DEI coming to Relief Society??

[Teancum1]

Here are 14 books that our new DEI leader in the relief society suggests families read together with their children.

https://bookriot.com/lgbtq-board-books/

This comes straight from her zero to three days. Who would expect her to change what she recommends to implement within the relief society? Or the primary? Or the EQ? Or how about sacrament meeting?
Our leadership wants this taught to those of us who are hateful and divisive.

[Comanchero]

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.

In the most recent GC, President Nelson said-

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities. He said, “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise … have an end when men are dead.”

Physical intimacy is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other.
Much of the world does not believe this, but public opinion is not the arbiter of truth. The Lord has declared that no unchaste person will attain the celestial kingdom. -President Nelson

How can that not be clear to anyone??

Thanks Again! I am actually happy to see RMN saying these things.

One thing I notice that is missing is any reference to same sex relationships. This continues the pattern of treating homosexual and heterosexual relationships as equivalents. The only aspect of sin contained in homosexual relationships by the church's standard is that God does not recognize the marriage.

And this is a big deal, because it normalizes homosexuality within the church, and ultimately will lead to same sex marriages being accepted by the church.

I also notice that he is only speaking of these things in terms of the celestial kingdom. It used to be that we talked about these things at the level of salvation. But it seems we have already moved the line that will never be crossed to temple sealings. Not so long ago that line was at SSM and before that it was at homosexuality. But it appears that those lines are malleable as the world demands.

And lastly, there is again no reference to it never being accepted.

So.. once again, because of carefully chosen words and phrases and careful ommittance of other words and phrases, we find a message that makes the old guard feel comforted and the new guard hopeful for the future.

After all, if homosexual relationships are the equivalent of hetero relationships, and homosexuality in and of itself is no longer a sin, and we have already seen the church cave on these issues to the point where openly married same sex couples can be in full fellowship in the church, then what exactly is the basis for keeping them from temple sealings? The only thing seems to be that God hasnt' authorized it, but as we have seen He seems to be changing His mind rather quickly on this issue, and it seems also that our leaders are supplicating Him to get such an change in authorization.

"Physical intimacy is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other. Much of the world does not believe this, but public opinion is not the arbiter of truth." -Pres Nelson

I think you're just being nit-picky because you're looking for the church to accept gay marriage and clearly they are not. If homo relationships are the equivalent to hetero, as you say, then what part of "Physical intimacy is ONLY for a MAN AND A WOMAN who are married to each other" is confusing to you??

[JohnnyL]

is there a specific time in the video for her family proclamation bs? ( i started listening -- can't -- don"t want her voice in my head - let alone her voice/perspective messing with minds of my YW age granddaughters...)
thank you

It's kinda throughout. This is a LGBTQ audience. I tried to find a sample spot this morning. Around 37 minute for like 5+minutes, if I remember right.

38:20~38:56.
40:40~ for a minute or two.
I didn't hear anything about repentance in those there.
She was also very clever to lead right up to what people wanted to hear (on both sides!), then stop juuuuust... before clarifying anything. She did this at least twice in the short clips I watched. If you were there at the conference because you had SSA, I'm sure 90%+ would say she said something she didn't really say.

[JohnnyL]

The Church will say they don’t need to repent.

You are too concerned with what other men say and do. Until you have a personal relationship with God and our savior Jesus Christ you will always be disappointed with their church on earth that is run by man.

ThinkCelestial

That's all stylish... except what happens when your children are taught it's no big deal?

Clearly Thinking Celestial is all about what is best for the individual not what is best for the community.

Teach them that it is.

[JohnnyL]

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.

I haven't noticed one yet in my many years.

[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.

I haven't noticed one yet in my many years.

Eubanks.

[JohnnyL]

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.

Yeah, to me, that sounds like you could say a polygamist convert would be in good standing before God if he stayed married to multiple wives, but only had sex with one of them. Ha ha, that's not happening...

I sees spiritMan pretty much beat me to it:
viewtopic.php?p=1431255#p1431255

[Serragon]

In the most recent GC, President Nelson said-

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities. He said, “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise … have an end when men are dead.”

Physical intimacy is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other.
Much of the world does not believe this, but public opinion is not the arbiter of truth. The Lord has declared that no unchaste person will attain the celestial kingdom. -President Nelson

How can that not be clear to anyone??

Thanks Again! I am actually happy to see RMN saying these things.

One thing I notice that is missing is any reference to same sex relationships. This continues the pattern of treating homosexual and heterosexual relationships as equivalents. The only aspect of sin contained in homosexual relationships by the church's standard is that God does not recognize the marriage.

And this is a big deal, because it normalizes homosexuality within the church, and ultimately will lead to same sex marriages being accepted by the church.

I also notice that he is only speaking of these things in terms of the celestial kingdom. It used to be that we talked about these things at the level of salvation. But it seems we have already moved the line that will never be crossed to temple sealings. Not so long ago that line was at SSM and before that it was at homosexuality. But it appears that those lines are malleable as the world demands.

And lastly, there is again no reference to it never being accepted.

So.. once again, because of carefully chosen words and phrases and careful ommittance of other words and phrases, we find a message that makes the old guard feel comforted and the new guard hopeful for the future.

After all, if homosexual relationships are the equivalent of hetero relationships, and homosexuality in and of itself is no longer a sin, and we have already seen the church cave on these issues to the point where openly married same sex couples can be in full fellowship in the church, then what exactly is the basis for keeping them from temple sealings? The only thing seems to be that God hasnt' authorized it, but as we have seen He seems to be changing His mind rather quickly on this issue, and it seems also that our leaders are supplicating Him to get such an change in authorization.

"Physical intimacy is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other. Much of the world does not believe this, but public opinion is not the arbiter of truth." -Pres Nelson

I think you're just being nit-picky because you're looking for the church to accept gay marriage and clearly they are not. If homo relationships are the equivalent to hetero, as you say, then what part of "Physical intimacy is ONLY for a MAN AND A WOMAN who are married to each other" is confusing to you??

RMN said that married men and women were the only scenario where physical intimacy was legitimate.

This means that non married men and women, non married men and men, non married women and women, married men and men, and married women and women all fit in the same category as being outside what is legitimate.

He does not differentiate between any of these groups. They are all equally illegitimate.

When you turn to the handbook, you will notice that a few years ago Homosexuality was removed as a sin in and of itself. There is now only the sin of fornication which blankets both hetero and homo relationships equally. From the church perspective, a homo relationship is not sinful because it is homosexual, but because it is fornication. It is equivalent to non married hetero relationships.

You will also note that same sex marriage no longer is considered apostasy and it is up to the Bishop and SP to determine what, if anything, should be done when two people of the same sex marry.

So I am not confused. You focus on the "man and woman" part of the statement as though it is a specific referendum against same sex relationships. And this is precisely what the intent of the statement was. But he is not specifically calling out same sex relationships.

So all that needs to happen is the church officially recognize SSM, and suddenly those in SSM are no longer fornicating. And at that point, because the church has already caved on homosexuality as a sin, what sort of strong doctrinal position can you offer to prevent sealings?

[Comanchero]

is there a specific time in the video for her family proclamation bs? ( i started listening -- can't -- don"t want her voice in my head - let alone her voice/perspective messing with minds of my YW age granddaughters...)
thank you

It's kinda throughout. This is a LGBTQ audience. I tried to find a sample spot this morning. Around 37 minute for like 5+minutes, if I remember right.

38:20~38:56.
40:40~ for a minute or two.
I didn't hear anything about repentance in those there.
She was also very clever to lead right up to what people wanted to hear (on both sides!), then stop juuuuust... before clarifying anything. She did this at least twice in the short clips I watched. If you were there at the conference because you had SSA, I'm sure 90%+ would say she said something she didn't really say.

At about 45:40 she says something along the lines of waiting for the Prophet to figure it out. It's already been figured out! I don't care for the false hope that someday LGBT will be celestial. The doctrine is clear. The Prophets have been clear. There is nothing for President Nelson to figure out.

[JohnnyL]

It's kinda throughout. This is a LGBTQ audience. I tried to find a sample spot this morning. Around 37 minute for like 5+minutes, if I remember right.

38:20~38:56.
40:40~ for a minute or two.
I didn't hear anything about repentance in those there.
She was also very clever to lead right up to what people wanted to hear (on both sides!), then stop juuuuust... before clarifying anything. She did this at least twice in the short clips I watched. If you were there at the conference because you had SSA, I'm sure 90%+ would say she said something she didn't really say.

At about 45:40 she says something along the lines of waiting for the Prophet to figure it out. It's already been figured out! I don't care for the false hope that someday LGBT will be celestial. The doctrine is clear. The Prophets have been clear. There is nothing for President Nelson to figure out.

That's one of the places a SSA person could/ would interpret her as saying so. What does "figure it out" mean to her? She coyly didn't say.

[Serragon]

In the most recent GC, President Nelson said-

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities. He said, “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise … have an end when men are dead.”

Physical intimacy is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other.
Much of the world does not believe this, but public opinion is not the arbiter of truth. The Lord has declared that no unchaste person will attain the celestial kingdom. -President Nelson

How can that not be clear to anyone??

Does it disqualify a lesbian who is legally married and chaste from holding a calling?

It used to be that if she is chaste, she isn't a lesbian.

This new idea that people are exclusively sexually attracted to one gender or the other is false. Whenever a homosexual man tells you that he finds vaginas repulsive he is lying. He may not prefer them, but they are not disgusting to him.

In my younger days, i had a couple of good friends who were lesbians. I would party with them and their friends on a semi regular basis and got to know them quite well. In here group of friends were about 30 homosexual men and about 10 lesbians. Though their preferences were for the same gender, each of the, without exception, would occasionally have relations with members of the opposite sex in their group.

This group of friends would have scoffed at the "born that way" idea. They all talked often about recruiting and turning people gay. It was a challenge for some of them. I remember that my good friend told the rest of her lesbian friends to quit trying to turn my girlfriend at the time.

What most people believe about homosexuality today is nothing but propaganda and lies meant to make you feel sympathetic to them as oppressed victims. But the reality is that almost all homosexuals are groomed or convinced to become homosexual through abuse, grooming, the desire to have a tribe to fit into, or the desire to be counterculture (which is where the "Pride" came from in the first place).

[JuneBug12000]

38:20~38:56.
40:40~ for a minute or two.
I didn't hear anything about repentance in those there.
She was also very clever to lead right up to what people wanted to hear (on both sides!), then stop juuuuust... before clarifying anything. She did this at least twice in the short clips I watched. If you were there at the conference because you had SSA, I'm sure 90%+ would say she said something she didn't really say.

At about 45:40 she says something along the lines of waiting for the Prophet to figure it out. It's already been figured out! I don't care for the false hope that someday LGBT will be celestial. The doctrine is clear. The Prophets have been clear. There is nothing for President Nelson to figure out.

That's one of the places a SSA person could/ would interpret her as saying so. What does "figure it out" mean to her? She coyly didn't say.

This is an audience of LGBTQ and their "allies." Her intended meaning is clear. Could she deny that based on her exact words. Maybe. Legalistically. But that was the problem with the church leaders in Jesus' day wasn't it?

Her audience and her words leave no real doubt as to her meaning. Only loopholes to cover her butt.

The Book of Mormon had a name for those who used manipulation of language and legalism to try and confuse the people: Anti-Christ.

[Seed Starter]

is there a specific time in the video for her family proclamation bs? ( i started listening -- can't -- don"t want her voice in my head - let alone her voice/perspective messing with minds of my YW age granddaughters...)
thank you

It's kinda throughout. This is a LGBTQ audience. I tried to find a sample spot this morning. Around 37 minute for like 5+minutes, if I remember right.

38:20~38:56.
40:40~ for a minute or two.
I didn't hear anything about repentance in those there.
She was also very clever to lead right up to what people wanted to hear (on both sides!), then stop juuuuust... before clarifying anything. She did this at least twice in the short clips I watched. If you were there at the conference because you had SSA, I'm sure 90%+ would say she said something she didn't really say.

I have seen part of this but never got through the entire thing. Her message is so obvious and clear.
42:25
"Sometimes you just have to stand still a while and wait for and wait for the word of God."
"The spirit will tell us what to pray for."
"God is with us."
"We are being tutored in patience."
I'm pretty sure she was called after this happened. The church knows who she is. She is exactly what they want for our young women...

I also noticed the guy chimed in right before this point and mentioned how confusing everything is referring to some inconsistencies in the bible.

[4Joshua8]

It's kinda throughout. This is a LGBTQ audience. I tried to find a sample spot this morning. Around 37 minute for like 5+minutes, if I remember right.

38:20~38:56.
40:40~ for a minute or two.
I didn't hear anything about repentance in those there.
She was also very clever to lead right up to what people wanted to hear (on both sides!), then stop juuuuust... before clarifying anything. She did this at least twice in the short clips I watched. If you were there at the conference because you had SSA, I'm sure 90%+ would say she said something she didn't really say.

I have seen part of this but never got through the entire thing. Her message is so obvious and clear.
42:25
"Sometimes you just have to stand still a while and wait for and wait for the word of God."
"The spirit will tell us what to pray for."
"God is with us."
"We are being tutored in patience."
I'm pretty sure she was called after this happened. The church knows who she is. She is exactly what they want for our young women...

I also noticed the guy chimed in right before this point and mentioned how confusing everything is referring to some inconsistencies in the bible.

If enough of them want their gay marriage badly enough, I'm afraid they'll get exactly that to their condemnation. I wouldn't be surprised if, when you factor in all age groups, a majority of the church would support it.

[JuneBug12000]

Here are 14 books that our new DEI leader in the relief society suggests families read together with their children.

https://bookriot.com/lgbtq-board-books/

This comes straight from her zero to three days. Who would expect her to change what she recommends to implement within the relief society? Or the primary? Or the EQ? Or how about sacrament meeting?
Our leadership wants this taught to those of us who are hateful and divisive.

It's like people don't understand marketing.

Exposure equals converts and loyalty.

Whether purchases, politics, or pride .

[Seed Starter]

38:20~38:56.
40:40~ for a minute or two.
I didn't hear anything about repentance in those there.
She was also very clever to lead right up to what people wanted to hear (on both sides!), then stop juuuuust... before clarifying anything. She did this at least twice in the short clips I watched. If you were there at the conference because you had SSA, I'm sure 90%+ would say she said something she didn't really say.

I have seen part of this but never got through the entire thing. Her message is so obvious and clear.
42:25
"Sometimes you just have to stand still a while and wait for and wait for the word of God."
"The spirit will tell us what to pray for."
"God is with us."
"We are being tutored in patience."
I'm pretty sure she was called after this happened. The church knows who she is. She is exactly what they want for our young women...

I also noticed the guy chimed in right before this point and mentioned how confusing everything is referring to some inconsistencies in the bible.

If enough of them want their gay marriage badly enough, I'm afraid they'll get exactly that to their condemnation. I wouldn't be surprised if, when you factor in all age groups, a majority of the church would support it.

The people accepted blacks getting the priesthood but how could members stay when a change like this is made? This change would fly in the face of what most believe to be a core principle of this gospel. Keeping blacks from the priesthood was false to begin with so that seems easy to accept. This will be a true test of faith for TBM's. How will they avoid losing their collective minds? I think SSM is coming. Maybe they just need a few more older members to pass away to avoid a shortage of temple workers when this filth is served up as new truth. If they do this I expect to see an exodus as happened with those members who would not accept polygamy. Or I will be shocked to see the majority stay. Praying to change God's law on something like this is crazy.

[4Joshua8]

I have seen part of this but never got through the entire thing. Her message is so obvious and clear.
42:25
"Sometimes you just have to stand still a while and wait for and wait for the word of God."
"The spirit will tell us what to pray for."
"God is with us."
"We are being tutored in patience."
I'm pretty sure she was called after this happened. The church knows who she is. She is exactly what they want for our young women...

I also noticed the guy chimed in right before this point and mentioned how confusing everything is referring to some inconsistencies in the bible.

If enough of them want their gay marriage badly enough, I'm afraid they'll get exactly that to their condemnation. I wouldn't be surprised if, when you factor in all age groups, a majority of the church would support it.

Praying to change God's law on something like this is crazy.

Amen, yet that's exactly what so many are doing.

[spiritMan]

Thanks Again! I am actually happy to see RMN saying these things.

One thing I notice that is missing is any reference to same sex relationships. This continues the pattern of treating homosexual and heterosexual relationships as equivalents. The only aspect of sin contained in homosexual relationships by the church's standard is that God does not recognize the marriage.

And this is a big deal, because it normalizes homosexuality within the church, and ultimately will lead to same sex marriages being accepted by the church.

I also notice that he is only speaking of these things in terms of the celestial kingdom. It used to be that we talked about these things at the level of salvation. But it seems we have already moved the line that will never be crossed to temple sealings. Not so long ago that line was at SSM and before that it was at homosexuality. But it appears that those lines are malleable as the world demands.

And lastly, there is again no reference to it never being accepted.

So.. once again, because of carefully chosen words and phrases and careful ommittance of other words and phrases, we find a message that makes the old guard feel comforted and the new guard hopeful for the future.

After all, if homosexual relationships are the equivalent of hetero relationships, and homosexuality in and of itself is no longer a sin, and we have already seen the church cave on these issues to the point where openly married same sex couples can be in full fellowship in the church, then what exactly is the basis for keeping them from temple sealings? The only thing seems to be that God hasnt' authorized it, but as we have seen He seems to be changing His mind rather quickly on this issue, and it seems also that our leaders are supplicating Him to get such an change in authorization.

"Physical intimacy is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other. Much of the world does not believe this, but public opinion is not the arbiter of truth." -Pres Nelson

I think you're just being nit-picky because you're looking for the church to accept gay marriage and clearly they are not. If homo relationships are the equivalent to hetero, as you say, then what part of "Physical intimacy is ONLY for a MAN AND A WOMAN who are married to each other" is confusing to you??

RMN said that married men and women were the only scenario where physical intimacy was legitimate.

This means that non married men and women, non married men and men, non married women and women, married men and men, and married women and women all fit in the same category as being outside what is legitimate.

He does not differentiate between any of these groups. They are all equally illegitimate.

When you turn to the handbook, you will notice that a few years ago Homosexuality was removed as a sin in and of itself. There is now only the sin of fornication which blankets both hetero and homo relationships equally. From the church perspective, a homo relationship is not sinful because it is homosexual, but because it is fornication. It is equivalent to non married hetero relationships.

You will also note that same sex marriage no longer is considered apostasy and it is up to the Bishop and SP to determine what, if anything, should be done when two people of the same sex marry.

So I am not confused. You focus on the "man and woman" part of the statement as though it is a specific referendum against same sex relationships. And this is precisely what the intent of the statement was. But he is not specifically calling out same sex relationships.

So all that needs to happen is the church officially recognize SSM, and suddenly those in SSM are no longer fornicating. And at that point, because the church has already caved on homosexuality as a sin, what sort of strong doctrinal position can you offer to prevent sealings?

Exactly, romantic same sex relationships are completely acceptable according to the handbook today.... just as long as it's not "sexual", and this is the hole big enough to drive an 18 wheeler through that idiots can say "well they are married, but it's not sexual so it's totally cool".

Yeah sure whatever..

[spiritMan]

You are too concerned with what other men say and do. Until you have a personal relationship with God and our savior Jesus Christ you will always be disappointed with their church on earth that is run by man.

ThinkCelestial

That's all stylish... except what happens when your children are taught it's no big deal?

Clearly Thinking Celestial is all about what is best for the individual not what is best for the community.

Teach them that it is.

Yeah good luck when I as a parent teach them one thing and the religion teaches them the opposite... that's exactly why the Church is no longer a place to bring your children, they will be taught the opposite of what the family values are---no thanks.

Of course the idiots in church say the Church is "home centered Church supported" ummm you morons when one group teaches their children one set of values and the other group teaches a different set of values and then those two groups come to church what are you going to get???

Conflict, one set of values will override the other set of values. It's obvious which set of values rules the day in the wicked LDS Church.

[Christianlee]

40 years ago these two would have been considered worthy of a church court for what they are saying. Is that really her normal voice? Are we sure her name isn’t really Georgette? I’m amazed people are impressed by her.

[TwochurchesOnly]

Here are 14 books that our new DEI leader in the relief society suggests families read together with their children.

https://bookriot.com/lgbtq-board-books/

This comes straight from her zero to three days. Who would expect her to change what she recommends to implement within the relief society? Or the primary? Or the EQ? Or how about sacrament meeting?
Our leadership wants this taught to those of us who are hateful and divisive.

these books - beyond revolting - evil

[JohnnyL]

That's all stylish... except what happens when your children are taught it's no big deal?

Clearly Thinking Celestial is all about what is best for the individual not what is best for the community.

Teach them that it is.

Yeah good luck when I as a parent teach them one thing and the religion teaches them the opposite... that's exactly why the Church is no longer a place to bring your children, they will be taught the opposite of what the family values are---no thanks.

Of course the idiots in church say the Church is "home centered Church supported" ummm you morons when one group teaches their children one set of values and the other group teaches a different set of values and then those two groups come to church what are you going to get???

Conflict, one set of values will override the other set of values. It's obvious which set of values rules the day in the wicked LDS Church.

We don't attend the "extras" when it's anything about SSA, so they're not getting taught anything wrong there.

If there is conflict, they know they are allowed to say or do anything within reason (walk out, openly contradict/ clarify, etc.). . . They've never had to.

Of course, if one has a whole bunch of apostate ideas, yeah, it's not going to be easy.

[JohnnyL]

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.

I haven't noticed one yet in my many years.

Eubanks.

Which GC talk of hers did you find disagreeable?

[spiritMan]

Teach them that it is.

Yeah good luck when I as a parent teach them one thing and the religion teaches them the opposite... that's exactly why the Church is no longer a place to bring your children, they will be taught the opposite of what the family values are---no thanks.

Of course the idiots in church say the Church is "home centered Church supported" ummm you morons when one group teaches their children one set of values and the other group teaches a different set of values and then those two groups come to church what are you going to get???

Conflict, one set of values will override the other set of values. It's obvious which set of values rules the day in the wicked LDS Church.

We don't attend the "extras" when it's anything about SSA, so they're not getting taught anything wrong there.

If there is conflict, they know they are allowed to say or do anything within reason (walk out, openly contradict/ clarify, etc.). . . They've never had to.

Of course, if one has a whole bunch of apostate ideas, yeah, it's not going to be easy.

It's not just about extras... someone who is pro isn't going to be teaching proper principles in the regular meetings. They will avoid it.

[4Joshua8]

Yeah good luck when I as a parent teach them one thing and the religion teaches them the opposite... that's exactly why the Church is no longer a place to bring your children, they will be taught the opposite of what the family values are---no thanks.

Of course the idiots in church say the Church is "home centered Church supported" ummm you morons when one group teaches their children one set of values and the other group teaches a different set of values and then those two groups come to church what are you going to get???

Conflict, one set of values will override the other set of values. It's obvious which set of values rules the day in the wicked LDS Church.

We don't attend the "extras" when it's anything about SSA, so they're not getting taught anything wrong there.

If there is conflict, they know they are allowed to say or do anything within reason (walk out, openly contradict/ clarify, etc.). . . They've never had to.

Of course, if one has a whole bunch of apostate ideas, yeah, it's not going to be easy.

It's not just about extras... someone who is pro isn't going to be teaching proper principles in the regular meetings. They will avoid it.

They'll "soft teach" their values. They'll overemphasize God's "love" and compassion while conveniently leaving out His justice and unchanging truths, distorting the character of God while giving a false hope to the pro-sodomy-ites.

Children have current events called to mind as they think of how to apply teachings, and they are left with a distorted understanding of God's character, leaving them defenseless in the face of false teachings they're exposed to on a daily basis, other then to say "God is loving, welcoming, accepting, and never has any negativity about anything."

Battle for truth lost.

That's just one way they do it.