DEI coming to Relief Society??

[randyps]

I don’t think it is too much to ask for the Mormons, Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. to stand by yje teachings in the scriptures regarding sodomites. The moral relativism we are experiencing needs to be opposed by Christian churches instead of embraced by them. They are shirking their duty. It is especially. sad to see the LDS capitulating to the spirit of the age.

The Restoration was all about restoring and continual restoration. We have a lesbian relief society president in my ward, She is married to another woman but not sexually active or she would have been removed from her calling. God is good!

That is incorrect. The Restoration was about restoring the gospel of Jesus Christ because of a Great Apostasy from the restoration that took place when He came to Earth in the flesh. When the light shone in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.

This is an example of the changes that have taken place since Joseph's day.

No one, even when I was a kid talked about continuing restoration. That is a new term for a new purpose.

Like calling the US Constitution a living document so that it can slowly be undone one principle at a time.

Amendments can be added, and there is a process for that, but it was not intended to change the purpose from light to dark or up to down.

God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Jesus Christ condemns adding to or taking from His doctrine. The sun -is not- dark at noon day, even though it was prophesied some would call it so.

The doctrine of the "chaste lesbian RS President" is false and just one step in creating a new Greater Apostasy.

So Joseph restored everything in one single day? did he not continually restore over the years? and Brigham young and every prophet after that? whether it be canonized or not (Family proclamation).

Do you know what doctrine that has been taken out of the bible that has not yet been touched by JS? Does that still not need to be brought out into the light?

116 pages?

[randyps]

The doctrine of the "chaste lesbian RS President" is false and just one step in creating a new Greater Apostasy.

A lesbian woman or gay man remaining chaste is not any different then a porn addicted man not looking at porn anymore and eventually becoming bishop or stk pres. I know one personally, my uncle. I used to find his stash back in the early 2000's

[Dusty Wanderer]

Exactly, JS wanted to know what church to join so he relied on his personal relationship with God for an answer.

You do you, pray to God and if he tells you to start your own church, do it! Leave the LDS alone.

I highly doubt that God will tell anyone to leave the LDS church and then go complain about it on forums like a crybaby.
I prayed to God, he told me the restoration was completed and I didnt have to start my own church and he told me to stay in the LDS.

I don’t think it is too much to ask for the Mormons, Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. to stand by yje teachings in the scriptures regarding sodomites. The moral relativism we are experiencing needs to be opposed by Christian churches instead of embraced by them. They are shirking their duty. It is especially. sad to see the LDS capitulating to the spirit of the age.

We have a lesbian relief society president in my ward, She is married to another woman but not sexually active or she would have been removed from her calling. God is good!

LOL. I've got some beachfront property in North Dakota I'd like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

[randyps]

I don’t think it is too much to ask for the Mormons, Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. to stand by yje teachings in the scriptures regarding sodomites. The moral relativism we are experiencing needs to be opposed by Christian churches instead of embraced by them. They are shirking their duty. It is especially. sad to see the LDS capitulating to the spirit of the age.

We have a lesbian relief society president in my ward, She is married to another woman but not sexually active or she would have been removed from her calling. God is good!

LOL. I've got some beachfront property in North Dakota I'd like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Does it have a singing bush and invisible swordsman?

[Serragon]

I don’t think it is too much to ask for the Mormons, Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. to stand by yje teachings in the scriptures regarding sodomites. The moral relativism we are experiencing needs to be opposed by Christian churches instead of embraced by them. They are shirking their duty. It is especially. sad to see the LDS capitulating to the spirit of the age.

We have a lesbian relief society president in my ward, She is married to another woman but not sexually active or she would have been removed from her calling. God is good!

LOL. I've got some beachfront property in North Dakota I'd like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

This is the obvious fruit of the change back around 2010 to no longer teach that homosexuality was sinful in and of itself. Rather, the sin was in the fact that 2 people of the same sex were not authorized under God's law to have sex.

And so we end up with people of the same sex who are now legally married (which until a few years ago was considered apostasy), now proudly living this deviant lifestyle and holding leadership positions in the church because they "aren't having sex".

Very clever, brethren.

[Dusty Wanderer]

We have a lesbian relief society president in my ward, She is married to another woman but not sexually active or she would have been removed from her calling. God is good!

LOL. I've got some beachfront property in North Dakota I'd like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Does it have a singing bush and invisible swordsman?

Good point. No need to move to North Dakota for something you already have.

[JuneBug12000]

The doctrine of the "chaste lesbian RS President" is false and just one step in creating a new Greater Apostasy.

A lesbian woman or gay man remaining chaste is not any different then a porn addicted man not looking at porn anymore and eventually becoming bishop or stk pres. I know one personally, my uncle. I used to find his stash back in the early 2000's

randyps, I want to say something in a spirit of love. I don't want to be misunderstood. I have heard your story and appreciate the effort you are making to put your life in order with a God and the church.

I understand your need to defend the church as you go though this journey. I don't want to hinder you from your goals in getting right with a God.

So please, take this as it is intended.

You and your wife divorced but continued to live in the same house. Despite the divorce you engaged in sexual activity. You had a baby because of this activity. You are trying to put things in order and come back to church.

You if all people should see the likelihood that two married lesbians living together and not engaging in sexual activity is unlikely.

If they truly life in such a manner, why do they not divorce? If they don't, should she be the RS pres during this time?

Jesus did not come to condemn, or condone sin. Jesus came to counsel us to go and sin no more.

Her actions in being married to another woman do not match up with he claim of not engaging in sexual activity with her spouse. Just as it is hard to imagine a previously married couple living together and not engaging in sexual activity. The justification to do so is such a short step.

Even if it is so, that they are refraining from sex, their relationship make a shared residence questionable. Would an unmarried woman who lived with a former spouse be considered chaste and called to be the RS pres? Or would she be asked to move out and establish proper boundaries before receiving such a call.

Not to mention in all of this, the appearance is one of sin, and may be confusing for this under her care, as it is for many of us on the board.

Just and honest perspective.

Peace to you.

[Hogmeister]

Can anyone tell me what ranking or scoring system is used for business? I seem to recall that one of the reasons businesses are jumping on the bandwagon with many of these social trends (to their financial detriment) is because in the end their ranking to the banking system is more important long term.

ESG (environmental, social & governance)

Vomit everywhere

[randyps]

LOL. I've got some beachfront property in North Dakota I'd like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Does it have a singing bush and invisible swordsman?

Good point. No need to move to North Dakota for something you already have.

Cant leave my singing bush and invisible swordsman
for your bush that crys and invisible swordsman that complains.

[Comanchero]

Freeman speaks as though President Nelson is trying to get clarity from God. The problem is that President Nelson has many times stated the doctrine. There is nothing more that Freeman is doing than giving a false hope to the queer crowd. Instead of telling them "the natural man is an enemy to God... ", she validates their misunderstanding. Nelson couldn't be clearer.

Why is she YW's President?? I don't know. Why did Christ call Judas? Could be similar reasons. The women of the church have had some terrible leaders and the bad fruit is making itself manifest.

Wouldn’t Nelson have vetted that decision? I have to believe the leaders knew what she was saying. Her call is their stamp of approval. Nelson probably is not ready to come out.

Probably vetted, but the same can be asked and said of Christ choosing Judas. Or Joseph Smith choosing 4 apostate apostles.

Maybe Freeman was corrected or otherwise repented?? Time will tell if she still preaches her version.

[Comanchero]

Nelson couldn't be clearer.

Please state some of these statements that couldn't be clearer since RMN has been president. I personally don't remember any clear statements, but I would be very happy to be wrong. It would be great to use those very clear statements as a basis for changing the hearts and minds of our young people and the women of the church away from these worldly doctrines.

I do remember homosexuality being removed from the handbook as apsotasy. I do remember inviting homosexual choirs to sing on temple grounds. I do remember missionaries being allowed to be openly homosexual on their missions. I do remember being told by the Q15 that we could no longer exclude people based upon their lifestyle choices. I do remember people being allowed to actively advocate for temple sealings of homosexuals not being grounds for wittholding recommends.

But I don't remember any statements from RMN that "couldn't be clearer". In fact, clarity appears to be what is being actively avoided by our leadership so that everyone can feel secure in that their ideology is what is meant by "Think Celestial".

"In recent years, many countries, including the United States, have legalized same-sex marriage. As members of the Church, we respect the laws of the land and abide by them, including civil marriage. The truth is, however, that in the beginning—in the beginning—marriage was ordained by God! And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman. God has not changed His definition of marriage.
God has also not changed His law of chastity." -President Nelson

[Serragon]

Nelson couldn't be clearer.

Please state some of these statements that couldn't be clearer since RMN has been president. I personally don't remember any clear statements, but I would be very happy to be wrong. It would be great to use those very clear statements as a basis for changing the hearts and minds of our young people and the women of the church away from these worldly doctrines.

I do remember homosexuality being removed from the handbook as apsotasy. I do remember inviting homosexual choirs to sing on temple grounds. I do remember missionaries being allowed to be openly homosexual on their missions. I do remember being told by the Q15 that we could no longer exclude people based upon their lifestyle choices. I do remember people being allowed to actively advocate for temple sealings of homosexuals not being grounds for wittholding recommends.

But I don't remember any statements from RMN that "couldn't be clearer". In fact, clarity appears to be what is being actively avoided by our leadership so that everyone can feel secure in that their ideology is what is meant by "Think Celestial".

"In recent years, many countries, including the United States, have legalized same-sex marriage. As members of the Church, we respect the laws of the land and abide by them, including civil marriage. The truth is, however, that in the beginning—in the beginning—marriage was ordained by God! And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman. God has not changed His definition of marriage.
God has also not changed His law of chastity." -President Nelson

Thanks! That is pretty clear.

Except for the "to this day" and "God has not changed". Both of those statements mean essentially "as of now". Once again, giving hope to both sides of the issue. To you, he is firm and clear as day, but to those advocating for acceptance of SSM it could be on the horizon.

And since 2019 when he gave this talk, the Law of Chastity has been redefined in the church handbook to allow Same sex relations that are permissable to Man/Woman non married couples. And the wording of the Law of Chastity has been changed in the temple.

So while I agree that the statement was pretty clear, it was also designed to give hope to those who want it to change in the future. A more clear statement would have included the admonition that it will never change.

[randyps]

The doctrine of the "chaste lesbian RS President" is false and just one step in creating a new Greater Apostasy.

A lesbian woman or gay man remaining chaste is not any different then a porn addicted man not looking at porn anymore and eventually becoming bishop or stk pres. I know one personally, my uncle. I used to find his stash back in the early 2000's

You and your wife divorced but continued to live in the same house. Despite the divorce you engaged in sexual activity. You had a baby because of this activity. You are trying to put things in order and come back to church.

You if all people should see the likelihood that two married lesbians living together and not engaging in sexual activity is unlikely.

I dont know details about their relationship because im new to this ward, and everyones situation is different, im sure the bishop and stk pres have done their part in making sure God approve of her calling. I am going through the process of repentence with these same men i know that they are sticklers to the faith.

Her actions in being married to another woman do not match up with he claim of not engaging in sexual activity with her spouse. Just as it is hard to imagine a previously married couple living together and not engaging in sexual activity. The justification to do so is such a short step.

Every interview a bishop has with a woman in his office is also a short step away from adultery. My cousins husband was a bishop in pleasant grove and he got excommunicated this way. Do Bishops not interview woman anymore? There needs to be some level of trust in men as bishops, or married lesbians living righteously under certain circumstances.


For the record, and im happy to share my journey. When God revealed to me the grave importance of getting back to the temple I some how lost all sexual urges and stopped breaking the law of chastity. I put my foot down and told her no more, even though she was already 2 months pregnant. I sleep on the couch celibate for the past year, no desire to have sex with her or any woman. Age also has had an effect in my hormones, Im 47 now but at 39 i noticed my urges slowed down. In my 20s and 30s it would be impossible to keep my hands of my wife, but now in my late 40s a reality. This lesbian RS pres is in her mid 40s.

[Serragon]

For the record, and im happy to share my journey. When God revealed to me the grave importance of getting back to the temple I some how lost all sexual urges and stopped breaking the law of chastity. I put my foot down and told her no more, even though she was already 2 months pregnant. I sleep on the couch celibate for the past year, no desire to have sex with her or any woman. Age also has had an effect in my hormones, Im 47 now but at 39 i noticed my urges slowed down. In my 20s and 30s it would be impossible to keep my hands of my wife, but now in my late 40s a reality. This lesbian RS pres is in her mid 40s.

We need more of this sort of conviction and faith among priesthood men. Thanks for sharing and setting an example.

[Hogmeister]

Please state some of these statements that couldn't be clearer since RMN has been president. I personally don't remember any clear statements, but I would be very happy to be wrong. It would be great to use those very clear statements as a basis for changing the hearts and minds of our young people and the women of the church away from these worldly doctrines.

I do remember homosexuality being removed from the handbook as apsotasy. I do remember inviting homosexual choirs to sing on temple grounds. I do remember missionaries being allowed to be openly homosexual on their missions. I do remember being told by the Q15 that we could no longer exclude people based upon their lifestyle choices. I do remember people being allowed to actively advocate for temple sealings of homosexuals not being grounds for wittholding recommends.

But I don't remember any statements from RMN that "couldn't be clearer". In fact, clarity appears to be what is being actively avoided by our leadership so that everyone can feel secure in that their ideology is what is meant by "Think Celestial".

"In recent years, many countries, including the United States, have legalized same-sex marriage. As members of the Church, we respect the laws of the land and abide by them, including civil marriage. The truth is, however, that in the beginning—in the beginning—marriage was ordained by God! And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman. God has not changed His definition of marriage.
God has also not changed His law of chastity." -President Nelson

Thanks! That is pretty clear.

Except for the "to this day" and "God has not changed". Both of those statements mean essentially "as of now". Once again, giving hope to both sides of the issue. To you, he is firm and clear as day, but to those advocating for acceptance of SSM it could be on the horizon.

And since 2019 when he gave this talk, the Law of Chastity has been redefined in the church handbook to allow Same sex relations that are permissable to Man/Woman non married couples. And the wording of the Law of Chastity has been changed in the temple.

So while I agree that the statement was pretty clear, it was also designed to give hope to those who want it to change in the future. A more clear statement would have included the admonition that it will never change.

Classic central banker doublespeak perhaps? Saying one thing enables you to do the opposite.

[Christianlee]

Exactly, JS wanted to know what church to join so he relied on his personal relationship with God for an answer.

You do you, pray to God and if he tells you to start your own church, do it! Leave the LDS alone.

I highly doubt that God will tell anyone to leave the LDS church and then go complain about it on forums like a crybaby.
I prayed to God, he told me the restoration was completed and I didnt have to start my own church and he told me to stay in the LDS.

I don’t think it is too much to ask for the Mormons, Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. to stand by yje teachings in the scriptures regarding sodomites. The moral relativism we are experiencing needs to be opposed by Christian churches instead of embraced by them. They are shirking their duty. It is especially. sad to see the LDS capitulating to the spirit of the age.

The Restoration was all about restoring and continual restoration. We have a lesbian relief society president in my ward, She is married to another woman but not sexually active or she would have been removed from her calling. God is good!

It has never been unusual for two chaste members of the same sex to share living expenses by living in the same home. It is quite another matter to enter into a lesbian “marriage”. Even if they are living chastely, the act of entering into a same sex “marriage” is an act of rebellion against God’s laws. It means they believe sexual relations between two members of the same sex is acceptable. She should be released from her calling.

[spiritMan]

Exactly, JS wanted to know what church to join so he relied on his personal relationship with God for an answer.

You do you, pray to God and if he tells you to start your own church, do it! Leave the LDS alone.

I highly doubt that God will tell anyone to leave the LDS church and then go complain about it on forums like a crybaby.
I prayed to God, he told me the restoration was completed and I didnt have to start my own church and he told me to stay in the LDS.

I don’t think it is too much to ask for the Mormons, Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. to stand by yje teachings in the scriptures regarding sodomites. The moral relativism we are experiencing needs to be opposed by Christian churches instead of embraced by them. They are shirking their duty. It is especially. sad to see the LDS capitulating to the spirit of the age.

The Restoration was all about restoring and continual restoration. We have a lesbian relief society president in my ward, She is married to another woman but not sexually active or she would have been removed from her calling. God is good!

With all the love for you.

Should we now have a man who lives in the same house with 3 other woman who he is married to but claims he only had sex with one of them be EQP?

What now happens when 16 year old Sally brings home a girl friend and says dad we are going to get married but don't worry we won't have sex, we are just following the RSPs example.

Seriously dude take a step back if you think this is cool you are a fool and are prime example of why the LDS Church is doomed.

[Severus]

If I was a bishop and somebody came into the bishops office to complain to me about the calling of this particular sister pictured in the OP to the RS board, based on her politics, etc, This is probably how I would respond:

D&C 121:34-35
"Many are called, but few are chosen, and why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men..... '


And if that helped and the ward member felt a bit more reassured, I might joke that hey, at least you know the church doesn't call anyone based on their looks! She's proof you can be scary ugly and still get put in a very visible leadership position. ( OK, maybe I wouldn't really say that but I would be thinking it )

I have learned from my own stint in leadership positions and working with other leaders, to never be overawed by someone's church leadership calling. It doesn't mean they are necessarily a better person or some great example for the rest of us to follow or as in this case, must be right in their political affiliations and beliefs or know what is best for children. As far as randyps' RS pres is concerned, just because she is in a leadership position, it doesn't necessarily follow that she is doing the most righteous thing by identifying herself as a lesbian, and staying with this lesbian relationship even if she isn't having sexual relations.

[spiritMan]

If I was a bishop and somebody came into the bishops office to complain to me about the calling of this particular sister pictured in the OP to the RS board, based on her politics, etc, This is probably how I would respond:

D&C 121:34-35
"Many are called, but few are chosen, and why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men..... '


And if that helped and the ward member felt a bit more reassured, I might joke that hey, at least you know the church doesn't call anyone based on their looks! She's proof you can be scary ugly and still get put in a very visible leadership position. ( OK, maybe I wouldn't really say that but I would be thinking it )

I have learned from my own stint in leadership positions and working with other leaders, to never be overawed by someone's church leadership calling. It doesn't mean they are necessarily a better person or some great example for the rest of us to follow or as in this case, must be right in their political affiliations and beliefs or know what is best for children. As far as randyps' RS pres is concerned, just because she is in a leadership position, it doesn't necessarily follow that she is doing the most righteous thing by identifying herself as a lesbian, and staying with this lesbian relationship even if she isn't having sexual relations.

Another example of the stupidity of LDS members. What a stupid religion where it's members end up defending gross immorality in order to be a part of it.

You know what that's called... a cult. Once you step outside of it you realize just how idiotic and insane it is to defend, support and or say nothing about this evil wicked putrid rot in the Church.

LDS get everything that is coming to them for refusing to stand up against this evil.

[Severus]

I don’t think it is too much to ask for the Mormons, Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. to stand by yje teachings in the scriptures regarding sodomites. The moral relativism we are experiencing needs to be opposed by Christian churches instead of embraced by them. They are shirking their duty. It is especially. sad to see the LDS capitulating to the spirit of the age.

The Restoration was all about restoring and continual restoration. We have a lesbian relief society president in my ward, She is married to another woman but not sexually active or she would have been removed from her calling. God is good!

With all the love for you.

Are you stupid or something?

Should we now have a man who lives in the same house with 3 other woman who he is married to but claims he only had sex with one of them be EQP?

What now happens when 16 year old Sally brings home a girl friend and says dad we are going to get married but don't worry we won't have sex, we are just following the RSPs example.

Seriously dude take a step back if you think this is cool you are a fool and are prime example of why the LDS Church is doomed.

It helps to understand that a lesbian relationship is still two women and therefore isn't based on sex nearly as much as on the emotional relationship between them. But granted, it's still abnormal as blazes.

While it isn't as though the church actually condones same sex relations even in marraige, the problem as I see it is the church has destigmatized homosexuality, and when you add on top of that how the church will not get involved with causes or cures, one can easily get the impression that homosexuality has been religiously stamped as just the way someone "is". when this is absolutely not the case.

And oh heck yeah, plural marraige is certainly NOT destigmatized. The guy in the example you cite would never ever even be welcomed in church much less be EQP.

[Cruiserdude]

If I was a bishop and somebody came into the bishops office to complain to me about the calling of this particular sister pictured in the OP to the RS board, based on her politics, etc, This is probably how I would respond:

D&C 121:34-35
"Many are called, but few are chosen, and why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men..... '


And if that helped and the ward member felt a bit more reassured, I might joke that hey, at least you know the church doesn't call anyone based on their looks! She's proof you can be scary ugly and still get put in a very visible leadership position. ( OK, maybe I wouldn't really say that but I would be thinking it )

I have learned from my own stint in leadership positions and working with other leaders, to never be overawed by someone's church leadership calling. It doesn't mean they are necessarily a better person or some great example for the rest of us to follow or as in this case, must be right in their political affiliations and beliefs or know what is best for children. As far as randyps' RS pres is concerned, just because she is in a leadership position, it doesn't necessarily follow that she is doing the most righteous thing by identifying herself as a lesbian, and staying with this lesbian relationship even if she isn't having sexual relations.

Another example of the stupidity of LDS members. What a stupid religion where it's members end up defending gross immorality in order to be a part of it.

You know what that's called... a cult. Once you step outside of it you realize just how idiotic and insane it is to defend, support and or say nothing about this evil wicked putrid rot in the Church.

LDS get everything that is coming to them for refusing to stand up against this evil.

It's not stupidity, it's deception. They're deceived, and they can't see it.... As prophesied.

[Christianlee]

Is there a tax benefit for two women living together and living the law of chastity that would cause them to marry each other?

[Comanchero]

Please state some of these statements that couldn't be clearer since RMN has been president. I personally don't remember any clear statements, but I would be very happy to be wrong. It would be great to use those very clear statements as a basis for changing the hearts and minds of our young people and the women of the church away from these worldly doctrines.

I do remember homosexuality being removed from the handbook as apsotasy. I do remember inviting homosexual choirs to sing on temple grounds. I do remember missionaries being allowed to be openly homosexual on their missions. I do remember being told by the Q15 that we could no longer exclude people based upon their lifestyle choices. I do remember people being allowed to actively advocate for temple sealings of homosexuals not being grounds for wittholding recommends.

But I don't remember any statements from RMN that "couldn't be clearer". In fact, clarity appears to be what is being actively avoided by our leadership so that everyone can feel secure in that their ideology is what is meant by "Think Celestial".

"In recent years, many countries, including the United States, have legalized same-sex marriage. As members of the Church, we respect the laws of the land and abide by them, including civil marriage. The truth is, however, that in the beginning—in the beginning—marriage was ordained by God! And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman. God has not changed His definition of marriage.
God has also not changed His law of chastity." -President Nelson

Thanks! That is pretty clear.

Except for the "to this day" and "God has not changed". Both of those statements mean essentially "as of now". Once again, giving hope to both sides of the issue. To you, he is firm and clear as day, but to those advocating for acceptance of SSM it could be on the horizon.

And since 2019 when he gave this talk, the Law of Chastity has been redefined in the church handbook to allow Same sex relations that are permissable to Man/Woman non married couples. And the wording of the Law of Chastity has been changed in the temple.

So while I agree that the statement was pretty clear, it was also designed to give hope to those who want it to change in the future. A more clear statement would have included the admonition that it will never change.

No where in official church literature is anything that states something to the nature of '...so you're saying there's a chance' (dumb and dumber).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e?lang=eng
His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages.


I don't look at what President Nelson said through the eyes of a hopeful LGBTQ person. I look at it as him telling the truth. Through time, society has allowed same sex marriages. From the beginning, God hasn't and still to this day, though governments have, God still doesn't allow it. Oh, and he also hasn't changed his law of chastity. Seems clear enough.

The time is coming when those who do not obey the Lord will be separated from those who do -Pres Nelson
One crucial element of this gathering is preparing a people who are able, ready, and worthy to receive the Lord when He comes again, a people who have already chosen Jesus Christ over this fallen world, a people who rejoice in their agency to live the higher, holier laws of Jesus Christ.
I call upon you, my dear brothers and sisters, to become this righteous people. -Pres Nelson

The Lord said, and the church teaches, that same sex marriage is wrong. Those practicing that kind of marriage aren't obeying the Lord and they will be separated from those who do obey the Lord. Those in same sex relationships haven't chosen Jesus Christ over this fallen world. They do NOT rejoice in their agency to live the higher, holier laws of Jesus Christ. President Nelson called upon them (as well as everyone) to be a righteous people who honor God first.

I don't know how the church can be clearer. President Oaks laid down the law just this past GC.
God’s plan, founded on eternal truth, requires that exaltation can be attained only through faithfulness to the covenants of an eternal marriage between a man and a woman in the holy temple, which marriage will ultimately be available to all the faithful. That is why we teach that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”
A uniquely valuable teaching to help us prepare for exaltation is the 1995 proclamation on the family. Its declarations clarify the requirements that prepare us to live with God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. Those who do not fully understand the Father’s loving plan for His children may consider this family proclamation no more than a changeable statement of policy. In contrast, we affirm that the family proclamation, founded on irrevocable doctrine, defines the mortal family relationship where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.

[TwochurchesOnly]

I'm not sure she said that the proclamation was wrong. Normally there is more subtlety to it than that.

What I did hear her say is that RMN's primary concern is for the homosexuals, and that he has stated that they weep with the homosexuals and that they are constantly supplicating the Lord to figure out what to do.

I think it is clear that she believes that RMN would like to move the church more towards full homosexual acceptance as rapidly as possible, but finds himself constrained due to church culture and the damage moving too quickly would cause. People will accept small changes, but will revolt at large ones.

When you consider the ideology and the resume of a lot of people being elevated into leadership, and when you consider the public statements by church leaders and the content in church publications and websites, and when you consider the changes that have been occurring at church colleges both in teaching and in policy, it is difficult to disagree with her. It is clear to me that the RMN believes that modern progressive critical theory is part of Christianity and mormonism.

Why are they supplicating the Lord on a settled matter of morality? The LGBTQ movement completely annihilates the LDS understanding of Eternal Marriage. Is it a concern for their own children who have drifted into the gay lifestyle?

Clearly they are supplicating in the hopes of getting a blacks and the priesthood type revelation. Once received (which simply means all "feel good" about the idea), it will be presented as a time of joy and rejoicing, that the poor, oppressed homosexuals can now finally be accepted to the station to which God created them. We will be taught that we don't know why they were excluded, but that we shouldn't think much about that and simply rejoice. Any past statements condemning homosexuality will be considered bigoted ignorance.

As far as settle morality goes, there is no such thing when you have an organization set up in such a way that whatever the CEO says becomes the new truth because he is more important than any who existed previously. For the most part, our leaders are not scriptorians or wielders of priesthood power. They are simply generally good and nice men who have been successful in the world. They will not check what is happening on any sort of spiritual grounds.

There are many who say that the church will never cross certain lines because it wouldn't make any sense doctrinally. Anyone who actually believes this is either naive or ignorant. There is no doctrine that cannot be changed and explained away when the center of belief is the office of "prophet" rather than true christian principles.

they seem to be petitioning the CEO, as though he's really the one in charge - the one who can change anything he wants, to please any one he likes- he not only sees around corners, he can cut corners and cut out any laws from the One true God-- who had it all wrong

[Serragon]

The Restoration was all about restoring and continual restoration. We have a lesbian relief society president in my ward, She is married to another woman but not sexually active or she would have been removed from her calling. God is good!

With all the love for you.

Are you stupid or something?

Should we now have a man who lives in the same house with 3 other woman who he is married to but claims he only had sex with one of them be EQP?

What now happens when 16 year old Sally brings home a girl friend and says dad we are going to get married but don't worry we won't have sex, we are just following the RSPs example.

Seriously dude take a step back if you think this is cool you are a fool and are prime example of why the LDS Church is doomed.

It helps to understand that a lesbian relationship is still two women and therefore isn't based on sex nearly as much as on the emotional relationship between them. But granted, it's still abnormal as blazes.

What you describe is not a lesbian relationship. That is just two friends who love each other, which is common and natural. What makes a relationship lesbian or homosexual is the desire for sex with that person.