JoCa

I fall very much in line with if this viewpoint, as someone who enjoys European culture and enjoys my heritage of this country, where my ancestors came from, etc. and makes me part of "white supremacy" or racist or under condemnation from the Church that I love so much. Whelp as David Farragut said "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead". Maybe I just ain't fit for whatever this new modern age is.

Totally agree; but that's not what the actual founders of the LoveLoud festival promote or even their principle reason for having this festival. They believe homosexual behavior is not sin and that to tell a child that homosexual behavior is sinful is "hateful". So unless we have missionaries at this festival declaring that yes God loves them but not the sin, I fail to see how we can learn from them and them from us. It's so weird people in today's world are all about compromise, yet some things in life you simply can't compromise on. You just learn to accept others think differently, say best of luck to you; I'll leave you alone you leave me alone. Instead of trying to convince each other- we just agree to live and let live. The message of LoveLoud's founders is incongruous with the LDS church.

D&C 1:31: For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. D&C 1:32: Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven. ------------------------------- It's not just about avoiding sin, it's about teaching what is sin and then turning to God. People have a messed up view of love these days. Love now means that no matter who you are or what you do it doesn't matter, we should still "love them". Yes of course, but love isn't just a fluffy feeling of giving someone a hug when you see them and saying "I love you". Love doesn't mean saying "you are a bad person". True love, true Christlike love, is setting the other person above oneself-it's about doing everything in one's power to help the other individual reach their maximum potential as heirs to the Kingdom of God-to inherit all that He has. Now tell me is giving a homosexual child a hug and telling them "God loves you just the way you are, he accepts you as your are" Is that true Christ-like love? Love can be very harsh, it can be very cutting and sometimes it is necessary. Sometimes love requires allowing individuals to struggle and fail so they can grow themselves. But ultimately it is seeing them as Christ sees them (i.e. potential heirs to God's Kingdom) and then dong as much as we can to help them achieve that. Maybe this message from the Church will help turn the hearts of the leaders of this festival to God. Who knows what God's plan is. But this I do know anyone who follows the message of the leader's of this festival that proclaim telling children that engaging in homosexual behavior is hateful is leading people down a short path to hell.

Amen. The last days brother, the last days. I personally am feeling the need to be more and more diligent in scripture reading, family prayer, personal prayer. I am starting to actively pray for the Lord to come. I'm doing the best I can to not be led astray and to have my children not be led astray. The basis of that comes from the scriptures and prayer-a personal connection with God. When the end comes . . .no one knows, but I'm sure it's gonna get a lot worse.

This is a message that would be read over the pulpit in every sacrament?

I don't know who has authorization to release Church PR messages and I don't know if they are explicitly from the 12 or not. I think if the Church wants to move on something they put out a unified statement like the Proclamation on the Family, signed by all 12. I do know that the 12 can have drastically different views on many things. If the Prophet wants to speak-he can speak it. If the 12 want to get their message across to the Church they read a statement over the pulpit. As has been done many, many time in my life. A PR statement not read over the pulpit. I feel in no way that critizing a PR statement is coming even close to apostasy. Read a statement over the pulpit and I take issue with it and then we can discuss. What I do know is that when MormonLeaks is a thing. All is not well in Zion. MormonLeaks is a thing because either someone hacked into their systems (likely but remote as a lot more information would be released), or someone who had access to the material leaked it. Maybe it is a low-level employee or maybe not. But the fact that a supposedly faithful LDS temple attending member would leak that information . . .well again people have their head stuck in the mud. When I'm in a Sunday School class and a member stands up and berates the Church for it's stance on homosexual marriage, all is not well in Zion. The Church is an organization and a vehicle to lead people to Christ. It's not perfect, not everything done or said is God's will-it's lead by men of God who are imperfect human beings. The biggest reason the Church exists is because of the authority and ordnances. If a member of the 70 can be sin so greatly as to be excommunicated, then yes good men of God can make plenty of mistakes. If the LDS church at one point decided to allow homosexuals to marriage; I would severely disagree. I personally would believe it is not of God. I would still be a member of the Church. I would teach my children it is against God's law-but I would still be a member of the Church why, b/c I know it is the only organization authorized to act in God's name regardless of it's human problems.

So every statement out of the PR department is from the Prophet's mouth?

Except again, the methodology they want to use to prevent youth suicide is out of line with Church teaching. It's insidious. The founder of the concert explicitly says the LDS church is bigoted and telling youth that homosexual behavior is sinful is "hateful"-they want to prevent youth suicide by telling kids "just be who you are, it's okay to engage in homosexual behavior". That individuals don't see the readjustment and changing of definition of words is amazing and demonstrates how insidious Lucifer really is. Up until roughly the 1950s, gay meant happy, joyous. The song "We'll all feel gay when Johnny comes Marching Home" was a song sung. But the homosexual agenda usurped the word and then owned the word. Now gay means exclusively homosexual. The definition of "Family values" and love are changing too.

A couple of points. Why does a world-wide Church even need to address this? The LDS Church puts out a PR statement on an event that will have what maybe at the very most 50,000 people attend. Commenting on a Rock Concert no less (I love rock, but again why comment?). This event is an extremely local event-I bet nobody except those who either live in the direct area or those who are plugged into the homosexual agenda were even aware of this event. The Church has 15+ million members with over half residing in foreign lands that have absolutely nothing to do with the event. Again part of wisdom in life and organizationally is understanding some things just don't need to be addressed. When you address ever little whim and issues you look like you are either becoming more and more shifting with the times or like you don't know what you are doing and are reacting to ever jot and tittle. Just because you have lots of people inquiring doesn't mean you are required to give an answer. And on the surface the event's "aim" appears noble. "Prevent teen suicides and keep families together". Of course, who wouldn't be for those things. Except their idea of how to prevent suicides and keep families together is antithecal to the LDS church methodology. LDS Church is love them as children of God but right is right, wrong is wrong-do not commit sin. Their way (as stated by their founder) is that this teaching leads to suicide and teaching children that homosexual behavior is a sin is hateful. LDS church's view on family is that it should be man and women. Their view is homosexuals should be able to raise children. How can you have dialog on that? And quite frankly as human beings very, very few of us are able to understand the subtle nuances. That's why you have a PR department, they are supposed to understand that people don't get subtle differences and word things in a clear concise manner. PR says "we share common values like the pricelessness of youth and the value of families". Except our definition of what pricelessness of youth means (i.e. teaching them the straight and narrow way) and our definition of value of families (man and woman sealed together) are the complete opposite than theirs. PR this past week from the Church was a major, major fail. Had the PR department acknowledged in their statement a reaffirmation of LDS values then that would probably have been much better. The PR department can receive such backlash that they clarify their statement against "white supremacy" but they will probably let this stand. The definition of how they use words is different then ours. Our love is their hate and their love is our sin. God heads this Church; but anyone who says "all is well in Zion" has got their head stuck in the mud.

The beauty of the American experiment is that we were supposed to have representative government, the House of Reps were to completely be a select representation of their constituents viewpoints, culture, habits etc. so that one felt their "voice was heard" and therefore regardless of viewpoint, culture or background one had equality under the law. It wasn't perfect and it had plenty of flaws, but it was and is the best system ever set up in the history of the world to maintain a relatively peaceful government and society. So when we define equal, what does it mean? That each person is exactly alike another person-no woman are not the same as men as men are not the same as women they are different and different is good. We aren't adrogoneous robots. And it's pretty self evident that relatively homogenous groups of people have many similarities within that group and have many physical differences outside that group. Why is it that the best long distance runners in the world are generally Ethiopian or from that part of the world? Is it because their physical genetic structure is better equipped for long distance running? Is it because their culture encourages it more than others? I don't know, I haven't done a study into it. All I know is that yes there are quite a bit of physical characteristically differences between the races. What people are really asking is do those differences extend to the brain? I don't even know how one could ever attempt to answer that question. Any attempt to develop an "IQ" test is going to be flawed in its measurement, how does one define IQ, better at math, better at memorization, better at spatial recognition. And quite frankly does IQ really even matter. If I'm a really smart person but I can't be a good neighbor does IQ mean squat, no of course not. Even brain scans aren't going to tell much. We do know that regardless of any physical differences all races are equal in the eyes of God-he looks at our countenance not on the outward appearance. What we do know that the brain is an amazing piece of machinery that rewires itself given experience and inputs into the human body. It's one reason why neurological addictions are horrible (stuff like crack, cocaine, etc.) as it is in a very real sense re-wiring the brain. The brain doesn't stay static and environment has a huge affect on how the brain grows, adapts, learns etc. And thus how one is raised and the environment they are raised in will have significant impact on how one thinks about the world and how one analyzes problems. I do believe certain cultures can not maintain a Western society; not necessarily because of genetics but because of culture and environment. It's why bringing "democracy" to the Middle East is a failed experiment-you have to change a whole tribal mentality for western society to even have a chance at working. If one wants to maintain a western society, one has to learn how to think like a western society-do that and I think there is a good chance at success, don't and it won't happen.

I agree; but there are some eerie similarities going on between the systems of oppression set up by Marxists (b/c that's where Nazi's and Communists come from) and what is going on here. The left is now pushing the meme that "hate speech is not free speech". Hate speech defined by who? I say homosexual behavior is against God's plan . . .that's hate speech. Just listen to the ridiculous speech of the organizers of LoudLove (which the church just applauded today . . .whatever). http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/pride/7842023/imagine-dragons-dan-reynolds-evolve-bigotry-mormonism-interview "One of those ways is that Mormons believe the doctrine is if you are gay and acting upon it, that is sinful. That is a very dangerous and hurtful and hateful thing to preach and to teach our children. To be gay is beautiful and right and perfect; to tell someone they need to change their inner-most being is setting up someone for an unhealthy life and unhealthy foundation. " Got it. The Church's PR statement "We applaud the LoveLoud Festival for LGBT youth's aim to bring people together to address teen safety and to express respect and love for all of God’s children. We join our voice with all who come together to foster a community of inclusion in which no one is mistreated because of who they are or what they believe." Umm hey guys in the PR department . . . the organizer of the Festival (some stupid thing that I'd never even heard of until today), actively believes that telling children that acting on homosexual behaviors is a "very dangerous and hurtful and hateful thing to teach". And the Church "applauds" it's aim to bring people together .. . .and that no one should be mistreated because of who they are. Yeah except your definition of mistreated is not the same as their definition of mistreated. The organizers definition of mistreated is teaching children that homosexual behavior is wrong is evil. The whole flipping world has gone mad. Soon, to say homosexual behavior is evil to a child will be considered "hate speech". . . blooming idiots. Disney just had a new cartoon pushing two lesbian moms with a child promoting it as normal. Except when you actually look at the actual scientific studies done on children raised by homosexual parents it's a absolute mess . . .but that never gets in the way of today's post-modern whatever feels good do it attitude.

Awesome. I do the same thing with anyone who is a Florida Gator . . .can't have those Gators around, mortal enemies :-).

Stop talking as in not discuss the topic but still discuss other things or stop talking altogether forever. Just curious at where exists the line of deciding when to talk to another individual or not, i.e. become a friend.

But if someone is for abortion you'd still be friends with them? I'm just curious where the line is that leads one to cut off friendship over a different belief?

? I'm curious. Did you find their beliefs offensive and then decide to cut off friendship, or did they cut off friendship with you b/c you didn't agree with them?

The Communists were more for a global order where the Nazi's were for a National order. Funny the woman who tore down the Durham statue was a member of the World Worker's Party (aka. dyed in the cloth Communists). I do not believe all alt-right are Nazi's; but some true Nazi's did show up and "Unite the Right" might well have been an astro-turfed funded thing. I think some really good people got played real hard or didn't quite understand what was going on. Some true Nazi's and some true Communists showed up and had a mini-reenactment of the 1920s in Germany . . .lovely. Throwing Nazi salutes . . . come on, really you want those guys to show up to a rally that is to show solidarity for keeping a part of history? The Nazi's were the anti-thesis of wanting to keep history and culture. They destroyed anything they didn't agree with. I don't think military veterans that showed up that fought in several wars decided to show up to an event that had Nazi's . . .I think they got played . . .hard.

The idea that one race is superior to another is to me repugnant. I don't believe someone should be punished simply b/c of something they believe-now if they act and do something that violates another's God given rights, then pain should be coming. But I do enjoy my culture, my heritage and my race. I enjoy that my ancestors came from the traditional European stock. I enjoy eating traditional European food- cabbage and ham for Easter. I like being able to come home to a traditional culture. I enjoy going to other countries and seeing their culture . . .but I also like my own and I'd like to keep it that way for me and for posterity. I think what you are seeing is the natural pushback against the insanity of people and Europeans taking blame for "white privilege" and owning it and then turning around and appeasing everyone and anyone for the sins of past generations. I make no excuses or apologies for the past . . . it is done, over with, learn from it, grow from it, understand it was a different time, different people. Just because I enjoy my culture doesn't mean I approve of everything they did, every culture has it's warts and problems. I personally find it repugnant that I am expected to bow down and grovel like some pig simply b/c a group of people who are starting to get political power demand that I apologize and make reparations for the past. It is done, over with, live and let live. And no, I don't want my children going to a school where (as another individual of another race put it to me), the administrators were playing adult rap and dancing in the street of an elementary school. That's fine if another person wants that for their child-not for mine. There is definitely a difference in culture. It's why IMO multi-culturism is a cancer. I really enjoy going to other places and seeing the differences and being immersed in the differences. But if we take all the differences and put them together then France isn't France anymore, China isn't China anymore it just becomes one big pot. And I honestly enjoy seeing the difference- I don't want everything to be the same everywhere. It provides the spice of life. Interesting factoid; the entire reason Texas became a state is because Mexico (primarily Hispanic) invited and encouraged US citizens to settle in the area. Over a period of time, the Americas ended up outnumbering the Mexicans. They fought a war over it b/c the American culture did not mesh with the Mexican culture. Texas became it's own nation and then eventually joined the US. It's why the north and south fought . . .b/c they were two different cultures that didn't mix together. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Totally agree. The larger point being that in today's modern society we can't fathom why people had a deep hatred for the Japanese . . .but there were some very good reasons as to why they did. The same applies to other situations.

If one reads history it is really easy to see why and if you had lived their life you probably would have believed the same thing. Read Flags of Our Fathers. The Japanese during that time period were extremely brutal and savage. In Flag of Our Fathers, he documents how his father had a best buddy who was kidnapped by the Japanese in cave fighting on one of the islands. He found his buddy with his head cut off and genitals sown in his mouth. If you had lived through that, you'd hate the Japanese too. Today the Japanese are an extremely docile, non-fanatical culture (okay except the idea of committing suicide which is still big in their culture), but live through the horrors of the Japanese culture of the 1920s-1940s and yeah you'd hate them too.

And it is precisely this reason why in general countries throughout history have maintained a cohesive ethnicity. It's great platitudes to say we in the modern society are so much better than our ancestors b/c we abhor racism. But when you get down to it, for whatever reason a large swath of individuals from any one particular ethnicity (not everyone but a significant portion of individuals) actively make a choice to self-segregate and to live among individuals that share a common background. No one group is better than the other; we are all children of God and should all respect and love each other. Just people like to live, associate, work with others who share similar backgrounds. Business companies have certain cultures, if everyone in the company wears white shirts and ties and you were flip-flops every day you are going to have a problem. The hope and ideal of America is that each ethnicity can have the basis of shared beliefs in the Constitution the Bill of Rights, etc. and those things can form the basis of a shared culture. Unfortunately, though that idea has devolved through identity politics. What's really interesting is how much the scare of racism divides this country, yet the vast majority of countries in the world, the vast majority of the population in the world, says something like yeah racism so what. How many times was I told "yankee go home" in South America-simply b/c I didn't look like them....too numerous to count.

But when it's against the majority (i.e. whites), then skin color doesn't matter. Gotcha, just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. And some people wonder why the alt-right is a thing . . ..

I think it is very, very hard for disparate groups that look completely different to live in harmony together. It can happen but in order for it to happen there has to be something much larger then their culture (or it has to be the same culture) that brings them together. It's why whether we like it or not we live in a very segregated society. Every city I have lived in has the black community, the Chinese community, the Hispanic community, the white community. And each community is roughly 80% or greater in one culture or race. The black communities are generally 90-97% black, the Hispanics are in the 80%, etc. etc. There was an incident in Atlanta were a white woman running on the democratic ticket for Governor of GA was shouted down by blacks who said she couldn't represent them and their community-they prevented her from speaking. Call it racism, call it hegemony, call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that large groups of different ethnic individuals (not all individuals part of that ethnicity), want to be represented by individuals who look like them. Quite frankly, the best thing we could do for race and ethnic relations in this country is to bring down the # of people a Representative represents, expand the House of Representatives from 550ish to 2000, so that each Representative represents saw 100,000 people (the Founders had it at 30k per).Gerrymandering wouldn't be a problem and then all the House becomes truly representative, black, Hispanic, etc. communities would feel their voice is heard, they'd have a say and so would everyone else. A really simple fix is to diffuse political power not centralize it and control it.

I think you really ought to look at what you wrote. I'll flip it for you to help out. "The English branch, that even has a BLACK branch President. I've talked to some English members, and some who are inactive and they notice this. They even state there are difficulties with their [white] kids associating with other [black] LDS kids" Now, how bad does that sound? Racist much? If skin color truly doesn't matter, they what difference does it make if the branch president is black, white, Asian, pink, etc. If he is a man called of God, does his skin color really matter? The hypocrisy is there.

Truth is the first causality in any war. http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/14/heres-how-the-virginia-state-police-provoked-violence-at-charlottesville/ Maybe the police were just really stupid and the ineptitude of the Governor of Virginia was on full display. Or maybe evil men in positions of power do everything they can to facilitate violence. And now they arrest one of the individuals who tore down a statute . . .while the police stood looking on during the crime. Great, so that means someone can rob a bank, blow up a building, kill someone and the cops will just stand by doing nothing (even if they have the means to do something about it) and arrest them later. Whatever happened to rule of law in this country?

http://www.toddstarnes.com/column/culture-jihadists-rip-down-confederate-statue We've got to enforce the rule of law in this country; you don't get to decide you're going to go on a crusade and tear down a statue. Why aren't these people charged with a crime? Defacement of public property. You've got video evidence and people gladly celebrating destroying property. Where are the cops? Where are the arrests? This has the potential to spiral out of hand. When people do not feel the police will protect them equally, they will start to take matters into their own hands and that's not good.