Pushing for change in LDS church?

[Luke]

It is indeed a tactic of Satan to try and change unchanging doctrines and what have you. However, the irony seems to be lost on them.

Please elaborate?

Is it really a mystery what he’s talking about? You didn’t join the forum yesterday, marc

Yep, that!—among many others.

[Luke]

It is indeed a tactic of Satan to try and change unchanging doctrines and what have you. However, the irony seems to be lost on them.

Please elaborate?

Plural Marriage, Adam-God, the Gathering, Full Temple Ordinances, Re-baptism, and so on.

[Lizzy60]

... It's barf-inducing -
~~~

Is pushing for change within the LDS Church a ‘tactic of Satan’?

…she says, “and it’s our testimonies that are driving this.”

What’s actually driving this is psychological warfare to weaken men, families - society.

1984 Homosexual magazine laid out ways to indoctrinate…
1. Portray gays as victims.
2. Make gays look favorable/moral.
3. Make “victimizers” (anyone objecting to homosexuality) look bad
4. Undermine moral authority of churches as outdated etc.
How homosexual lobbyists changed church doctrine.
https://youtu.be/kEbsFOfY0d8

Look up “Overhauling of Straight America “ and “After the Ball.”

This was written by an exMormon who is working to get the LDS Church to change. It illustrates points 1, 2, 3, and 4 exactly. I copied this from a public FB page:
——————————————-
“I spent the first two hours of this day with a fifteen-year old and his mother. Our time was spent trying to sort through and undo the devastating tangle of emotions left in the wake of his encounter this past weekend with his youth pastor/Young Life leader. And I want to say on behalf of that precious teen and a million more in his shoes:
Telling a gay kid they are inherently flawed and have to fundamentally change this natural, beautiful, vital part of their person may still qualify as legal under the protective canopy of religious freedom…but it is immoral. To use religious freedom as grounds for psychologically assaulting and harming a child is neither a defense of God nor protection of moral order. Far from it.

To do this to a child is actually the worst form of taking God’s name in vain, the most tragic failure of religion's most inherent and noble purpose which is the nurturing of the human soul. Interpretations of sacred texts that end up demoralizing and diminishing humans, people like my fifteen-year old friend, are exactly the reason many sane people in our world find little or no use for religion anymore, why they deem any appeal to a Higher Power to be at best base mythology and at worst a debased excuse to manipulate and control others.

So then, when we find that a teaching, even a religious one, especially a religious one, is wounding people, we cannot be satisfied with a peaceful, live-and-let-live disagreement. Whether the repression of women, the subjugation of entire cultures, or the torture of "heretics", Christian history is littered with power-laden and devastatingly misguided appeals to religious freedom as our moral justification to diminish the humanity of those we deem less than. Time after time, in case after case, the places we have claimed as the most righteous of high-grounds have been ignobly revealed to be our gravest of sins, our greatest of shames.

It is on these grounds, directly taken from the moral memory of our long and storied history, the Christian church is being called to reexamine both our view and treatment of our LGBTQ+ siblings. The facts are in. They are more than in. We have been wrong. Devastatingly wrong. Dead wrong. Deadly wrong.

It is a sad thing when society and government are forced to seize the true high ground and sanction the liberties of religious groups because these groups are doing great harm. And yet if the Christian Church or any other religious group refuses to grow in their knowledge and treatment of people and the planet, then I am grateful God and Goodness have other agencies to do their bidding.

People do not get to arrest, jail, torture, and kill young women for wearing their hijab wrong. People do not get to fly planes into buildings no matter how loudly they call on the name of God as they do it. And people do not get to emotionally/psychologically terrorize children by religiously shaming them for their beautiful, natural wiring. At least they shouldn’t. To that end, if these deadly acts and others like them continue on the grounds of religious freedom then indeed it is religion that needs to die.
We can do better. We must do better.”
———————————————

I knew a woman whose 15-yr-old grandson had repeatedly raped his 6-yr-old sister. I know it happened because I attended a hearing with her along with the parents of the children, and some legal and child advocates.
My point is, should this young man not be told that his desires are sinful? Are we not allowed to tell him that what he wants to do is sinful? Where do we draw the line? The church tried to draw the line with “same-sex attraction is not a sin”. How has this worked out?

I no longer recognize my church.

[Thinker]

... It's barf-inducing -
~~~

Is pushing for change within the LDS Church a ‘tactic of Satan’?

…she says, “and it’s our testimonies that are driving this.”

What’s actually driving this is psychological warfare to weaken men, families - society.

1984 Homosexual magazine laid out ways to indoctrinate…
1. Portray gays as victims.
2. Make gays look favorable/moral.
3. Make “victimizers” (anyone objecting to homosexuality) look bad
4. Undermine moral authority of churches as outdated etc.
How homosexual lobbyists changed church doctrine.
https://youtu.be/kEbsFOfY0d8

Look up “Overhauling of Straight America “ and “After the Ball.”

This was written by an exMormon who is working to get the LDS Church to change. It illustrates points 1, 2, 3, and 4 exactly. I copied this from a public FB page:
——————————————-
“…Telling a gay kid they are inherently flawed and have to fundamentally change this natural, beautiful, vital part of their person may still qualify as legal under the protective canopy of religious freedom…but it is immoral…
… if these deadly acts and others like them continue on the grounds of religious freedom then indeed it is religion that needs to die…”
———————————————

I knew a woman whose 15-yr-old grandson had repeatedly raped his 6-yr-old sister. I know it happened because I attended a hearing with her along with the parents of the children, and some legal and child advocates.
My point is, should this young man not be told that his desires are sinful? Are we not allowed to tell him that what he wants to do is sinful? Where do we draw the line? The church tried to draw the line with “same-sex attraction is not a sin”. How has this worked out?

I no longer recognize my church.

First off, Lizzy, I really appreciate you & others who defend truth, specifically about this issue. We may never see some influence for good we had - but I definitely see this as a spiritual battle between principles.

It’s really evil to twist things in such a way but many who do it don’t realize what they’re doing.

Emotional reasoning and appeal to emotion is what has led:
1) Herd mentalities of various forms &
2) homosexual lies.
They play off the natural emotional nature of people and use it to try to guilt or emotionally hijack people to go along with insane things that have no grounds in truth - & often even contradict undeniable facts, like reproductive truth.

Some are so lost that they seem hopeless but I know God works in mysterious & powerful ways. Years ago, when I was trying to get the word out about homosexual harms, before legal changes happened, an ex-lesbian explained how she could clearly see how homosexual propaganda was deceptive & that a lot of people will be tricked & suffer… yet, she believed that eventually everyone (or most) will come to see truth & all the homosexual laws etc will be overturned. That gives me hope.

[HereWeGo]

I do not think they ever got rid of the CoPB as the presiding bishopric inc. is an appendage of the church and operates its for profit businesses.

Here is a clearer example:

How recent is this graphic. I had read that during the covid shutdown, the church had quietly combined the Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric with the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The new corporation was named The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a corporate sole with the president of the church (Nelson) as sole owner. In theory, this makes the president of the Church the richest man on earth. Only one corporation now with other corporations under it. I find it interesting that when a person uses the name of the church, is the person speaking of a church or a corporation? How would we know?

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

[Letfreedumbring]

You are correct. It is I that am wrong. I looked up the legal documents filed with state.

The Corp of Presiding Bishopric has been merged BUT it is even a different corporate sole than the corporate sole that the church existed as before.

They merged the Corporation of the Church and the Corp of the Presiding Bishopric into another new corporation sole entity. Not sure how that new one is structured. Of course, many eyes will glaze over to nothing to see mode which is probably why the lawyers called the new entity the Church but this was so important they started the formal process back in 2019 and RMN had to appear in person before notaries in 2020. No wonder why he was so surprised by covid during April 2020 conference.

[HVDC]

You are correct. It is I that am wrong. I looked up the legal documents filed with state.

The Corp of Presiding Bishopric has been merged BUT it is even a different corporate sole than the corporate sole that the church existed as before.

They merged the Corporation of the Church and the Corp of the Presiding Bishopric into another new corporation sole entity. Not sure how that new one is structured. Of course, many eyes will glaze over to nothing to see mode which is probably why the lawyers called the new entity the Church but this was so important they started the formal process back in 2019 and RMN had to appear in person before notaries in 2020. No wonder why he was so surprised by covid during April 2020 conference.

Thanks for looking things up.

Be interesting to know who owns the Church.

We know it isn't God.

I don't believe Nelson was "surprised" by the CovidHoax.

But I cannot prove it.

Sir H

[BeNotDeceived]

You are correct. It is I that am wrong. I looked up the legal documents filed with state.

The Corp of Presiding Bishopric has been merged BUT it is even a different corporate sole than the corporate sole that the church existed as before.

They merged the Corporation of the Church and the Corp of the Presiding Bishopric into another new corporation sole entity. Not sure how that new one is structured. Of course, many eyes will glaze over to nothing to see mode which is probably why the lawyers called the new entity the Church but this was so important they started the formal process back in 2019 and RMN had to appear in person before notaries in 2020. No wonder why he was so surprised by covid during April 2020 conference.

March 18 previous to this is when Moroni’s Instrument was landed.