The Tolerant and Inclusive Church

[Serragon]

It is abundantly clear to me that RMN views himself as a transformational President who wants to fundamentally change the Church. There seem to be two main parts to this. First, which I will deal with in a separate thread, is the elevation of RMN as a celebrity who transcends the institution itself which allows him to enact the second part which is the Tolerant and Inclusive Church.

Since RMN, the church has been rapidly changing. The goal of all of these changes seems to be to make the first principles of the church be inclusiveness and tolerance. it seems that we want the church to be a place where everyone feels like they belong and are accepted as they are. A place where no one is judged or is made to feel uncomfortable about who they are or what they are doing.

The justification for this appears to be the commandment to love they neighbor and to be charitable. That this is how Christ ministered while in the flesh and we should model that. That He is no respecter of persons and that all are alike unto Him. That He invites all to Come unto Him.

But does the tolerant and inclusive church we see being crafted before us really model Christ's ministry? At the surface level, it seems appealing. We love. We invite. We share. We accept. We belong. And if Christ is Love and we are all His children, it seems to make sense.

But the reality is something different. Because Christ is not tolerant, and He is not inclusive.

Christ finds the lost sheep and brings it back. He does not allow all the sheep that are not His into the fold.

Christ is loving and provides us endless opportunities, but He still requires us to repent to be His. He does not change His standards or requirements in order to increase the size of his flock.

Christ wishes us to reach out to all with His message regardless of circumstance. In this He is no respecter of persons. But He does not allow those persons to redefine His message into something that fits their lifestyle. To be part of His flock, they must align themselves with Him. He will not align Himself with them.

Christ's flock is unified around Him and His commandments. Though they be from different cultures, they form a new culture around Christ. But the inclusive church has no unity, because the inclusive church can't agree on even the fundamental idea of who Christ was and what He commanded. Even worse, it appears that what the inclusive church is trying to build unity around is the leaders themselves as a proxy for Christ. You may not agree on whether murdering your own child is moral or not, but you can all unify around the idea that the apostles speak for God.

So the inclusive church seems to represent nothing and has no power. Its members have little in common and can't agree on the most fundamental ideas. They each bring the world with them to the church and identify their personal vices and desires with Christ. In the inclusive church, the only real sin is to not be tolerant of the sins of others. There is no unity. There is no zeal. There is no purpose. There is no point.

So things are manufactured to try and create purpose and interest, like a focus on regular temple attendance. But these fall short because these activities were never intended to be the goal, but the natural fruit that comes from discipleship.

And we change our preaching to focus on God's Love for you instead of your Love for God. We end up with a selfish people who view God as their personal vending machine of blessings and comfort instead of a selfless people who's actions are all prompted by their deep Love for God.

What do you think? Is this inclusive and tolerant church why the Gospel was restored? is this what God was trying to build with the early Saints? Does it really lead people to repentance and discipleship? Or does it create an environment where people feel justified in their sin?

[blitzinstripes]

Best post I have read in a long time. Thank you.

[Allison]

You have put to words what has been so unsettling about the recent shift in priorities. Above all, the rising generation is at risk and is already confused about the new meaning of right and wrong.

[Lemarque]

I was thinking about this a couple days ago. The other part of what I was thinking is how President Hinckley put us firmly on this path. He was the president of the church (and I'm not too old so there may be others before him that were like this) that seemed to focus on getting the church into the mainstream. Media interviews, huge temple building push, going along with the government with regards to the war in Iraq, and so on. (Funny story about my father-in-law: he wrote a letter in the early 2000's to the Utah senator about how he thought the Iraq war was unjustified. Then a couple weeks later President Hinckley said something in support of the war. To this day, my FIL brings that up as an example of when he had to change his perspective to be more in line with "the Lord's prophet.")

Once the church got into the mainstream, it was only a matter of time before we would either need to step back and break away, or go along to get along.

At least under President Monson there was the church taking a stand on Prop 8 in California, and he tried to make an effort to make it a more pure religion (James 1:7 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.) Prior to him the 3 fold mission was proclaim the gospel, perfect the saints, and redeem the dead. Monson tried to add in "Care for those in need."

But now we are stuck with supporting LGBT laws and making statements on everything from George Floyd to Insurrections, but silence on things like butchering children's bodies with gender affirmation.

[nightlight]

It is abundantly clear to me that RMN views himself as a transformational President who wants to fundamentally change the Church. There seem to be two main parts to this. First, which I will deal with in a separate thread, is the elevation of RMN as a celebrity who transcends the institution itself which allows him to enact the second part which is the Tolerant and Inclusive Church.

Since RMN, the church has been rapidly changing. The goal of all of these changes seems to be to make the first principles of the church be inclusiveness and tolerance. it seems that we want the church to be a place where everyone feels like they belong and are accepted as they are. A place where no one is judged or is made to feel uncomfortable about who they are or what they are doing.

The justification for this appears to be the commandment to love they neighbor and to be charitable. That this is how Christ ministered while in the flesh and we should model that. That He is no respecter of persons and that all are alike unto Him. That He invites all to Come unto Him.

But does the tolerant and inclusive church we see being crafted before us really model Christ's ministry? At the surface level, it seems appealing. We love. We invite. We share. We accept. We belong. And if Christ is Love and we are all His children, it seems to make sense.

But the reality is something different. Because Christ is not tolerant, and He is not inclusive.

Christ finds the lost sheep and brings it back. He does not allow all the sheep that are not His into the fold.

Christ is loving and provides us endless opportunities, but He still requires us to repent to be His. He does not change His standards or requirements in order to increase the size of his flock.

Christ wishes us to reach out to all with His message regardless of circumstance. In this He is no respecter of persons. But He does not allow those persons to redefine His message into something that fits their lifestyle. To be part of His flock, they must align themselves with Him. He will not align Himself with them.

Christ's flock is unified around Him and His commandments. Though they be from different cultures, they form a new culture around Christ. But the inclusive church has no unity, because the inclusive church can't agree on even the fundamental idea of who Christ was and what He commanded. Even worse, it appears that what the inclusive church is trying to build unity around is the leaders themselves as a proxy for Christ. You may not agree on whether murdering your own child is moral or not, but you can all unify around the idea that the apostles speak for God.

So the inclusive church seems to represent nothing and has no power. Its members have little in common and can't agree on the most fundamental ideas. They each bring the world with them to the church and identify their personal vices and desires with Christ. In the inclusive church, the only real sin is to not be tolerant of the sins of others. There is no unity. There is no zeal. There is no purpose. There is no point.

So things are manufactured to try and create purpose and interest, like a focus on regular temple attendance. But these fall short because these activities were never intended to be the goal, but the natural fruit that comes from discipleship.

And we change our preaching to focus on God's Love for you instead of your Love for God. We end up with a selfish people who view God as their personal vending machine of blessings and comfort instead of a selfless people who's actions are all prompted by their deep Love for God.

What do you think? Is this inclusive and tolerant church why the Gospel was restored? is this what God was trying to build with the early Saints? Does it really lead people to repentance and discipleship? Or does it create an environment where people feel justified in their sin?

It's reminds me of how people often quote only half of a certain scripture

The part they quote:

21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
-------------

The part the don't:

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

[mudflap]

the hopeful side of this, if there is one, is that whomever the President is, has most of the influence (maybe we get a "good one" next?)

the depressing side is, the current one made a lot of picks for the next one.

Still, they are a lot like Supreme Court Justices - you never know how they are going to rule until they actually get in that seat.

[HVDC]

It is abundantly clear to me that RMN views himself as a transformational President who wants to fundamentally change the Church. There seem to be two main parts to this. First, which I will deal with in a separate thread, is the elevation of RMN as a celebrity who transcends the institution itself which allows him to enact the second part which is the Tolerant and Inclusive Church.

Since RMN, the church has been rapidly changing. The goal of all of these changes seems to be to make the first principles of the church be inclusiveness and tolerance. it seems that we want the church to be a place where everyone feels like they belong and are accepted as they are. A place where no one is judged or is made to feel uncomfortable about who they are or what they are doing.

The justification for this appears to be the commandment to love they neighbor and to be charitable. That this is how Christ ministered while in the flesh and we should model that. That He is no respecter of persons and that all are alike unto Him. That He invites all to Come unto Him.

But does the tolerant and inclusive church we see being crafted before us really model Christ's ministry? At the surface level, it seems appealing. We love. We invite. We share. We accept. We belong. And if Christ is Love and we are all His children, it seems to make sense.

But the reality is something different. Because Christ is not tolerant, and He is not inclusive.

Christ finds the lost sheep and brings it back. He does not allow all the sheep that are not His into the fold.

Christ is loving and provides us endless opportunities, but He still requires us to repent to be His. He does not change His standards or requirements in order to increase the size of his flock.

Christ wishes us to reach out to all with His message regardless of circumstance. In this He is no respecter of persons. But He does not allow those persons to redefine His message into something that fits their lifestyle. To be part of His flock, they must align themselves with Him. He will not align Himself with them.

Christ's flock is unified around Him and His commandments. Though they be from different cultures, they form a new culture around Christ. But the inclusive church has no unity, because the inclusive church can't agree on even the fundamental idea of who Christ was and what He commanded. Even worse, it appears that what the inclusive church is trying to build unity around is the leaders themselves as a proxy for Christ. You may not agree on whether murdering your own child is moral or not, but you can all unify around the idea that the apostles speak for God.

So the inclusive church seems to represent nothing and has no power. Its members have little in common and can't agree on the most fundamental ideas. They each bring the world with them to the church and identify their personal vices and desires with Christ. In the inclusive church, the only real sin is to not be tolerant of the sins of others. There is no unity. There is no zeal. There is no purpose. There is no point.

So things are manufactured to try and create purpose and interest, like a focus on regular temple attendance. But these fall short because these activities were never intended to be the goal, but the natural fruit that comes from discipleship.

And we change our preaching to focus on God's Love for you instead of your Love for God. We end up with a selfish people who view God as their personal vending machine of blessings and comfort instead of a selfless people who's actions are all prompted by their deep Love for God.

What do you think? Is this inclusive and tolerant church why the Gospel was restored? is this what God was trying to build with the early Saints? Does it really lead people to repentance and discipleship? Or does it create an environment where people feel justified in their sin?

Nelson has a female brain.

You can tell because he is effeminate and has sensitivities like a woman.

And their ruthlessness.

He is not someone to be messed with.

Most, but not all, high IQ males have female brains and are effeminate; high IQ males that don't are rarer and very effective predators.

Our current predator class seeks them out to either coopt or destroy.

I do not know how many female brained males would naturally occur or how many are deliberately manipulated into existence.

In earlier times most would probably have died early.

However, since the advent of empires, the skills of these intelligent males became increasingly valuable.

Think such manipulation is nonsense?

Look up Eunuchs and Castrados.

We have the equivalant today.

What you are seeing all around you is a massive medical and phylogical psyop. To create a people built after the image of their dual nature God.

And they are including females now.

Just like those Egyptian motifs.

These so called, the people who cannot be named, are rapidly ushering in a new Millinium.

Theirs.

Not Yours.

In addition to changing the human phenotype.

They are "Sinuosity" Terraforming the planet.

There is a lot of New coming.

Buckle up.

And take your vitamins.

Won't really help.

But at least you will feel like you are doing something.

Sir H

[mtmom]

It is abundantly clear to me that RMN views himself as a transformational President who wants to fundamentally change the Church. There seem to be two main parts to this. First, which I will deal with in a separate thread, is the elevation of RMN as a celebrity who transcends the institution itself which allows him to enact the second part which is the Tolerant and Inclusive Church.

Since RMN, the church has been rapidly changing. The goal of all of these changes seems to be to make the first principles of the church be inclusiveness and tolerance. it seems that we want the church to be a place where everyone feels like they belong and are accepted as they are. A place where no one is judged or is made to feel uncomfortable about who they are or what they are doing.

The justification for this appears to be the commandment to love they neighbor and to be charitable. That this is how Christ ministered while in the flesh and we should model that. That He is no respecter of persons and that all are alike unto Him. That He invites all to Come unto Him.

But does the tolerant and inclusive church we see being crafted before us really model Christ's ministry? At the surface level, it seems appealing. We love. We invite. We share. We accept. We belong. And if Christ is Love and we are all His children, it seems to make sense.

But the reality is something different. Because Christ is not tolerant, and He is not inclusive.

Christ finds the lost sheep and brings it back. He does not allow all the sheep that are not His into the fold.

Christ is loving and provides us endless opportunities, but He still requires us to repent to be His. He does not change His standards or requirements in order to increase the size of his flock.

Christ wishes us to reach out to all with His message regardless of circumstance. In this He is no respecter of persons. But He does not allow those persons to redefine His message into something that fits their lifestyle. To be part of His flock, they must align themselves with Him. He will not align Himself with them.

Christ's flock is unified around Him and His commandments. Though they be from different cultures, they form a new culture around Christ. But the inclusive church has no unity, because the inclusive church can't agree on even the fundamental idea of who Christ was and what He commanded. Even worse, it appears that what the inclusive church is trying to build unity around is the leaders themselves as a proxy for Christ. You may not agree on whether murdering your own child is moral or not, but you can all unify around the idea that the apostles speak for God.

So the inclusive church seems to represent nothing and has no power. Its members have little in common and can't agree on the most fundamental ideas. They each bring the world with them to the church and identify their personal vices and desires with Christ. In the inclusive church, the only real sin is to not be tolerant of the sins of others. There is no unity. There is no zeal. There is no purpose. There is no point.

So things are manufactured to try and create purpose and interest, like a focus on regular temple attendance. But these fall short because these activities were never intended to be the goal, but the natural fruit that comes from discipleship.

And we change our preaching to focus on God's Love for you instead of your Love for God. We end up with a selfish people who view God as their personal vending machine of blessings and comfort instead of a selfless people who's actions are all prompted by their deep Love for God.

What do you think? Is this inclusive and tolerant church why the Gospel was restored? is this what God was trying to build with the early Saints? Does it really lead people to repentance and discipleship? Or does it create an environment where people feel justified in their sin?

Well said. You were able to put into words my feelings and concerns about the direction the church is heading. I have spent so many days and hours in prayer asking for clarification. And there it is! God bless.

[EmmaLee]

When Barack Hussein Obama was running for president, he ran his campaign on “change” and said he would “fundamentally transform America.” Then after he was elected, for eight years he added action to his words, and America has indeed been transformed, fundamentally - and we are seeing the abundant, stinking, rotten fruits of that today. He, and the other Marxist globalists (redundant), are still doing this via their dementia-riddled fraudulent "President" Biden.

The Church always follows the trends of the government, usually by several years or so, depending.

RMNelson is to the LDS Church what Obama was (is) to the United States (and to the world, by extension). If Nelson had a slogan, it would be "I will fundamentally transform the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." And indeed, he has done so, and continues to do so on a frighteningly regular basis. The rotten fruits from this are also readily apparent and should be obvious.

[ransomme]

When Barack Hussein Obama was running for president, he ran his campaign on “change” and said he would “fundamentally transform America.” Then after he was elected, for eight years he added action to his words, and America has indeed been transformed, fundamentally - and we are seeing the abundant, stinking, rotten fruits of that today. He, and the other Marxist globalists (redundant), are still doing this via their dementia-riddled fraudulent "President" Biden.

The Church always follows the trends of the government, usually by several years or so, depending.

RMNelson is to the LDS Church what Obama was (is) to the United States (and to the world, by extension). If Nelson had a slogan, it would be "I will fundamentally transform the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." And indeed, he has done so, and continues to do so on a frighteningly regular basis. The rotten fruits from this are also readily apparent and should be obvious.

For a second there I thought you were going to say "keep sweet, pray and obey"

[EmmaLee]

When Barack Hussein Obama was running for president, he ran his campaign on “change” and said he would “fundamentally transform America.” Then after he was elected, for eight years he added action to his words, and America has indeed been transformed, fundamentally - and we are seeing the abundant, stinking, rotten fruits of that today. He, and the other Marxist globalists (redundant), are still doing this via their dementia-riddled fraudulent "President" Biden.

The Church always follows the trends of the government, usually by several years or so, depending.

RMNelson is to the LDS Church what Obama was (is) to the United States (and to the world, by extension). If Nelson had a slogan, it would be "I will fundamentally transform the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." And indeed, he has done so, and continues to do so on a frighteningly regular basis. The rotten fruits from this are also readily apparent and should be obvious.

For a second there I thought you were going to say "keep sweet, pray and obey"

Goodness. Why would you have thought that??

[Serragon]

When Barack Hussein Obama was running for president, he ran his campaign on “change” and said he would “fundamentally transform America.” Then after he was elected, for eight years he added action to his words, and America has indeed been transformed, fundamentally - and we are seeing the abundant, stinking, rotten fruits of that today. He, and the other Marxist globalists (redundant), are still doing this via their dementia-riddled fraudulent "President" Biden.

The Church always follows the trends of the government, usually by several years or so, depending.

RMNelson is to the LDS Church what Obama was (is) to the United States (and to the world, by extension). If Nelson had a slogan, it would be "I will fundamentally transform the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." And indeed, he has done so, and continues to do so on a frighteningly regular basis. The rotten fruits from this are also readily apparent and should be obvious.

This is an excellent observation.

[ransomme]

When Barack Hussein Obama was running for president, he ran his campaign on “change” and said he would “fundamentally transform America.” Then after he was elected, for eight years he added action to his words, and America has indeed been transformed, fundamentally - and we are seeing the abundant, stinking, rotten fruits of that today. He, and the other Marxist globalists (redundant), are still doing this via their dementia-riddled fraudulent "President" Biden.

The Church always follows the trends of the government, usually by several years or so, depending.

RMNelson is to the LDS Church what Obama was (is) to the United States (and to the world, by extension). If Nelson had a slogan, it would be "I will fundamentally transform the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." And indeed, he has done so, and continues to do so on a frighteningly regular basis. The rotten fruits from this are also readily apparent and should be obvious.

For a second there I thought you were going to say "keep sweet, pray and obey"

Goodness. Why would you have thought that??

lol, idk just got a creepy old-man vibe for a second, along with a poor leader vibe...so it seemed logical

But anyhow I think your slogan fits.

[Christianlee]

I suppose there is always the possibility the scriptures the Church has relied upon are false on many things and God is updating his policy through RMN. Of course the implications of that would be immense. Maybe God doesn’t care about our sex lives if it makes us feel good as long as we love and accept everyone. Don’t worry, be happy. Happy is such a meaningless term anyway.

Of course I don’t believe any of what I just wrote.

[Dave62]

It is abundantly clear to me that RMN views himself as a transformational President who wants to fundamentally change the Church. There seem to be two main parts to this. First, which I will deal with in a separate thread, is the elevation of RMN as a celebrity who transcends the institution itself which allows him to enact the second part which is the Tolerant and Inclusive Church.

Since RMN, the church has been rapidly changing. The goal of all of these changes seems to be to make the first principles of the church be inclusiveness and tolerance. it seems that we want the church to be a place where everyone feels like they belong and are accepted as they are. A place where no one is judged or is made to feel uncomfortable about who they are or what they are doing.

The justification for this appears to be the commandment to love they neighbor and to be charitable. That this is how Christ ministered while in the flesh and we should model that. That He is no respecter of persons and that all are alike unto Him. That He invites all to Come unto Him.

But does the tolerant and inclusive church we see being crafted before us really model Christ's ministry? At the surface level, it seems appealing. We love. We invite. We share. We accept. We belong. And if Christ is Love and we are all His children, it seems to make sense.

But the reality is something different. Because Christ is not tolerant, and He is not inclusive.

Christ finds the lost sheep and brings it back. He does not allow all the sheep that are not His into the fold.

Christ is loving and provides us endless opportunities, but He still requires us to repent to be His. He does not change His standards or requirements in order to increase the size of his flock.

Christ wishes us to reach out to all with His message regardless of circumstance. In this He is no respecter of persons. But He does not allow those persons to redefine His message into something that fits their lifestyle. To be part of His flock, they must align themselves with Him. He will not align Himself with them.

Christ's flock is unified around Him and His commandments. Though they be from different cultures, they form a new culture around Christ. But the inclusive church has no unity, because the inclusive church can't agree on even the fundamental idea of who Christ was and what He commanded. Even worse, it appears that what the inclusive church is trying to build unity around is the leaders themselves as a proxy for Christ. You may not agree on whether murdering your own child is moral or not, but you can all unify around the idea that the apostles speak for God.

So the inclusive church seems to represent nothing and has no power. Its members have little in common and can't agree on the most fundamental ideas. They each bring the world with them to the church and identify their personal vices and desires with Christ. In the inclusive church, the only real sin is to not be tolerant of the sins of others. There is no unity. There is no zeal. There is no purpose. There is no point.

So things are manufactured to try and create purpose and interest, like a focus on regular temple attendance. But these fall short because these activities were never intended to be the goal, but the natural fruit that comes from discipleship.

And we change our preaching to focus on God's Love for you instead of your Love for God. We end up with a selfish people who view God as their personal vending machine of blessings and comfort instead of a selfless people who's actions are all prompted by their deep Love for God.

What do you think? Is this inclusive and tolerant church why the Gospel was restored? is this what God was trying to build with the early Saints? Does it really lead people to repentance and discipleship? Or does it create an environment where people feel justified in their sin?

Serragon, my friend, this is gold...

[JLHPROF]

Whatever hastens the setting in order and the millennial reign is probably the unavoidable path.
We don't want to be a part of any sin or evil personally. But its inevitable spread is prophesied.
As a wise man once said "Vote Democrat - it's the fastest way to bring on the end times".

[Jamescm]

This encapsulates, perhaps, what makes me so uneasy. The Church's teachings, as well as unofficial commentaries and thoughts, have helped me grow tremendously in spirit. I've made many powerful changes to myself over many years, sometimes small corrections and other times complete turnarounds. These I've done through difficulty and humility to bring me in line with what God, Christ, and Celestial living is like. This change has been hard, but has brought me peace with others, a stronger will to improve my own talents, and the ability to balance tolerance for others in all life circumstances with rejecting wickedness.

Today, the sexual cleansing and purity I've fought to achieve are all but unnecessary as long as you or your partner embrace a social tool used by the devil to divide and corrupt. After giving up envying the property and success of others, compulsory support of others through taxes and welfare are entirely in vogue. After the sacrifices my wife has gone through to educate our children in the Spirit of the Lord and avoid the calamities the Church was once warned would be brought by publicly funded education, it is solely public education and educators that are trusted or upheld as positive examples to strive for in terms of gaining knowledge. After working through my own introversion and insecurities to stand up and take the responsibilities necessary for manhood and fatherhood, those both in and out of the Church continually seek to empower women and emasculate men. After seeking to be honest in all of my dealings and to admit what is false, I watch the majority of Church members embrace massive, obvious lies regarding election integrity and the wu flu scare, or even smaller events such as race-baiting publicized lies.

In short, everything I've learned and witnessed in the Church and from those in it who can be termed "Christ-like" in any capacity have trained me up to be almost the opposite of what the Church would do for me now. Chastity brings focus of mind and vigor of body. Communism is evil, and individual liberty is of the Lord. Knowledge must be gained on correct principles. Men and women are irreconcilably different and must both fight spiritually, but the strong and steady determination of men is what is needed in homes, in office, and in society now more than ever-feminism literally be damned. We cannot trust one another unless we are honest with one another. If I'm so deluded that I tell you to call me a woman, what good are you to my long-term or spiritual wellbeing if you're so equally corrupt as to acquiesce and call me a woman? As of this moment, there is no church with the courage and honesty to publicly stand by these principles, and that testifies of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. I've recently flirted somewhat with the Bickertonite sect as well as with the man from Brazil, but both investigations died quickly to the same prompting from the Lord that they are empty, and that although everything I've expressed above is indeed true, that those failing to boldly lead the Church are, indeed, who He has called.

[h_p]

Whatever hastens the setting in order and the millennial reign is probably the unavoidable path.
We don't want to be a part of any sin or evil personally. But its inevitable spread is prophesied.
As a wise man once said "Vote Democrat - it's the fastest way to bring on the end times".

“You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.” --Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[Cruiserdude]

This encapsulates, perhaps, what makes me so uneasy. The Church's teachings, as well as unofficial commentaries and thoughts, have helped me grow tremendously in spirit. I've made many powerful changes to myself over many years, sometimes small corrections and other times complete turnarounds. These I've done through difficulty and humility to bring me in line with what God, Christ, and Celestial living is like. This change has been hard, but has brought me peace with others, a stronger will to improve my own talents, and the ability to balance tolerance for others in all life circumstances with rejecting wickedness.

Today, the sexual cleansing and purity I've fought to achieve are all but unnecessary as long as you or your partner embrace a social tool used by the devil to divide and corrupt. After giving up envying the property and success of others, compulsory support of others through taxes and welfare are entirely in vogue. After the sacrifices my wife has gone through to educate our children in the Spirit of the Lord and avoid the calamities the Church was once warned would be brought by publicly funded education, it is solely public education and educators that are trusted or upheld as positive examples to strive for in terms of gaining knowledge. After working through my own introversion and insecurities to stand up and take the responsibilities necessary for manhood and fatherhood, those both in and out of the Church continually seek to empower women and emasculate men. After seeking to be honest in all of my dealings and to admit what is false, I watch the majority of Church members embrace massive, obvious lies regarding election integrity and the wu flu scare, or even smaller events such as race-baiting publicized lies.

In short, everything I've learned and witnessed in the Church and from those in it who can be termed "Christ-like" in any capacity have trained me up to be almost the opposite of what the Church would do for me now. Chastity brings focus of mind and vigor of body. Communism is evil, and individual liberty is of the Lord. Knowledge must be gained on correct principles. Men and women are irreconcilably different and must both fight spiritually, but the strong and steady determination of men is what is needed in homes, in office, and in society now more than ever-feminism literally be damned. We cannot trust one another unless we are honest with one another. If I'm so deluded that I tell you to call me a woman, what good are you to my long-term or spiritual wellbeing if you're so equally corrupt as to acquiesce and call me a woman? As of this moment, there is no church with the courage and honesty to publicly stand by these principles, and that testifies of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. I've recently flirted somewhat with the Bickertonite sect as well as with the man from Brazil, but both investigations died quickly to the same prompting from the Lord that they are empty, and that although everything I've expressed above is indeed true, that those failing to boldly lead the Church are, indeed, who He has called.

You're an honorable man, hermano... I love the folks on this forum. We are very fortunate to be able to talk and discuss these heartfelt concerns here on this message board. I'm so grateful to know that we're not alone in seeing and going through these things in these times.

[marc]

I love the folks on this forum. We are very fortunate to be able to talk and discuss these heartfelt concerns here on this message board. I'm so grateful to know that we're not alone in seeing and going through these things in these times.

And thank you, Brian, for your libertarian minded, liberty loving, truth seeking, lies exposing efforts that have helped make this forum what it is. It feels so good not to be trammeled (on this message board).

[madvin]

The boy at the end of this very short video gets it.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/iFIN6I5rBK7q/

[larsenb]

It is abundantly clear to me that RMN views himself as a transformational President who wants to fundamentally change the Church. There seem to be two main parts to this. First, which I will deal with in a separate thread, is the elevation of RMN as a celebrity who transcends the institution itself which allows him to enact the second part which is the Tolerant and Inclusive Church.

Since RMN, the church has been rapidly changing. The goal of all of these changes seems to be to make the first principles of the church be inclusiveness and tolerance. it seems that we want the church to be a place where everyone feels like they belong and are accepted as they are. A place where no one is judged or is made to feel uncomfortable about who they are or what they are doing.

The justification for this appears to be the commandment to love they neighbor and to be charitable. That this is how Christ ministered while in the flesh and we should model that. That He is no respecter of persons and that all are alike unto Him. That He invites all to Come unto Him.

But does the tolerant and inclusive church we see being crafted before us really model Christ's ministry? At the surface level, it seems appealing. We love. We invite. We share. We accept. We belong. And if Christ is Love and we are all His children, it seems to make sense.

But the reality is something different. Because Christ is not tolerant, and He is not inclusive.

Christ finds the lost sheep and brings it back. He does not allow all the sheep that are not His into the fold.

Christ is loving and provides us endless opportunities, but He still requires us to repent to be His. He does not change His standards or requirements in order to increase the size of his flock.

Christ wishes us to reach out to all with His message regardless of circumstance. In this He is no respecter of persons. But He does not allow those persons to redefine His message into something that fits their lifestyle. To be part of His flock, they must align themselves with Him. He will not align Himself with them.

Christ's flock is unified around Him and His commandments. Though they be from different cultures, they form a new culture around Christ. But the inclusive church has no unity, because the inclusive church can't agree on even the fundamental idea of who Christ was and what He commanded. Even worse, it appears that what the inclusive church is trying to build unity around is the leaders themselves as a proxy for Christ. You may not agree on whether murdering your own child is moral or not, but you can all unify around the idea that the apostles speak for God.

So the inclusive church seems to represent nothing and has no power. Its members have little in common and can't agree on the most fundamental ideas. They each bring the world with them to the church and identify their personal vices and desires with Christ. In the inclusive church, the only real sin is to not be tolerant of the sins of others. There is no unity. There is no zeal. There is no purpose. There is no point.

So things are manufactured to try and create purpose and interest, like a focus on regular temple attendance. But these fall short because these activities were never intended to be the goal, but the natural fruit that comes from discipleship.

And we change our preaching to focus on God's Love for you instead of your Love for God. We end up with a selfish people who view God as their personal vending machine of blessings and comfort instead of a selfless people who's actions are all prompted by their deep Love for God.

What do you think? Is this inclusive and tolerant church why the Gospel was restored? is this what God was trying to build with the early Saints? Does it really lead people to repentance and discipleship? Or does it create an environment where people feel justified in their sin?

The fallacy of the mantra of diversity, but focused on one's religious beliefs, instead of culture/ethnicity/race, per se.

Its also seems to partake of the idea of "dialoguing to consensus", where you bring very diverse groups (in this case worshipers with different ideas, or even different religions) together to identify their commonalities. The catch, however, is that once these are identified, your differences become anathema. It's very Hegelian. The 'inclusive' church, in this case, is the predtermined consensus. Everything else is off the table.

[larsenb]

Whatever hastens the setting in order and the millennial reign is probably the unavoidable path.
We don't want to be a part of any sin or evil personally. But its inevitable spread is prophesied.
As a wise man once said "Vote Democrat - it's the fastest way to bring on the end times".

I think you could describe your "wise" man more as just a deeply cynical man.

[randyps]

What do you think? Is this inclusive and tolerant church why the Gospel was restored? is this what God was trying to build with the early Saints? Does it really lead people to repentance and discipleship? Or does it create an environment where people feel justified in their sin?

https://youtu.be/Mw0LiyYltco?t=259

This may have your answer. listen from the 4:00- 10:00 min mark

[Letfreedumbring]

EmmaLee brought up in another post the comparison of Obama to Nelson, and I think it very astute. Obama intentionally presented himself as a blank slate that his supporters could paint with their own desires. Obama fundamentally changed what it meant to be American for those who followed him, and the fruit of that is division and contention for most of us, but power for him and his friends. People still love Obama even though he instigated a fundamental shift in thinking for the democrats and the executive branch from representing and serving the people to ruling over them like a Chicago gang family. I think Nelson's pattern is similar. He wants a different church, and wants us to think about things differently and is doing what he can to make sure that happens.

This is very astute. Nelson has actually fractured the church much the same.

He has divided member against member with the unequal balance of power to favor one side over the other. Obama did this numerous times instigating while appearing removed but congratulating the victors (gay marriage, illegal immigration, victim identity formation, etc)

For Nelson this was with masks and mass vaccination. Allowing one side to claim the supposed moral high ground and punishing the other but this was different -- this was supposed to be a community of saints. Seriously, wearing a mask is Christ like?

RMN would also secretly jeer the other side by making it appear as if the older generation who were taught to believe certain things by the church were racist. This seems to be his focus making members of the church look like absolute fools while making himself out to be a savior of sorts. By their fruits you shall know them. Setting themselves up to be a light unto the people rather than Christ.

Sadly what will be left of the church will be the same broken spirit, shattered sense of unity or purpose and the inability to communicate rationally with others much like we find in America today.