Mormon/LDS Church Reverses its LBGTQ Policy

[Bob]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/05/us/mormon-policy-reversal/index.html

 

Frankly, I don't care if a religion accept gays or not or changes its teachings, so this isn't about that.

 

What this is about his how the Mormons, allegedly at God's direction, flip-flops on political and social issues, conveniently, when they are placed under political and social pressure, or  when they begin to lose members.

 

We have several instances of this in the last hundred years of this religion lying about God telling them to do something, and then tell them not to do it, and then telling them to do something, and telling them not to.

 

When you claim to get direct communication from God, you had better hope you never have to change course, because if you do, you make yourself out to be nothing more than a shyster snake-oil salesman. 

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Bob

[navco]

i have been keeping up with this and  have said in earlier posts this would happen. We will be the only christian (true) religion not giving in to the lgbt agenda.

Edited April 5, 2019 by navco

[ChocoBro]

i have been keeping up with this and  have said in earlier posts this would happen. We will be the only christian (true) religion not giving in to the lgbt agenda.

Now we can pray that all those in the church of LDS who really love God's moral standards will be so disappointed that they will look for the truth elsewhere. At least they know a little about preaching, right?

Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk

[Brother_Bliss]

So basically, (1) the children of same sex couples can get baptized now, and (2) members entering into same sex marriages will not be ex-communicated.

[pnutts]

What is interesting is that these children are very likely to identify as gay. So much for being born that way.

It is learned - especially in teen years when hormones are in flux.

[minister159]

I read somewhere yesterday, one of their spokesmen was quoted as saying that this "wasn't a change in doctrine, but a change of policy." I'm not sure what that means exactly, but it sounds like semantics to me, or at least a compromise of doctrine. Is there really a difference?

[Bob]

1 hour ago, minister159 said:

I read somewhere yesterday, one of their spokesmen was quoted as saying that this "wasn't a change in doctrine, but a change of policy." I'm not sure what that means exactly, but it sounds like semantics to me, or at least a compromise of doctrine. Is there really a difference?

They are playing on both sides of the fence. Giving lip service to the Bible, while actually trying undo the damage that massive resignation caused by catering to society. 

 

Does anyone in Christendom follow the Bible anymore?

[Memeber212]

6 hours ago, minister159 said:

I read somewhere yesterday, one of their spokesmen was quoted as saying that this "wasn't a change in doctrine, but a change of policy." I'm not sure what that means exactly, but it sounds like semantics to me or at least a compromise of doctrine. Is there really a difference?

 

It is like like Talmud to the Torah. There is the law and there is the interpretation. Any deviation from the Bible, that may sound reasonable, cause twisted results and future, often difficult to predict problems. Policies are important and very much needed to handle matters that are not regulated by the Bible. We also have policies. But when they alter things that are clearly and beyond any doubts expressed in the Bible that is acting against God. On the other hand, they have another scripture written by Joseph Smith - The book of Mormon. I don't know what it allows and what alteration it makes to the Bible. But yeah. It would be worrying if the gap between us and the world would not widen. It needs to get wider and wider until there is no doubt which is the crop and which is the weed.

[Thesauron]

What is interesting is that these children are very likely to identify as gay. So much for being born that way.
It is learned - especially in teen years when hormones are in flux.

Why do you think this? It is not true for any of the same sex families I have met in the ministry.

[Alexa]

The world is getting much worse 

8 hours ago, Bob said:

They are playing on both sides of the fence. Giving lip service to the Bible, while actually trying undo the damage that massive resignation caused by catering to society. 

 

Does anyone in Christendom follow the Bible anymore?

They say they do follow the Bible but still parts of it  

[ChocoBro]

1 hour ago, Thesauron said:

Why do you think this? It is not true for any of the same sex families I have met in the ministry.

I can't help but notice you often seem to lean in a very liberal direction on this. Like I already told you once before, I know of somebody who developed homosexual tendencies much later in his life due to years of rejection by women. There is no such thing as being "born gay". At some point in your development, you become curious or you do not. When you do become curious, you either act on it or do not. If you act on it, you make a proactive decision to either be gay, bisexual, or whatever you decide. Maybe a certain hormonal predisposition is given at birth, but sin, despite imperfection, is always a choice, and the Bible at no point teaches that homosexuality is genetic.

 

If you consider the only situation in the Bible where children are shown to have a nasty attitude towards moral standards, it is in the account of Sodom and Gomorrah, where young and old gathered to have intercourse with the angels. Do you seriously think that the mindset of the adults in those places had no influence on these children?

 

When it comes to the pressure exerted on children to be tolerant and acceptant of their situation, either actively, passively or by circumstance, I recall an interview with Katy Faust who was raised by two lesbian women who she really considered to be loving parents but Katy Faust still considers it wrong to be raised by same-sex couples. Apart from the obvious, namely that children have the right to be raised by a mother and a father figure, she was asked by the anchorman as to why she now switched sides although she used to be an adamant supporter of same-sex parenthood.
 

Quote

There's a lot of pressure on children of gay parents to please their parents, to sort of carry the banner forward for them and you can read about this not just in conservative publications but even in books like "Families like mine" which was publicized by a pro-gay-marriage daughter and she admitted that it's very difficult to be honest about this because of the political pressure concerning this topic.

 

So the children won't ever give you an honest opinion on the subject until much later in their lives anyway, if, at all, they decide to start thinking for themselves, because they will never want to hurt their "parents", by whom they want to be loved.

Ever heard of the term "role-model"? The way a father treats or mistreats his wife is often instilled in the son and will often be mirrored in the way he treats the women in his life. If you grow up in a family with criminal parents, you will also likely have a casual attitude towards breaking the law. You can be a good or a bad role-model for your kids. Why do you expect that to be any different when it comes to issues like sexuality?

 

 

[sunshine]

I've long believed that our biblical position on homosexuality will come center stage during the tribulation.  It will one day be illegal to voice disapproval of homosexuality on any grounds even religious.  Whho knows what a frenzy Satan will whip the masses into over this issue? The churches will bend to public or legal  pressure and we will stand alone.  20 years ago such a thing seemed unthinkable, now it seems most likely.

Edited April 6, 2019 by sunshine

[Thesauron]

 
So the children won't ever give you an honest opinion on the subject until much later in their lives anyway, if, at all, they decide to start thinking for themselves, because they will never want to hurt their "parents", by whom they want to be loved.

Ever heard of the term "role-model"? The way a father treats or mistreats his wife is often instilled in the son and will often be mirrored in the way he treats the women in his life. If you grow up in a family with criminal parents, you will also likely have a casual attitude towards breaking the law. You can be a good or a bad role-model for your kids. Why do you expect that to be any different when it comes to issues like sexuality?
 
 

Most of the kids in same sex families grow up to be straight. Some don’t. Just like in straight families. It has nothing to do with how I view the issue.

[Thesauron]

2 hours ago, ChocoBro said:

There is no such thing as being "born gay". At some point in your development, you become curious or you do not. When you do become curious, you either act on it or do not. If you act on it, 

Why do you imagine this is so?

[Bob]

2 hours ago, ChocoBro said:

Maybe a certain hormonal predisposition is given at birth, but sin, despite imperfection, is always a choice, and the Bible at no point teaches that homosexuality is genetic.

I think you could be onto something here. I've read this before, but I do not recall if this has been disproven or not. The fact is though, attraction is more the function of the mind, not the body.

 

I don't remember where I saw this, but several years ago, a study compared the brains of gay men with that of heterosexual women. The similarities were striking, and telling. I never believed it was genetic -- gay men have had all straight children. Nothing "genetic" as far as sexual orientation was passed down. Also, you have identical twins where one is gay and the other is not.

 

But I cannot say with certainty.  

 

At any rate, the Bible doesn't condemn attraction -- it condemns the act, gay or straight. I am confident that Jehovah understands that some of his servants may have to deal with the attraction and feelings, and knows their circumstances. 

Edited April 6, 2019 by Bob

[Brother_Bliss]

A discussion about the reasons behind one being homosexual is off-topic for this discussion. If it continues, you will receive warning points and perhaps be put back in moderation.

 

18 hours ago, pnutts said:

What is interesting is that these children are very likely to identify as gay. So much for being born that way.

It is learned - especially in teen years when hormones are in flux.

 

10 hours ago, Thesauron said:

Why do you think this? It is not true for any of the same sex families I have met in the ministry.

 

I think @pnutts was saying that they will have an increased probability of identifying as gay. Someone raised in a home where this is practiced or at least elevated to being something 'acceptable', then the likelihood of experimenting with alternative lifestyles will also increase. This doesn't mean that all of them will try, nor that those who do will continue the practice.

[pnutts]

32 minutes ago, Dismal_Bliss said:

that they will have an increased probability of identifying as gay. Someone raised in a home where this is practiced or at least elevated to being something 'acceptable', then the likelihood of experimenting with alternative lifestyles will also increase

That was in an online news report a few days ago.

[Shawnster]

22 hours ago, Bob said:

Does anyone in Christendom follow the Bible anymore?

Did they ever? 

[Bob]

On 4/6/2019 at 6:08 PM, Shawnster said:

Did they ever? 

Touche'!

[minister159]

On 4/5/2019 at 3:47 PM, minister159 said:

I read somewhere yesterday, one of their spokesmen was quoted as saying that this "wasn't a change in doctrine, but a change of policy." I'm not sure what that means exactly, but it sounds like semantics to me, or at least a compromise of doctrine. Is there really a difference?

Here is a quote on Wikipedia from a famous Mormon (LDS), Donny Osmond, regarding his and by extension I suppose, the Church's position; and I thought I was confused before!  😬  It takes the term pretzel logic to a whole new level. It's about as convoluted as you can get.

 

In the aftermath of Proposition 8 in California, which received large Mormon support, Osmond stated that he opposes same-sex marriage but that he does not condemn homosexuality. He believes that gays and lesbians should be accepted in the Church if they remain celibate.[35]

 

He stated on his Web site:

"We all determine for ourselves what is right and what is not right for our own lives and how we live God's commandments. I am not a judge and I will never judge anyone for the decisions they make unless they are causing harm to another individual. I love my friends, including my homosexual friends. We are all God's children. It is their choice, not mine on how they conduct their lives and choose to live the commandments according to the dictates of their own conscience."[36]

Edited April 8, 2019 by minister159

[ChocoBro]

 
He believes that gays and lesbians should be accepted in the Church if they remain celibate]
 
He stated on his Web site:
"We all determine for ourselves what is right and what is not right for our own lives and how we live God's commandments. I am not a judge and I will never judge anyone

It's not about judging people. It's about upholding God's moral standard. The Bible doesn't explicitly condemn same-sex marriages but it explicitly condemns homosexual intimacies. How anybody can ignore such a clear warning and still water down the standard.

Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk

[Cool Cat]

So if a homosexual person does not get married and stays celibate then the are not practicing sin, right? Isn’t there some brothers and sisters in our organisation that does this?

 

We had a discussion a year or two ago where we discussed if it would be right to say that we have non practicing gay people in our congregation. It seemed to lean towards that not being the way to discribe it. 

[Brother_Bliss]

23 minutes ago, MentalProject said:

So if a homosexual person does not get married and stays celibate then the are not practicing sin, right? Isn’t there some brothers and sisters in our organisation that does this?

It's a matter of semantics.

 

If a person is not practicing homosexuality, then they are not a homosexual. They may be a person who struggles with same sex desires.

 

23 minutes ago, MentalProject said:

We had a discussion a year or two ago where we discussed if it would be right to say that we have non practicing gay people in our congregation. It seemed to lean towards that not being the way to discribe it. 

 

Similarly, saying that someone is gay implies that they engage in homosexual behavior, even if they were only meaning that someone struggled with same sex desire.

 

So it's not that it isn't accurate to say, but wording it that way could cause confusion about our position on homosexual acts.

[ChocoBro]

59 minutes ago, MentalProject said:

So if a homosexual person does not get married and stays celibate then the are not practicing sin, right? Isn’t there some brothers and sisters in our organisation that does this?

 

We had a discussion a year or two ago where we discussed if it would be right to say that we have non practicing gay people in our congregation. It seemed to lean towards that not being the way to discribe it. 

 

After re-checking the definition of "celibacy", you are right. "abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, typically for religious reasons." I thought the word only refers to marriage. Maybe I was influenced by what I observed the Church doing. Not marrying but still being sexually active in secret..

 

So to a large degree, anybody who is by tendency homosexual but abstains for religious reasons can serve God. Though I would argue that he would have to also not "identify" as homosexual in the classic sense.

 

 

[BenJepthah]

The LDS Church has backed itself into a theological corner with this.  An LDS teaching is that all people have a pre- human existence and that before being born human each person has a discussion with God and predetermines their life coarse to some extent. In this case it would be hippocracy on their part to Not accept LGBT . It’s quite head splitting!