General Conference April 2022 - Rumors / and live thread

[spiritMan]

And yet Christ told people what to do and how to live. Disciples (i.e. followers) of Christ have an obligation to do the same.

You don't follow Christ.

You've asked about people doing dumb things, not about sinning. As I said, you're always welcome to ask questions that matter.

So preaching and teaching false doctrine isn't a sin, it's just a "dumb thing"?

Your questions were about people claiming to be squirrels and other silliness.

So it's silliness now is it? So according to you we should take someone seriously when they say they lust after the same-sex but that it's just silly when someone says they lust after trees or squirrels?

Again your theology is inconsistent and you cannot defend your position so you have to resort to "that's silly". It's only silly because you cannot defend your theology and you know it.

[spiritMan]

10 years ago, self-identifying as homosexual got you excommunicated from the Church.
Today it does not.

God sure changes his mind fast on what is sin and what isn't sin.

No, this isn't true.

People could identify as gay or struggling with same-sex attraction ten years ago without getting exed. It was only if people were in a sexual relationship with a member of the same-sex that they got excommunicated.

So in the 1980s one could self-identify as homosexual stand at the pulpit and "come out" and they would be a member in good standing?

If you are going to quibble about whether it was 10 or 20 or even 30 years ago then again 30 years is a real short time frame for God to be changing His mind.

Do you have a copy of the handbook to point to?

Go read Spencer W. Kimbal.

[Artaxerxes]

You've asked about people doing dumb things, not about sinning. As I said, you're always welcome to ask questions that matter.

So preaching and teaching false doctrine isn't a sin, it's just a "dumb thing"?

Your questions were about people claiming to be squirrels and other silliness.

So it's silliness now is it? So according to you we should take someone seriously when they say they lust after the same-sex but that it's just silly when someone says they lust after trees or squirrels?

Again your theology is inconsistent and you cannot defend your position so you have to resort to "that's silly". It's only silly because you cannot defend your theology and you know it.

Yes, your questions about squirrels and such were absolutely silly. You don't actually believe that people are doing that in church, you just thought of a silly question.

What is inconsistent? I never said it was sinful to think you're a squirrel. I said you're a silly man asking silly hypotheticals.

[Artaxerxes]

No, this isn't true.

People could identify as gay or struggling with same-sex attraction ten years ago without getting exed. It was only if people were in a sexual relationship with a member of the same-sex that they got excommunicated.

So in the 1980s one could self-identify as homosexual stand at the pulpit and "come out" and they would be a member in good standing?

If you are going to quibble about whether it was 10 or 20 or even 30 years ago then again 30 years is a real short time frame for God to be changing His mind.

Do you have a copy of the handbook to point to?

Go read Spencer W. Kimbal.

I have. He talked about homosexual relationships. Is there somewhere he said anything like what you're claiming?

[spiritMan]

So preaching and teaching false doctrine isn't a sin, it's just a "dumb thing"?

Your questions were about people claiming to be squirrels and other silliness.

So it's silliness now is it? So according to you we should take someone seriously when they say they lust after the same-sex but that it's just silly when someone says they lust after trees or squirrels?

Again your theology is inconsistent and you cannot defend your position so you have to resort to "that's silly". It's only silly because you cannot defend your theology and you know it.

Yes, your questions about squirrels and such were absolutely silly. You don't actually believe that people are doing that in church, you just thought of a silly question.

What is inconsistent? I never said it was sinful to think you're a squirrel. I said you're a silly man asking silly hypotheticals.

Okay so I can go to the pulpit and self-identify as a squirrel, that god made me that way and that I sexually desire other squirrels.

Great. It's only "silly" because it demonstrates your absurd defense of sin, evil and wickedness.

[spiritMan]

So in the 1980s one could self-identify as homosexual stand at the pulpit and "come out" and they would be a member in good standing?

If you are going to quibble about whether it was 10 or 20 or even 30 years ago then again 30 years is a real short time frame for God to be changing His mind.

Do you have a copy of the handbook to point to?

Go read Spencer W. Kimbal.

I have. He talked about homosexual relationships. Is there somewhere he said anything like what you're claiming?

Because only the naive believe that self-identifying with a temptation means that they really, really do not want to have that temptation.

[Artaxerxes]

No, this isn't true.

People could identify as gay or struggling with same-sex attraction ten years ago without getting exed. It was only if people were in a sexual relationship with a member of the same-sex that they got excommunicated.

So in the 1980s one could self-identify as homosexual stand at the pulpit and "come out" and they would be a member in good standing?

If you are going to quibble about whether it was 10 or 20 or even 30 years ago then again 30 years is a real short time frame for God to be changing His mind.

Do you have a copy of the handbook to point to?

Go read Spencer W. Kimbal.

I found a copy of Miracle of Forgiveness. Of course, he does not say what you made up.

"Because of the seriousness of this sin it carries a heavy penalty for the unrepentant. The offender may realize that dis-fellowshipment or excommunication is the penalty for heavy petting, adultery, fornication and comparable sins if there is not adequate repentance, yet he often supposes that because his acts have not been committed with the opposite sex he is not in sin. Let it therefore be clearly stated that the seriousness of the sin of homosexuality is equal to or greater than that of fornication or adultery; and that the Lord's Church will as readily take action to disfellowship or excommunicate the unrepentant practicing homosexual as it will the unrepentant fornicator or adulterer."

[Artaxerxes]

Your questions were about people claiming to be squirrels and other silliness.

So it's silliness now is it? So according to you we should take someone seriously when they say they lust after the same-sex but that it's just silly when someone says they lust after trees or squirrels?

Again your theology is inconsistent and you cannot defend your position so you have to resort to "that's silly". It's only silly because you cannot defend your theology and you know it.

Yes, your questions about squirrels and such were absolutely silly. You don't actually believe that people are doing that in church, you just thought of a silly question.

What is inconsistent? I never said it was sinful to think you're a squirrel. I said you're a silly man asking silly hypotheticals.

Okay so I can go to the pulpit and self-identify as a squirrel, that god made me that way and that I sexually desire other squirrels.

Great. It's only "silly" because it demonstrates your absurd defense of sin, evil and wickedness.

Again, you're phrasing things in the dumbest way possible. You "can" go to the pulpit and confess to murder. You "can" murder people. You have agency. The fact that you "can" doesn't mean it isn't a sin.

[Artaxerxes]

Do you have a copy of the handbook to point to?

Go read Spencer W. Kimbal.

I have. He talked about homosexual relationships. Is there somewhere he said anything like what you're claiming?

Because only the naive believe that self-identifying with a temptation means that they really, really do not want to have that temptation.

Having known a fair number of self-identified alcoholics, I can definitely say that you're full of it.

[LDS Watchman]

I've answered the questions you've asked. If you want a different question answered, you're always welcome to ask a different question.

It isn't a religion of personal rules. It's a religion that allows God to determine what is sin, and not you or me. God says actions and lusting are sins, but being tempted isn't. I don't know how you can struggle so much to understand this distinction.

10 years ago, self-identifying as homosexual got you excommunicated from the Church.
Today it does not.

God sure changes his mind fast on what is sin and what isn't sin.

No, this isn't true.

People could identify as gay or struggling with same-sex attraction ten years ago without getting exed. It was only if people were in a sexual relationship with a member of the same-sex that they got excommunicated.

So in the 1980s one could self-identify as homosexual stand at the pulpit and "come out" and they would be a member in good standing?

If you are going to quibble about whether it was 10 or 20 or even 30 years ago then again 30 years is a real short time frame for God to be changing His mind.

Can you please provide some examples of individuals from say the 1980s who were excommunicated for saying they were gay or had same-sex attraction, without actually breaking the law of chastity?

I have never heard of this happening, ever.

[iWriteStuff]

hey, y'all know GC is over, right? If you wanna argue about SSA and getting exed, maybe start a new thread? This one is still (in theory) a conference related thread.

[LDS Watchman]

Replying to both your accounts:

Still paranoid, I see.

Paul preached in the Areopagus, Jesus on a hillside.

Please actually read those verses in D&C 124 and D&C 126 this time.

[LDS Watchman]

hey, y'all know GC is over, right? If you wanna argue about SSA and getting exed, maybe start a new thread? This one is still (in theory) a conference related thread.

Same-sex attraction was mentioned in Conference. I'd like to see if Spirit Man can back up his charge that within the past couple of decades people were exed for merely stating that they were gay.

[HereWeGo]

hey, y'all know GC is over, right? If you wanna argue about SSA and getting exed, maybe start a new thread? This one is still (in theory) a conference related thread.

Sadly, people just keep feeding the Trolls and the thread no longer is what it started out to be. I wish they would start a new thread so that those of us who wanted to discuss GC could do so without having to wade through the distractions. We would then see what the new thread is about and could avoid it if we don't like it.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Did I just see that Nelson announced 17 new temples... wow the church is growing by leaps and bounds...

[Fred]

Did I just see that Nelson announced 17 new temples... wow the church is growing by leaps and bounds...

Prime real estate is a better investment than gold.

[iWriteStuff]

Did I just see that Nelson announced 17 new temples... wow the church is growing by leaps and bounds...

I hear that brings his “announced” tally up to 100 (completed = 2).

I’ve also heard he and President Hinckley had a bit of a rivalry in their day. If so, he is doing his best to out-prophet Hinckley now that he’s the guy in charge. He declares Hinckley’s “I’m a Mormon” campaign made baby Jesus cry, gets quoted in conference nearly more than the scriptures, and now he’s winning the temple announcement game.

What’s next? Bigger birthday bash when he hits 100?

[JK4Woods]

Just a thought…. With the big emphasis on turning to the Savior in our personal lives… think it has anything to do with a big die-off…??

Meaning, perhaps they know a lot of people will pass thru the veil in the near future, and it’s their way of preparing souls for the judgement bar of God.

[spiritMan]

hey, y'all know GC is over, right? If you wanna argue about SSA and getting exed, maybe start a new thread? This one is still (in theory) a conference related thread.

Same-sex attraction was mentioned in Conference. I'd like to see if Spirit Man can back up his charge that within the past couple of decades people were exed for merely stating that they were gay.

Do your own research; it's pretty obvious what the Church would do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... _the_1970s

It has only been within the last 10 or so years that people would claim to identify as homosexual and then ALSO claim "well I don't really act on it" splitting hairs.

It's obvious that the unrepentant (i.e. the individual who consistently proclaimed they were homosexual and that's just who they are) would be ex'd.

[spiritMan]

hey, y'all know GC is over, right? If you wanna argue about SSA and getting exed, maybe start a new thread? This one is still (in theory) a conference related thread.

Same-sex attraction was mentioned in Conference. I'd like to see if Spirit Man can back up his charge that within the past couple of decades people were exed for merely stating that they were gay.

1976 – A version of the Church Handbook was released changing the 1968 reading of "homo-sexual acts" being grounds for a church court to "moral transgression" like "homosexuality".[81][82] This change seemed to make Mormons vulnerable to church punishment for having a homosexual orientation alone even without sexual activity.[1]: 382  From 1976 until 1989 under president Kimball the Church Handbook continued to call for church discipline for members attracted to the same sex even if they were celibate, equating merely being homosexual with the seriousness of acts of adultery and child molestation.
---------
You can put that in your pipe and smoke it. Shove off dude, it's obvious what the Church would do.

[Thx99]

Did I just see that Nelson announced 17 new temples... wow the church is growing by leaps and bounds...

I hear that brings his “announced” tally up to 100 (completed = 2).

I’ve also heard he and President Hinckley had a bit of a rivalry in their day. If so, he is doing his best to out-prophet Hinckley now that he’s the guy in charge. He declares Hinckley’s “I’m a Mormon” campaign made baby Jesus cry, gets quoted in conference nearly more than the scriptures, and now he’s winning the temple announcement game.

What’s next? Bigger birthday bash when he hits 100?

Stuff like “I am a Mormon” campaign….if Nelson hated it so much why not protest at the time? Maybe he did and the prophet decided it was right and they went with it. But I hate whiplash stuff like that.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Did I just see that Nelson announced 17 new temples... wow the church is growing by leaps and bounds...

I hear that brings his “announced” tally up to 100 (completed = 2).

I’ve also heard he and President Hinckley had a bit of a rivalry in their day. If so, he is doing his best to out-prophet Hinckley now that he’s the guy in charge. He declares Hinckley’s “I’m a Mormon” campaign made baby Jesus cry, gets quoted in conference nearly more than the scriptures, and now he’s winning the temple announcement game.

What’s next? Bigger birthday bash when he hits 100?

Stuff like “I am a Mormon” campaign….if Nelson hated it so much why not protest at the time? Maybe he did and the prophet decided it was right and they went with it. But I hate whiplash stuff like that.

Nelson did protest. He gave a GC talk on it and Hinckley shut him down. BUT, his wife let us in on a little secret that her hubby was able to fulfill his wildest dreams now that he’s the man in charge.

[Being There]

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

So tell me exactly what a sin is then?

You realize that sin literally means "missing the mark".

I don't know where you learned etymology, but I believe sin comes from sons, meaning guilt.

I always like James's definition. "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

So someone can be extremely filthy in their mind and as long as they don't physically act it out in the world it is not sin?

these guys are probably hired by the church (they would never admit that though)
to try to help the church's image to try to show it's not as corrupt as it really is,
and would try to justify ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that church leaders say and do.

Unfortunately - for them - they don't get very far in this forum -
where many members are not asleep - and aren't the blind following the blind.

The master has told us.
Jesus said
27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

***** 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her
hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Matthew 5

so as far as same-sex attraction.
I don't care what leaders of the church say -
same-sex attraction and being homosexual IS a sin - and is wrong. period.
no matter how much you want to twist it and justify yourself
(like all those that are - do)
I've heard every excuse and justification in the book.

***** IT'S THE DESIRE IN YOUR HEART - NOT THE ACT.

you don't actually have to do it !
you've already done it, just to desire it. to want it . to think it. it's all in the mind.
to be attracted means you have a desire for it - in this case, for something that's wrong.

------------------------------------------
and as I've said before

"simply put
You cannot use the word "attraction" for the same sex
and have it mean something that is not wrong.

When using the word "attraction" for people,
the word "attraction, has to be used, and what is
only between a man, and a woman.

When a righteous man and woman of God is looking
for an eternal companion to be married to in the temple,
they will have an attraction for each other.
God made man and woman to be together.
they have a natural attraction to one another.
God made this natural attraction for each other so a man
and a woman would come together and fulfill God's plan.
"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth"

You can not say the same thing - a man for another man.

When two guys are friends, you really wouldn't use the word
attraction, and say that "I'm attracted to him" would you.
but just friendship, is not what we're really talking about here is it.
We are talking about a man having a physical attraction for another man - and that, is simply WRONG,
no matter how you want to twist and justify it.

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Matthew 19

"4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."


Have you ever thought - why ? did Jesus make the distinction
between what the people thought was lust, and what it REALLY IS.
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery"
the people thought that "adultery", was something that you actually
had to act on, and do.
but Jesus said:
" But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

it all starts in the mind, and your hearts desire.
Proverbs 23
"7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: "

"We will be judged according to our thoughts, words, deeds, and the desires of our hearts " (see Alma 12:14; 5:15; 41:3–6; D&C 137:9; Matthew 12:36–37; Revelation 20:12–14).

----------------------------------------------------------

what are some words that describe lust
and these other words ?
here I'll let google answer that for ya.

lust -
craving, desire, longing, sensuality.
"be consumed with desire for, find sexually attractive"
"very strong sexual desire"

attraction -
allure, appeal, attractiveness, desirability, interest, bait.
"ability to draw attention; something that draws attention"
"the action or power of evoking interest, pleasure, or liking for someone"

desire -
attraction, yearning, appetite, lust, craving, lasciviousness.
"want, longing"

[LDS Watchman]

hey, y'all know GC is over, right? If you wanna argue about SSA and getting exed, maybe start a new thread? This one is still (in theory) a conference related thread.

Same-sex attraction was mentioned in Conference. I'd like to see if Spirit Man can back up his charge that within the past couple of decades people were exed for merely stating that they were gay.

Do your own research; it's pretty obvious what the Church would do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... _the_1970s

It has only been within the last 10 or so years that people would claim to identify as homosexual and then ALSO claim "well I don't really act on it" splitting hairs.

It's obvious that the unrepentant (i.e. the individual who consistently proclaimed they were homosexual and that's just who they are) would be ex'd.

Nothing in the Wikipedia article you cited supports your claim.

[LDS Watchman]

hey, y'all know GC is over, right? If you wanna argue about SSA and getting exed, maybe start a new thread? This one is still (in theory) a conference related thread.

Same-sex attraction was mentioned in Conference. I'd like to see if Spirit Man can back up his charge that within the past couple of decades people were exed for merely stating that they were gay.

1976 – A version of the Church Handbook was released changing the 1968 reading of "homo-sexual acts" being grounds for a church court to "moral transgression" like "homosexuality".[81][82] This change seemed to make Mormons vulnerable to church punishment for having a homosexual orientation alone even without sexual activity.[1]: 382  From 1976 until 1989 under president Kimball the Church Handbook continued to call for church discipline for members attracted to the same sex even if they were celibate, equating merely being homosexual with the seriousness of acts of adultery and child molestation.
---------
You can put that in your pipe and smoke it. Shove off dude, it's obvious what the Church would do.

This doesn't say that anyone was exed for simply admitting that they have same-sex attraction, let alone that this was the standard practice until very recently.

You're just making things up.