Page 21 of 27
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 9:25 am
by Badgerone45
Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:22 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because
someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event.
I may be mistaken here, but this statement was never made. A person said that members of various faiths were in attendance, including those of the LDS persuasion. There's a big difference.
Not to the news. I know you live close, maybe you were there and saw something different.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 9:26 am
by spiritMan
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:11 am
my name was attached to the statement which came from church headquarters. Therefore, the Church made the statement for clarification through me
This affords someone "plausible deniability". The Church can say the statement didn't come from them; it was the personal view of the Stake President. Or like in the FB post, vice versa.
Wow! You leave for a few days and come back to all kinds of new info and assumptions!
You all obviously aren’t familiar with how the church works. He can’t make an official statement for the church as a local Stake President. The church would’ve pulled that so fast. That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event. You all seem pretty smart, but I have had to say the same thing over and over, so I’m starting to wonder if I’m being punked or exactly who is on the other end of the screen.
Wait?? what??
So was he directed to make the statement by the Church or not?
If he was directed to make the statement, then the question is why is he falling on his sword rather than saying who told him?
Is he fighting for a position higher in the hierarchy?
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 9:27 am
by spiritMan
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:25 am
Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:22 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because
someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event.
I may be mistaken here, but this statement was never made. A person said that members of various faiths were in attendance, including those of the LDS persuasion. There's a big difference.
Not to the news. I know you live close, maybe you were there and saw something different.
Oh please . . . if it did happen . . . it would have been splattered all over the place.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 9:29 am
by Badgerone45
spiritMan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:26 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:11 am
my name was attached to the statement which came from church headquarters. Therefore, the Church made the statement for clarification through me
This affords someone "plausible deniability". The Church can say the statement didn't come from them; it was the personal view of the Stake President. Or like in the FB post, vice versa.
Wow! You leave for a few days and come back to all kinds of new info and assumptions!
You all obviously aren’t familiar with how the church works. He can’t make an official statement for the church as a local Stake President. The church would’ve pulled that so fast. That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event. You all seem pretty smart, but I have had to say the same thing over and over, so I’m starting to wonder if I’m being punked or exactly who is on the other end of the screen.
Wait?? what??
So was he directed to make the statement by the Church or not?
If he was directed to make the statement, then the question is why is he falling on his sword rather than saying who told him?
Is he fighting for a position higher in the hierarchy?
I’m not sure on this, but I believe it possibly came from a woman and he may be trying to protect her from the mob.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 9:32 am
by Chip
Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑February 28th, 2023, 10:05 pm
BroJones wrote: ↑February 28th, 2023, 10:01 pm
My apologies, RW. I am shocked, to tell the truth.
No worries. Apology accepted. I have a friend on FB who’s “in the boat.” She had a similar reaction to you. Upon first hearing it she said, “What the hell?” She thought this was a rogue SP, and was shocked to find out this came from church HQ.
What church headquarters did is inexcusable.
A friend I told about this had the same initial reaction, that this was obviously some rogue SP. After pointing out to him that it was actually the church giving their PR guy a statement to sign and post, I haven't heard anymore from him about it. I know he is confounded by this, too.
The fact is the church exploits the personages of its local leaders to rubber stamp things that it wants said. These things often have to do with Agenda 2030 these days. It's a no-good approach to no-good policy.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 9:32 am
by Badgerone45
spiritMan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:27 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:25 am
Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:22 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because
someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event.
I may be mistaken here, but this statement was never made. A person said that members of various faiths were in attendance, including those of the LDS persuasion. There's a big difference.
Not to the news. I know you live close, maybe you were there and saw something different.
Oh please . . . if it did happen . . . it would have been splattered all over the place.
I’m not going to argue this with you I wasn’t there. Unless you were there you have no idea what actually happened. You don’t seem like the type that trust the news!
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 9:33 am
by Reluctant Watchman
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:25 am
Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:22 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because
someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event.
I may be mistaken here, but this statement was never made. A person said that members of various faiths were in attendance, including those of the LDS persuasion. There's a big difference.
Not to the news. I know you live close, maybe you were there and saw something different.
Was the statement made, yes or no?
BTW, this has little to do w/ the fact that the church didn't condemn the actions of this drag queen event.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 9:40 am
by Badgerone45
Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:33 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:25 am
Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:22 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because
someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event.
I may be mistaken here, but this statement was never made. A person said that members of various faiths were in attendance, including those of the LDS persuasion. There's a big difference.
Not to the news. I know you live close, maybe you were there and saw something different.
Was the statement made, yes or no?
BTW, this has little to do w/ the fact that the church didn't condemn the actions of this drag queen event.
Yes! That’s the information that was received.
Were you there? Yes or no? And if not, why didn’t you go?
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 9:41 am
by Reluctant Watchman
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:40 am
Yes! That’s the information that was received.
Were you there? Yes or no? And if not, why didn’t you go?
The point is, the church should have sponsored this silent protest. And their comment about being "divisive and hateful" is just plain wrong and in error. You can justify any sin or sick agenda through their twisting of doctrine.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 9:48 am
by Godislove
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:11 am
my name was attached to the statement which came from church headquarters. Therefore, the Church made the statement for clarification through me
This affords someone "plausible deniability". The Church can say the statement didn't come from them; it was the personal view of the Stake President. Or like in the FB post, vice versa.
Wow! You leave for a few days and come back to all kinds of new info and assumptions!
You all obviously aren’t familiar with how the church works. He can’t make an official statement for the church as a local Stake President. The church would’ve pulled that so fast. That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event. You all seem pretty smart, but I have had to say the same thing over and over, so I’m starting to wonder if I’m being punked or exactly who is on the other end of the screen.
I saw you had posted that this statement possibly came from a woman? Can you please verify this for us?
Also, you said your brother was trying to protect her from a 'mob?'
Really? People that are taking a stand to protect our children are now a 'mob?'
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 9:59 am
by Badgerone45
Godislove wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:48 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:11 am
my name was attached to the statement which came from church headquarters. Therefore, the Church made the statement for clarification through me
This affords someone "plausible deniability". The Church can say the statement didn't come from them; it was the personal view of the Stake President. Or like in the FB post, vice versa.
Wow! You leave for a few days and come back to all kinds of new info and assumptions!
You all obviously aren’t familiar with how the church works. He can’t make an official statement for the church as a local Stake President. The church would’ve pulled that so fast. That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event. You all seem pretty smart, but I have had to say the same thing over and over, so I’m starting to wonder if I’m being punked or exactly who is on the other end of the screen.
Maybe I missed it or it's now been edited/deleted by you but if I understood correctly I saw you had posted that this statement came from a woman? Can you please verify this for us?
Also, you said your brother was trying to protect her from a 'mob?'
Really? People that are taking a stand to protect our children are now a 'mob?'
The mob was meaning those of you here that have verbally attacked my brother. He knew the repercussions of the statement before his name was attached, but I’m not sure to the extent.
I could be mistaken, but I believe those that speak on behalf of the church are paid positions. I also agree the name should’ve been on the statement, but he will not give it to me. He’s much nicer than I am. He would rather take the fall than throw someone else under the bus.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 10:04 am
by Serragon
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:11 am
my name was attached to the statement which came from church headquarters. Therefore, the Church made the statement for clarification through me
This affords someone "plausible deniability". The Church can say the statement didn't come from them; it was the personal view of the Stake President. Or like in the FB post, vice versa.
Wow! You leave for a few days and come back to all kinds of new info and assumptions!
You all obviously aren’t familiar with how the church works. He can’t make an official statement for the church as a local Stake President. The church would’ve pulled that so fast. That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event. You all seem pretty smart, but I have had to say the same thing over and over, so I’m starting to wonder if I’m being punked or exactly who is on the other end of the screen.
The problem is that the statement made went above and beyond what it needed to do. If the church needed to clarify that the protest was not officially sanctioned by the church, a simple statement to that effect would have sufficed. I would have thought that a bit cowardly, but not innapropriate.
But instead, they decided to call the protesters hateful and divisive. And the subject the adjectives were attached to in the statement was the protest itself, not any bad behavior by the protestors.
So hopefully you can see the problem. Your defense does not actually address what happened. The church has gone out of their way to publicly condemn and shame a bunch of christians for peacefully protesting a perverse and ungodly activity happening in their community, while failing to condemn the perverse and ungodly activity itself.
I realize that this is emotional for you because you are a close friend to the SP, but that does not excuse the statement he made, whether they be his own thoughts or those of the Area authorities who provided it. Your defense of your friend is admirable, but it does not change the truth of what happened. The church, through your friend, inserted themselves into this story in a way that was absolutely unnecessary and was unchristian.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 10:05 am
by Godislove
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:59 am
Godislove wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:48 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:11 am
This affords someone "plausible deniability". The Church can say the statement didn't come from them; it was the personal view of the Stake President. Or like in the FB post, vice versa.
Wow! You leave for a few days and come back to all kinds of new info and assumptions!
You all obviously aren’t familiar with how the church works. He can’t make an official statement for the church as a local Stake President. The church would’ve pulled that so fast. That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event. You all seem pretty smart, but I have had to say the same thing over and over, so I’m starting to wonder if I’m being punked or exactly who is on the other end of the screen.
Maybe I missed it or it's now been edited/deleted by you but if I understood correctly I saw you had posted that this statement came from a woman? Can you please verify this for us?
Also, you said your brother was trying to protect her from a 'mob?'
Really? People that are taking a stand to protect our children are now a 'mob?'
The mob was meaning those of you here that have verbally attacked my brother. He knew the repercussions of the statement before his name was attached, but I’m not sure to the extent.
I could be mistaken, but I believe those that speak on behalf of the church are paid positions. I also agree the name should’ve been on the statement, but he will not give it to me. He’s much nicer than I am. He would rather take the fall than throw someone else under the bus.
I think most are just appalled that a Priesthood leader would back this but I believe God is now doing the sorting and there will be no middle ground.
1 Nephi 14:7
7 For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other—either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.
2 Nephi 30:10
For the time speedily cometh that the Lord God shall cause a great division among the people, and the wicked will he destroy; and he will spare his people, yea, even if it so be that he must destroy the wicked by fire.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 10:39 am
by PressingForward
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:25 am
Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:22 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because
someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event.
I may be mistaken here, but this statement was never made. A person said that members of various faiths were in attendance, including those of the LDS persuasion. There's a big difference.
Not to the news. I know you live close, maybe you were there and saw something different.
Where was it quoted in the news that this was a church sanctioned event? I’m an Idahoan and never saw this statement made, however the Church should have officially participated in the protection of the young ones.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 11:12 am
by Wolfwoman
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:29 am
spiritMan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:26 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:11 am
This affords someone "plausible deniability". The Church can say the statement didn't come from them; it was the personal view of the Stake President. Or like in the FB post, vice versa.
Wow! You leave for a few days and come back to all kinds of new info and assumptions!
You all obviously aren’t familiar with how the church works. He can’t make an official statement for the church as a local Stake President. The church would’ve pulled that so fast. That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event. You all seem pretty smart, but I have had to say the same thing over and over, so I’m starting to wonder if I’m being punked or exactly who is on the other end of the screen.
Wait?? what??
So was he directed to make the statement by the Church or not?
If he was directed to make the statement, then the question is why is he falling on his sword rather than saying who told him?
Is he fighting for a position higher in the hierarchy?
I’m not sure on this, but I believe it possibly came from a woman and he may be trying to protect her from the mob.
Beverly Campbell if she was still alive…
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 11:35 am
by spiritMan
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:29 am
spiritMan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:26 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:11 am
This affords someone "plausible deniability". The Church can say the statement didn't come from them; it was the personal view of the Stake President. Or like in the FB post, vice versa.
Wow! You leave for a few days and come back to all kinds of new info and assumptions!
You all obviously aren’t familiar with how the church works. He can’t make an official statement for the church as a local Stake President. The church would’ve pulled that so fast. That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event. You all seem pretty smart, but I have had to say the same thing over and over, so I’m starting to wonder if I’m being punked or exactly who is on the other end of the screen.
Wait?? what??
So was he directed to make the statement by the Church or not?
If he was directed to make the statement, then the question is why is he falling on his sword rather than saying who told him?
Is he fighting for a position higher in the hierarchy?
I’m not sure on this, but I believe it possibly came from a woman and he may be trying to protect her from the mob.
Hold up, hold up.
Just to be clear on this. The statement that he was directed to publish from the Church came from a woman? In other words, no Priesthood authority directed him to state it?
So effectively some diversity and inclusion HQ hire from Church COB tells him he has to publish this statement and he does?
This gets stranger and stranger.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 11:37 am
by spiritMan
PressingForward wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 10:39 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:25 am
Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:22 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because
someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event.
I may be mistaken here, but this statement was never made. A person said that members of various faiths were in attendance, including those of the LDS persuasion. There's a big difference.
Not to the news. I know you live close, maybe you were there and saw something different.
Where was it quoted in the news that this was a church sanctioned event? I’m an Idahoan and never saw this statement made, however the Church should have officially participated in the protection of the young ones.
Ha . . .good luck. Did the Church EVER support any anti-abortion protests? Nope. The hardwork of overturning Roe v. Wade was done by all the rest of the Christians.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 11:38 am
by spiritMan
Serragon wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 10:04 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:11 am
my name was attached to the statement which came from church headquarters. Therefore, the Church made the statement for clarification through me
This affords someone "plausible deniability". The Church can say the statement didn't come from them; it was the personal view of the Stake President. Or like in the FB post, vice versa.
Wow! You leave for a few days and come back to all kinds of new info and assumptions!
You all obviously aren’t familiar with how the church works. He can’t make an official statement for the church as a local Stake President. The church would’ve pulled that so fast. That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event. You all seem pretty smart, but I have had to say the same thing over and over, so I’m starting to wonder if I’m being punked or exactly who is on the other end of the screen.
The problem is that the statement made went above and beyond what it needed to do. If the church needed to clarify that the protest was not officially sanctioned by the church, a simple statement to that effect would have sufficed. I would have thought that a bit cowardly, but not innapropriate.
But instead, they decided to call the protesters hateful and divisive. And the subject the adjectives were attached to in the statement was the protest itself, not any bad behavior by the protestors.
So hopefully you can see the problem. Your defense does not actually address what happened. The church has gone out of their way to publicly condemn and shame a bunch of christians for peacefully protesting a perverse and ungodly activity happening in their community, while failing to condemn the perverse and ungodly activity itself.
I realize that this is emotional for you because you are a close friend to the SP, but that does not excuse the statement he made, whether they be his own thoughts or those of the Area authorities who provided it. Your defense of your friend is admirable, but it does not change the truth of what happened. The church, through your friend, inserted themselves into this story in a way that was absolutely unnecessary and was unchristian.
BadgerOne is his sister; she isn't just a close friend but blood.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 11:39 am
by spiritMan
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:59 am
Godislove wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:48 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
pho·to·syn·the·sis wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:11 am
This affords someone "plausible deniability". The Church can say the statement didn't come from them; it was the personal view of the Stake President. Or like in the FB post, vice versa.
Wow! You leave for a few days and come back to all kinds of new info and assumptions!
You all obviously aren’t familiar with how the church works. He can’t make an official statement for the church as a local Stake President. The church would’ve pulled that so fast. That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event. You all seem pretty smart, but I have had to say the same thing over and over, so I’m starting to wonder if I’m being punked or exactly who is on the other end of the screen.
Maybe I missed it or it's now been edited/deleted by you but if I understood correctly I saw you had posted that this statement came from a woman? Can you please verify this for us?
Also, you said your brother was trying to protect her from a 'mob?'
Really? People that are taking a stand to protect our children are now a 'mob?'
He’s much nicer than I am. He would rather take the fall than throw someone else under the bus.
All that matters is being nice and kind.
One can commit all manner of whoredoms . . . .as long as one does it with a smile and a soft voice.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 11:40 am
by Godislove
spiritMan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 11:35 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:29 am
spiritMan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:26 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:18 am
Wow! You leave for a few days and come back to all kinds of new info and assumptions!
You all obviously aren’t familiar with how the church works. He can’t make an official statement for the church as a local Stake President. The church would’ve pulled that so fast. That’s why he had to make a statement in the first place, because someone in attendance was claiming the protest was a church sanctioned event. You all seem pretty smart, but I have had to say the same thing over and over, so I’m starting to wonder if I’m being punked or exactly who is on the other end of the screen.
Wait?? what??
So was he directed to make the statement by the Church or not?
If he was directed to make the statement, then the question is why is he falling on his sword rather than saying who told him?
Is he fighting for a position higher in the hierarchy?
I’m not sure on this, but I believe it possibly came from a woman and he may be trying to protect her from the mob.
Hold up, hold up.
Just to be clear on this. The statement that he was directed to publish from the Church came from a woman? In other words, no Priesthood authority directed him to state it?
So effectively some diversity and inclusion HQ hire from Church COB tells him he has to publish this statement and he does?
This gets stranger and stranger.
Maybe that's why it's being so carefully protected. Wouldn't that be interesting if it didn't come from the brethren at all.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 11:41 am
by Obeone
Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 5:52 am
Obeone wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 3:57 am
The Church is true, but we need to grow up. This is a solid doctrine.
??? The church huh… What is the church? Who defines what the church is? I honestly have to ask, do you think the Lord is going to completely overhaul this organization from top to bottom? He’d literally have to start over. Every temple should be torn down and/or sold to care for the poor.
This reminds me of:
Mark 14:
4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
As for "starting over": do you not believe God that this is the last dispensation, and that the kingdom is coming forth "for the last time?"
If God needs to start over, then there must be another dispensation after this one. But that's not what He said.
This agrees even with the Bible:
D&C 138:44
44 Daniel, who foresaw and foretold the establishment of the kingdom of God in the latter days, never again to be destroyed nor given to other people;
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 11:44 am
by spiritMan
Godislove wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 11:40 am
spiritMan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 11:35 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:29 am
spiritMan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:26 am
Wait?? what??
So was he directed to make the statement by the Church or not?
If he was directed to make the statement, then the question is why is he falling on his sword rather than saying who told him?
Is he fighting for a position higher in the hierarchy?
I’m not sure on this, but I believe it possibly came from a woman and he may be trying to protect her from the mob.
Hold up, hold up.
Just to be clear on this. The statement that he was directed to publish from the Church came from a woman? In other words, no Priesthood authority directed him to state it?
So effectively some diversity and inclusion HQ hire from Church COB tells him he has to publish this statement and he does?
This gets stranger and stranger.
Maybe that's why it's being so carefully protected. Wouldn't that be interesting if it didn't come from the brethren at all.
Something stinks here.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 11:45 am
by Obeone
NeveR wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 6:24 am
Maybe all we really need in the end is a good heart and and honest desire to do the Lord's bidding here on earth?
How can you do "the Lord's bidding here on earth" by ignoring the His Church He has established, the revelations He has given, and His servants He ordained?
It's like the rich young man in the Bible: Jesus says: come follow me. And the young man would say: "No, all I need is a good heart and do the Lord's bidding hear on earth. So I will not follow you."
That does not make any sense.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 11:47 am
by Reluctant Watchman
Obeone wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 11:41 am
As for "starting over": do you not believe God that this is the last dispensation, and that the kingdom is coming forth "for the last time?"
If God needs to start over, then there must be another dispensation after this one. But that's not what He said.
This agrees even with the Bible:
D&C 138:44
44 Daniel, who foresaw and foretold the establishment of the kingdom of God in the latter days, never again to be destroyed nor given to other people;
Read the BoM. Both Nephi and Christ prophesied that there would first be a restoration, then a period of tribulation, and THEN the work of the Father would COMMENCE. This is repeated over and over again in 3 Nephi by Christ himself. Search the word "commence" in the BoM and you'll find both instances.
Combine this with 3 Nephi 16:10-11, the Lord did have a restoration, then the gentile LDS church fell away, but the fullness of the gospel will be given to the literal descendants of the House of Israel. Whether you want to believe that as another dispensation is up to the reader to decipher. But regardless, the Lord isn't sticking around a wicked church that trashes His gospel and partakes in all manner of wickedness.
Re: Drag Queen Story hour protected by the Church
Posted: March 1st, 2023, 11:55 am
by Badgerone45
Godislove wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 11:40 am
spiritMan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 11:35 am
Badgerone45 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:29 am
spiritMan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 9:26 am
Wait?? what??
So was he directed to make the statement by the Church or not?
If he was directed to make the statement, then the question is why is he falling on his sword rather than saying who told him?
Is he fighting for a position higher in the hierarchy?
I’m not sure on this, but I believe it possibly came from a woman and he may be trying to protect her from the mob.
Hold up, hold up.
Just to be clear on this. The statement that he was directed to publish from the Church came from a woman? In other words, no Priesthood authority directed him to state it?
So effectively some diversity and inclusion HQ hire from Church COB tells him he has to publish this statement and he does?
This gets stranger and stranger.
Maybe that's why it's being so carefully protected. Wouldn't that be interesting if it didn't come from the brethren at all.
Sorry if this is a duplicate. I thought I already posted this.
I don’t think the brethren have time to comment on everything that’s in the news, but what I don’t know is are church spokesman authorized to speak for the church, or do they have to authorize their statement with a priesthood authority? These are good and tough questions I don’t know the answer to. I can try and find out .