carlimac

The bottom-line issue is NOT whether it's okay with God to be/engage in the LBGT lifestyle.  It's whether there is a God we are accountable to.  My sense is that many who post hate towards religious traditionalists do not believe so.  My suggestion would be to engage them in the big question of whether there really is a God or not.  If there is, are we accountable to him or not?  If they refuse, then your OP question is answered.  :-)

This.
 
There is a time and a place, of course, to defend the gospel, even on Facebook. But for the most part, it strikes me that arguing with anyone on Facebook about anything is, pretty much a non-starter, even for those lurkers. What it comes across as is a bunch of people being nasty to each other.
 
Post truths there. Speak your beliefs in your own shares, etc., and then let the comments be. That's my thinking.

Something dawned on me as I completed my nth year of arguing religion online.  Neither I, nor the person I'm arguing with, will end up budging an inch in our positions.  The point isn't to win.  The point, is all the lurking folks watching the argument go by.  The undecideds, the folks who aren't so entrenched, those not participating, but reading the discussion.  The reason to argue online, is to give them something to think about.
 
 

Maybe im just oldschool but I could never understand why anyone in their right minds would need to do anything on their smart phones unrelated to church during the sacrament hour.
 
Need to send/receive an important call? go outside and do that
Need to surf the web for sport scores or social media status's? go home and do that
 
on the flip side txt messaging allows my bishopric to inform/relay messages that are urgent/important during the sacrament meeting. for example, if an inactive female member suddenly shows up to sacrament the 1st counselor or bishop will text the relief society leader a heads up.

I think this counsel was meant for the ones who know who they are. The ones doing other stuff during the sacrament meeting. I don't bring my hard copy of scriptures to church. I'm already carrying lots of poundage of "stuff" to keep my primary class to a low roar- crayons, puzzle pages, object lessons, my ipad with a movie clip about Jesus, even treats on occasion. To bring my scriptures, too would be silly when I have them all on my phone. 
 
I hope these references to iphones during sacrament meeting in General Conference don't make judgmental snobs out of some of us. My husband takes notes on his phone. it may look like he's texting but if that bothers some, it's their problem, not his.   Sometimes I'll bring up pictures of my grandsons during a meeting. Again, if anyone judges me to be breaking a commandment, that's their burden to bear, not mine.

I don't think there is one thing wrong with doing this. 

I think this counsel was meant for the ones who know who they are. The ones doing other stuff during the sacrament meeting. I don't bring my hard copy of scriptures to church. I'm already carrying lots of poundage of "stuff" to keep my primary class to a low roar- crayons, puzzle pages, object lessons, my ipad with a movie clip about Jesus, even treats on occasion. To bring my scriptures, too would be silly when I have them all on my phone. 
 
I hope these references to iphones during sacrament meeting in General Conference don't make judgmental snobs out of some of us. My husband takes notes on his phone. it may look like he's texting but if that bothers some, it's their problem, not his.   Sometimes I'll bring up pictures of my grandsons during a meeting. Again, if anyone judges me to be breaking a commandment, that's their burden to bear, not mine.

Bringing a third person's body or genetic material into the process of conceiving or carrying a child is always discouraged by the church, regardless of what stage the embryo is in. I imagine the church will have a similar opinion and stance about the newest form of tri-parenthood, which uses a third person's DNA to correct genetic disorders at the mitochondrial level. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31069173
 
One of my friends from high school, and a member of the church, is pregnant with twins via IVF using donor eggs. The donor is her younger sister. As thrilled as I am that they have been able to achieve this medical marvel and overcome her infertility caused by premature ovarian failure.. I would not do it if I were in her shoes. I'm sure (I hope) that it will strengthen their bond as sisters. But both of them will know, whether or not the children are told, that one of them is the biological mother and the other a carrier, and that the husband's DNA was mingled with the sister's. While traditional conception and parenthood is not free of sticky issues by any means, I believe that a big part of why the church strongly discourages these methods of conception is to prevent these certain kinds of hurt and confusion.

Heh...  I like it.
 
If I understand correctly their goal was to try to get some one on one time with high level church leaders.  By redirecting them back to their Stake Presidents they are making sure that disruptive tactics do not pay off.

I thought it was smoothly done. I do believe going through the proper channels with concerns is most effecient. Calling out "No!" when it makes no sense is rather useless. Did they expect concerns to be addressed then and there?

It was interesting how it was handled.  President Uchtdorf didn't miss a beat and just stated that it was noted and moved on.  Later it was announced that those who placed a dissenting vote could meet with their Stake President.

Be it known there are some members out there with the warped notion it is their duty to change the Church from the inside out. I don't believe it's a matter of peaceful disagreement where one should graciously bow out and start one's own church. These people believe they are right and therefore must change the system.

It would be nice if leaders of our country would take the high road and show the way. Demand mutual respect. Let the laws stand in Indiana and Arkansas and trust that most will use them truthfully. Sure there may be some who won't. But I think the "damage" done by the truly mean spirited bigots doesn't have to rise to anything at near what those who were really discriminated against (like lost their lives in big numbers) experienced. yes, some may be discriminated against in a way that seems unfair, but all they have to do is walk! away!  And find a different business who will serve them.  We are breaking our backs trying to make gays happy. They continue to find things to be unhappy about. why is that?

Nonsensical?  Traveler says he'd bake the cake and give them a testimony of how wrong gay marriage is.  Others, perhaps like you, would just bake the cake, take the money, and tithe on the profit.  Still others have what the courts call, "a sincere religious motivation" not to participate in a religious sacrament they consider profane and sacrilegious.  The fact that in the latter case the cake is not fundamental to the observance matters not.  If I truly believe that having my vocational gift, which I believe God gave me, on display at an event I consider a perversion of the sacred, what is the State's compelling interest in forcing me to do so? 
 
It could even be argued that the non-essential nature of the cake make the government compulsion nonsensical. 

It would be nice if leaders of our country would take the high road and show the way. Demand mutual respect. Let the laws stand in Indiana and Arkansas and trust that most will use them truthfully. Sure there may be some who won't. But I think the "damage" done by the truly mean spirited bigots doesn't have to rise to anything at near what those who were really discriminated against (like lost their lives in big numbers) experienced. yes, some may be discriminated against in a way that seems unfair, but all they have to do is walk! away!  And find a different business who will serve them.  We are breaking our backs trying to make gays happy. They continue to find things to be unhappy about. why is that?

http://punditwire.com/2015/03/31/who-will-bake-my-wedding-cake/
 
Good article written by a "seasoned" gay man.  He could teach the younger generation (including the non-gay liberals) what real tolerance is if they would quit yelling long enough to listen.  

It would be nice if leaders of our country would take the high road and show the way. Demand mutual respect. Let the laws stand in Indiana and Arkansas and trust that most will use them truthfully. Sure there may be some who won't. But I think the "damage" done by the truly mean spirited bigots doesn't have to rise to anything at near what those who were really discriminated against (like lost their lives in big numbers) experienced. yes, some may be discriminated against in a way that seems unfair, but all they have to do is walk! away!  And find a different business who will serve them.  We are breaking our backs trying to make gays happy. They continue to find things to be unhappy about. why is that?

But there again--I see states where I have no right to deny consent to a person who wishes to use my services to perpetrate something I deem reprehensible.  I see towns and states that say it is right to fire me or kick me out of my home or shut down my business because of how I live my religion, how I donated, how I voted, or how I worship.  I see a person whose speech--however disgusting--is being refuted, not with more speech, but with blatant suppression. 
 
Calling that "progress" seems rather like saying that a wolfpack that selects a new alpha dog and tears the old one to pieces is "progressing".  The new alpha dog may find it all very emotionally gratifying.  He might even call it "progress".  But really, it's just another incarnation of the same old herd mentality.

It could be that simple if people possessed common decency and respect. There is an interesting discussion in the comments section after this article. The thing i don't understand that keeps getting said is that non-believers don't want Christianity shoved down their throats. OK so how is politely declining to photograph a same sex wedding cramming religion down anyone's throat? And on the flip side, how is forcing said photographer to take pictures at said wedding NOT cramming a belief system down someone's throat? Hypocrisy at it's finest.  

Aye!
Both my husband and I have Scottish last names. We had bagpipers and dancers at our wedding reception (exactly 27 years ago today). But no haggis.

It could be that simple if people possessed common decency and respect. There is an interesting discussion in the comments section after this article. The thing i don't understand that keeps getting said is that non-believers don't want Christianity shoved down their throats. OK so how is politely declining to photograph a same sex wedding cramming religion down anyone's throat? And on the flip side, how is forcing said photographer to take pictures at said wedding NOT cramming a belief system down someone's throat? Hypocrisy at it's finest.  

Here's an interesting way out of the logger-jam.  This liberal, pro-same sex marriage liberal argues that secularists and religionists should simply agree not to impose their morality on one another.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/29/indiana-religious-freedom-prothero/70632870/

I really would like someone who is opposed to this to please point out why this bill is so much more reprehensible than the other states' bills of the same or even the federal bill. I don't mean that in any way to be critical...I just honestly don't understand why Indiana's bill is so horrible when other states and even a federal law protects religious rights.  
 
I have SEVERAL friends on FB that post horrendous hate about this bill (and anyone who supports it).  In fact, I had to hide one friend's posts because it was so full of hate (which was surprising, because although he is gay and obviously pro-LGBT, his posts have always been so loving toward those who disagree with him).
 
Perhaps, I'll try asking one of them....

Being filled with the Spirit or the Holy Ghost is not the same as receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, which is the baptism of fire, an ordinance in an of itself. 

Luke 1:15