LDS Freedom Forum

J wrote:

obamohno wrote:Is not supporting a Yes vote on Prop 8 in rebellion to the Church/Prophet and therefore you would question my testimony of the gospel since I think that government shouldn't have a say in the matter?

Apparently Presidents Thomas S. Monson, Henry B. Eyring, and Dieter F. Uchtdorf think otherwise.

Do you simply not believe they were acting under inspiration in this matter, or even acting contrary to the will of God?

Yes(if their position is that government should have something to do with marriage in general), just like the prohibition in the 30s..

BUT... another way to look at it is.

This was already up for a vote so unless the YES side got support , the NO would win and it would be become law and better of the two would be the YES position in defining it one way and leaving out the definition of the other since people send their children to government public schools.

So I can see them saying, alright get out so at least the NO side doesn't win.

So it may be a single request, not a indefinite position.

Now, you can say this, just this one

I just feel that all people should be aloud to be married if they choose to, I can't imagine thinking different and saying , NO, You should not have the right to be married(in our earthly time) sorry.

If you want to be in the position to take away peoples rights to pursuit happiness, then fine. I do not think governments should offer any benefits to married couples so there is no reason governments should be having anything to do with it.

A remedy for this is the LDS building stronger , more involved communities and start homeschooling, that way they can allow themselves to have their liberty and other people have theirs.

The reason that the Bishop finally had to turn off the mike with this guy is because he said He was ashamed and embarrased of the church and its leadership because of their public stand on Prop. 8. He was publicly critisizing and calling out the leadership of the church because of their stand on supporting Prop 8. My goodness ob if this isn't apostasy I don't know what would be.

If he were truly sincere in his thoughts and feelings he would have spoken in his own ward from his heart. Not in his aunt's ward, not with "freinds" to back him up, not with video to post, and not with the addition of fabrications and misrepresentations to that video. Pres. Eyring talked about humble seekers of truth having questions, doubts and different view points and how we should treat them. Todd's actions show he was not a humble seeker, he was out to embarrass and discredit the church. He was treated with kindness by all present in the meeting that day according to those who were in attendance. His actions in return were not kind.

I think this fruit speaks for itself.

Mark wrote:The reason that the Bishop finally had to turn off the mike with this guy is because he said He was ashamed and embarrased of the church and its leadership because of their public stand on Prop. 8. He was publicly critisizing and calling out the leadership of the church because of their stand on supporting Prop 8. My goodness ob if this isn't apostasy I don't know what would be.

Yes, the bishop did the right thing in this circumstance, and the guy spent another minute and politely went down, didn't make a scene.

Clearly was improper but I would not call him an apostate because he is embarrassed by the position of the leadership and its members on some issue.

I let leadership have their opinions and their advice for certain situations, but government regulating marriage is not some ultimate principle I think the Lord espouses.

Remember it is because of the public school system that the threat of children being taught this or that comes.

how bout we change where we send our kids off to?

to me, that is the problem, not adults choosing their personal lifestyle.

I think I will always maintain though that its not the governments business who gets married, you may want it to be the governments business, I don't.

obam

To say one is born gay is equivalent to one saying he is born a rapist, adulterer, fornicator or child molester. All are an abomination to God and lead to the entire destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Homosexuality

"Homosexuality is an ugly sin, . . . defined as 'sexual desire for those of the same sex or sexual relations between individuals of the same sex,' whether men or women. It is a sin of the ages. . . .

". . . If all the people in the world were to accept homosexuality, as it seems to have been accepted in Sodom and Gomorrah, the practice would still be deep, dark sin.

"Those who would claim that the homosexual is a third sex and that there is nothing wrong in such associations can hardly believe in God or in his scriptures.

". . . Clearly it is hostile to God's purpose in that it negates his first and great commandment to 'multiply and replenish the earth.' If the abominable practice became universal it would depopulate the earth in a single generation." (Spencer W. Kimball, MF, pp. 78-79, 81.)

"A homosexual relationship is viewed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as sin in the same degree as adultery and fornication.

"In summarizing the intended destiny of man, the Lord has declared: 'For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.' (Moses 1:39.) Eternal life means returning to the Lord's exalted presence and enjoying the privilege of eternal increase. According to his revealed word, the only acceptable sexual relationship occurs within the family between a husband and a wife.

"Homosexuality in men and women runs counter to these divine objectives and, therefore, is to be avoided and forsaken. Church members involved to any degree must repent. 'By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins— behold, he will confess them and forsake them.' (D&C 58:43.) Failure to work closely with one's bishop or stake president in cases involving homosexual behavior will require prompt Church court action." (First Presidency, Priesthood Bulletin, February 1973.)


(Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the New Testament: The Four Gospels [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982], 267.)

Are you saying that if you disagree with this position and criticize it in front of fellow members when discussing it , I am on my way to apostasy.

Yes, absolutely!

NoGreaterLove wrote:

Are you saying that if you disagree with this position and criticize it in front of fellow members when discussing it , I am on my way to apostasy.

Yes, absolutely!

So you are saying that , I disagree that the government should have a say in who gets married, and I was talking with 5 members about it and I shared my disagreement with that assessment and they say well we were told by the first presidency we should do that and I said, I still disagree that government should be involved because there are better ways to handle this situation and I think their the personal pursuit of happiness is in our declaration for a reason.

And because of the above I am on my way to apostasy?

So, for example, if the Doctrine and Covenants says renounce war and proclaim peace but you have a group of lds talking about how we need to go to war with all these countries because of the terror, etc, could they be on their way to apostasy? Would there be any church left if they were?

When Jesus Christ has inspired his Prophet to get politically involved in any subject and you take it upon yourself to openly criticize their actions, you are on the road to apostasy. You are not supporting and sustaining the Prophet as the chosen mouthpiece of God.

Either you sustain the Prophet as called of God or you do not. No fence sitting. You either sustain him, or you are apostatizing. You can not have it both ways.

The Gospel is a kingdom, not a democracy. Our king is Christ. What He says goes. I do not question his authority. If he says get politically involved as a church then we get involved.

Tod will be surprised when he finds out the LDG's have whipped up a false sense of injustice over an issue they are using as a red herring to weaken the family and create impetus for the state and an international world order. I mean we aren't very far away from this. I refrain from getting to involved in this topic anymore, because it IS a red herring. It's all about cultural Marxism, which is a method for the LDG's to get power, plain and simple. These progressive Mormons think the Church is on the wrong side of history, they see the blacks in the priesthood thing as the example. Past experience doesn't always, however, equal future results. These individuals, gays and their perceived injustices, are but mere tools in the system. They are being used, and its sad, frankly.

I'm with you Mosby. This guy is a punk. It reminds me of those freaks who invaded the Catholic service a while back making a mockery of their worship service. My Christian spirit would be tested to the limit with those kinds of jerks. I'm afraid I would practice the laying on of hands with a couple solid right crosses to the jaw

Mark- I knew that some one would come up with something like that. I'm glad you were the first, when I watched this gentleman speak I started to think about the time Brother Joseph grabbed a member from the congregation and threw him out the front door.

Anyhow - if you came to my ward and wore that CHS gear and started quoting OMD on 9-11, I would personally throw you out ( and I don't care how big a boy you are)

I am greatful the Prophet and Apostles have drawn a line in the sand. They have clearly stated where the safe ground lies. I live in an area where the government thought it new better and extended the privilege of marriage to same sex partners. Our quaint little society is sliding downhill fast. I am all for treating others with dignity respect and compassion and allowing them their agency, but I also see first hand what is happening in our little community as social standards are stripped away bit by bit in the spirit of tolerance. Tolerancetaken to excess is truly becoming a vice to those who would try to live Christlike lives. The Lord has tried to warn us through the scriptures and through living oracles that allowing some behaviors to become mainstream comodities would be dangerous.

I could keep my kids home from school, but they will see these couples at the grocery store and in our unique case even at church. All I can do now is try to teach them love and compassion tempered by the laws of God and hope they see that obedience is the path to true and lasting happiness. I hope others can safegaurd their communitie's virtue and social decline by staying true to the Lord's laws and not give way to the laws of men.

obamohno wrote:Is not supporting a Yes vote on Prop 8 in rebellion to the Church/Prophet and therefore you would question my testimony of the gospel since I think that government shouldn't have a say in the matter?

I wouldn't question your testimony for a second for taking this position.

If you were to stand at the pulpit in California and encourage the congregation to vote No on Prop 8, in direct opposition to the church's position on the matter, I would start to question your testimony. If you continued rambling as did the guy in the video against the church, I would call you an apostate.

There is a HUGE difference between having an opinion and position on an issue (with which there is nothing wrong) and publicly stating your position and opposing the church - as Tod did.

mchlwise wrote: ...If you were to stand at the pulpit in California and encourage
the congregation to vote No on Prop 8, in direct opposition to the
church's position on the matter, I would start to question your
testimony. If you continued rambling as did the guy in the video
against the church, I would call you an apostate.

There is a HUGE difference between having an opinion and position
on an issue (with which there is nothing wrong) and publicly stating
your position and opposing the church - as Tod did.

Well said, mchlwise. My sentiments exactly.

Best Regards,
Sharon (Making the Best of Basics) in Mississippi

obamohno wrote:Are you saying that if you disagree with this position and criticize it in front of fellow members when discussing it , I am on my way to apostasy.

If you criticize the church's position in front of a group of members, yes, I would say you are on your way to apostasy. Well on your way. If you criticize the church's position from the pulpit, I would say you are there.

Now imagine if people are born gay, do you think people should use government to enforce certain moral positions on other adults just because of the way they are born?

I have never understood the logic of this argument. I don't think there is any argument that people can be born heterosexual. With attractions and sexual urges towards the opposite gender.

Adultery was illegal for many many years. It still is in some places. Look up Utah's sodomy laws sometime, and you will probably be shocked to see what sexual acts (oral sex, for example) most people now consider "normal" but which can in fact be used by the government to "enforce certain moral positions on other adults".

mchlwise wrote:

obamohno wrote:Are you saying that if you disagree with this position and criticize it in front of fellow members when discussing it , I am on my way to apostasy.

If you criticize the church's position in front of a group of members, yes, I would say you are on your way to apostasy.

lol, interesting position, I am pretty sure the Lords position was to renounce war and it's in our revealed revelation so when people in a group oppose this in discussion with each other being in favor of war, we got some future apostates on our hands.

according to you anyways.. this also would be a huge chunk of the church OR is the Lords revelation not a church position?

I am pretty sure the Lords position was to renounce war and it's in our revealed revelation so when people in a group oppose this in discussion with each other being in favor of war, we got some future apostates on our hands.

You keep trying to avoid this topic by going down a different road. The topic is whether Tod's testimony was in his right or not. Is it apostasy or not? Apples for oranges? Tod's testimony was outright against God. He was spitting in the face of our Heavenly Father at His pulpit at a place where the sacrament of Christ was probably just passed. What more do we need to call this apostasy? It was obviously a staged event to cause outrage among the gay community and cause further persecution against the church.

This seems to be a sensitive subject. This forum is a substitute ward for me. Let's not fight, let's discuss and learn.
[quote]Let people repent. Let people grow. Believe that people can change and improve. Is that faith? Yes! Is that hope? Yes! Is it charity? Yes! Above all, it is charity, the pure love of Christ. If something is buried in the past, leave it buried. Don’t keep going back with your little sand pail and beach shovel to dig it up, wave it around, and then throw it at someone, saying, “Hey! Do you remember this?” Splat!
Well, guess what? That is probably going to result in some ugly morsel being dug up out of your landfill with the reply, “Yeah, I remember it. Do you remember this?” Splat.
A A
nd soon enough everyone comes out of that exchange dirty and muddy and unhappy and hurt, when what God, our Father in Heaven, pleads for is cleanliness and kindness and happiness and healing.
Such dwelling on past lives, including past mistakes, is just not right! It is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is worse than Miniver Cheevy, and in some ways worse than Lot’s wife, because at least there he and she were only destroying themselves. In these cases of marriage and family and wards and apartments and neighborhoods, we can end up destroying so many, many others.[/quote]

Satan's plan is to divide the members and cause contention. Todd and his little video seem to be doing just that. The question ought to be what can we as members learn from this and how can we help others.


It was the very end of Fast and testimony meeting. The meeting was quietly closed as usual after his comments

If something is buried in the past, leave it buried. Don’t keep going back with your little sand pail and beach shovel to dig it up, wave it around, and then throw it at someone, saying, “Hey! Do you remember this?” Splat!
Well, guess what? That is probably going to result in some ugly morsel being dug up out of your landfill with the reply, “Yeah, I remember it. Do you remember this?” Splat.

Sorry, but you lost me when you got to this point. Whose dirty laundry are we exposing?

I just hate when these discussions turn into an attempt to nit pick at someones choice of words or opinions. Some have even gone back to previous threads to find ammunition and accusations to hurl at each other in a lame attempt to prove their particular point. I feel like its counter-productive to spiritual growth and development. And Elder Holland's talk was the quickest thing that came to mind. Sorry if it wasn't a good fit. I come here to learn and find spiritual tidbits that will help sustain me and give me courage to face what's coming.

2wet2burn wrote:I just hate when these discussions turn into an attempt to nit pick at
someones choice of words or opinions. Some have even gone back to previous
threads to find ammunition and accusations to hurl at each other in a lame
attempt to prove their particular point. I feel like its counter-productive to
spiritual growth and development...

I agree 100%.

But then, some might say nit-pickin' brings
'em closer together, if 'ya know what I mean...
Source: http://www.phpsolvent.com/wordpress/?p=1920

Best Regards,
Sharon (Making the Best of Basics) in Mississippi

[...]

J wrote:

obamohno wrote:If you want to be in the position to take away peoples rights to pursuit happiness, then fine.

obamohno wrote:I still disagree that government should be involved because there are better ways to handle this situation and I think their the personal pursuit of happiness is in our declaration for a reason.

I feel you may be misapplying that phrase.

John Adams essentially defined "pursuit of happiness" as property rights:

"All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness." (The Political Writings of John Adams, p. 96.)

And this fits with Section 134's enumeration of rights:

We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience [liberty], the right and control of property [pursuit of happiness], and the protection of life [life].

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or, in other words, the protection of life, the free exercise of conscience, and the right and control of property.

That's my understanding, anyway.

obamohno wrote:

J wrote:Do you simply not believe they were acting under inspiration in this matter, or even acting contrary to the will of God?

Yes(if their position is that government should have something to do with marriage in general), just like the prohibition in the 30s..

I think I'll step back, put my sunglasses on, and wait for the lightning now. 8)

yep, I am not a big fan of the gov having there hand in peoples personal business, let it strike me , I guess I deserve it

I have a question along a totally different line:

If you were in a congregation and someone stood up and starting reading that (or something like it), what would you have done?

Personally, I think it would've been time for a bathroom break.

Sometimes I think we as members put up with way too much nonsense all for the sake of wanting to be 'nice'.

gruden wrote:If you were in a congregation and someone stood up and starting reading that (or something like it), what would you have done?

I don't think there's a whole lot to do unless you're the bishop. Standing up and walking out would be an option, of course, but it would be hard to know if you were making a statement or just had to go potty.

If it was in the middle of the meeting, you could bear a strong testimony of the restoration and prophets as soon as they were done, but this was apparently done strategically at the end of the meeting so no one but the person conducting could respond.