires towards the same-sex is no sin.

Is having sexual/romantic desires towards little children no sin too?

Of course it's not a sin! If someone admits to being tempted to steal, or commit adultery, or literally any sin, but not doing it, that is not a sin. It's incredibly simple. If Satan tempts you to murder someone, does that make you a murderer? We all know it would be wrong to murder. Does the fact that Satan tempted you make you bad?

I do not self-identify with my temptations. That is the big difference.

We have associates others, and others have associated themselves, with their sins for a long time. People are called alcoholics, adulterers, etc. I agree that people shouldn't think of themselves that way. But, again, that does not meet the Lord's definition of a sin.

it does meet his definition in the fact that Jesus called people who were committing adultery . . adulterers . . even so murderers, liars, covetous, blasphemers, hypocrites . . .he didn't say . . . I hate the sin but no tthe sinner . . no he didn't cuz that idea is from man . . . he identified them by their sin . . . after they repent then they are no longer identified that way. . .and the sinners of today like to name themselves and identify according to their sin . . .strange isn' that

[JohnnyL]

Looks like GC attendance is very poor & State Conference in Hurricane the same

They had already announced that attendance was going to be limited, because of continuing construction, etc.

[Artaxerxes]

Of course it's not a sin! If someone admits to being tempted to steal, or commit adultery, or literally any sin, but not doing it, that is not a sin. It's incredibly simple. If Satan tempts you to murder someone, does that make you a murderer? We all know it would be wrong to murder. Does the fact that Satan tempted you make you bad?

I do not self-identify with my temptations. That is the big difference.

We have associates others, and others have associated themselves, with their sins for a long time. People are called alcoholics, adulterers, etc. I agree that people shouldn't think of themselves that way. But, again, that does not meet the Lord's definition of a sin.

it does meet his definition in the fact that Jesus called people who were committing adultery . . adulterers . . even so murderers, liars, covetous, blasphemers, hypocrites . . .he didn't say . . . I hate the sin but no tthe sinner . . no he didn't cuz that idea is from man . . . he identified them by their sin . . . after they repent then they are no longer identified that way. . .and the sinners of today like to name themselves and identify according to their sin . . .strange isn' that

He called people who committed adultery adulterers. He didn't call people who were tempted to commit adultery adulterers.

[spiritMan]

So you just AUTOMATICALLY assume that they are saying they are tempted.
So you have no mechanism to understand whether or not they believe internally that it 100% okay for them to have sexual desire for the same-sex?

In other words, if a missionary "comes out" you think he is just saying he is "tempted", but you have no mechanism to understand if HE believes he is being "tempted" or if HE believes it is good, right and just to have sexual desire for the same-sex?

They are saying they're tempted. If you had other questions of them you can just ask them.

So if I "come out" and say that I am a MAP, all I'm really doing is telling you that I'm "tempted". So I'm only tempted, why is it not acceptable to be a primary teacher? As long as there are always non-MAPs around, what is the harm?

In other words, you do not actually believe them. When a person "comes out" you believe they aren't actually desiring it themselves that they think it's okay, you twist it in your head that they really, really don't want this.

Because we, as a society, take prophylactic steps to protect children that we don't for adults.

So it would be appropriate for me to get up at the pulpit and tell the ward each and every woman that is "tempting" to me? I should "come out" about it?

[JohnnyL]

...
A KEY step In repentance, if you have harmed others, is to CONFESS what you have done wrong and seek to remedy the situation via restitution.

If, and it's a big if...they are starting to assimilate the fact that the jab is deadly into their collective echo chambers...

....THEY NEED TO COME CLEAN THAT THEY WERE WRONG...then seek to remedy that via restitution. A woman in my ward is dead because of their "urging" the jab...somethings you can't remedy. A BYU centers basketball future is over for the same reason.

Platitudes of blanket forgiveness on this...don't feed the bulldog.

I don't know if they still don't comprehend; that's what it sounds like.