old

I would in general 100% agree with you. However, you can read my story elsewhere. Definitely, not what I experienced. I would also say that I have experienced a tremendous amount of two-facedness. I have another old friend from college, she posted something about "Love is Love" or some other such nonsense. I politely, disagreed on Facebook and said 2 men (or for that matter a man and a woman) engaging in sodomitic acts is ungodly-regardless of what it is called. She was polite in public and said-let's talk about this privately. I said sure. She PM'd me and oh my goodness. She laid into me like white on rye. I was stunned . . .literally stunned. Here is someone my wife and I had over to our house for dinner, we played games with them before kids. And now in a private PM she is telling me off and saying things like "I'm a sex therapist/counselor/whatever and I bet you can't even please your wife b/c you are so boring" or some other nastiness. I showed my wife the txt and she was stunned as well. It was horrible. I've had so many experiences with LDS folks that when they are behind the wall one-on-one they have ended up being extremely, extremely vicious and nasty. Now . . maybe it's just people being people. But I'm the opposite. Publicly I might go overboard from time to time but in private I'm always extremely polite individually.

Maybe . . .but when my buddy doesn't talk to me for months on end (and he is a good guy; I don't blame him in the least bit-he has his own struggles and I do forgive him-it's more the culture).

That's a great response. I'd say globally that it is a problem because of Elder Oaks in a youth fireside read a letter from a young woman who mentioned the drastic difference being taught and practiced in her local area. But I fully understand that depending on one's age & stage in life as to whether it could be perceived as a bigger or smaller problem.

I'm doing my best here 🙂 While trying to answer the questions and comments posed.

The members ARE the Church. That's exactly what the Scriptures state. The members ARE the Body of Christ. To me it's irrelevant to make a dividing line between the two.

It depends on how it is handled. Witnesses another human being sin, ask for forgiveness, humbly come before others and seek reconciliation can be a tremendously uplifting spiritual experience. Witnesses another human being sin, browbeat others into saying they are right-simply because they hold the authority, no persuasion, no attempt to understand, simply "do what I say b/c I say it" can be a tremendously destructive spiritual experience. Was there ever any message provided saying STE we should have love and compassion for those who don't follow these words? Literally man . . . when you've got an entire religion shunning those who don't get a medical procedure-you've got a problem. That's a systemic problem. That's a revelatory experience. I almost felt like asking a leader-"when did getting the vaccine become part of the Temple Recommend?"

Is there or is there not a problem in the LDS Church with LGBTQ+ support? Is there or is there not a problem in the LDS Church with LGBTQ+ theological shift?

Lol . .well you know I'm not the one that posted on reddit!!! I don't expect anything, my apologies I might have gone a tad overboard 🙂 What I mean is that it is very, very hard for in-the-boat traditional LDS members to even admit there is a problem and a serious one with LGBTQ+ doctrinal and practical (i.e. day-to-day ward and stake) activities.

I will not mention the SP any more as I know that's a no-no here. But I stand by what I said. Spiritual Abuse.

Yes, I'm sure that when my Stake President used this talk to browbeat the entire Stake into getting an untested, unproven, medical procedure that the evidence now shows is tremendously detrimental to an individuals heart, that he was doing it b/c the Stake had a moral failing. Never a word about the LGBTQ+ infiltration, same-sex slow dancing, transgender cabins . . .but he can read everyone the riot act to fall in line and get the shot. I'll call it what it was. It was spiritual abuse. I told my wife afterwards, we should just stop the charade and put up a sign outside the building what the Church really is: "The Church of the Living Prophet" . . that's how spiritually abusive that talk was from the Stake President. I had a great buddy of mine who called me up after GC and this Stake talk-he was anti-vax prior, afterwards whole hog. He was trying to push me to get the shot. I told him, look brother I appreciate your concern for me. We have taken this matter seriously, we have prayed, we have taken it to God and we feel very strongly that we should NOT do this. He wouldn't talk to me for 9+ months later. That's a negative spiritual experience. Talk about anti-Christ man . . . for real. Literally, my family and I were ostracized, shunned and lost friends because we prayed to God, He told us not to do it and now the religion we belong to and go to Church to every Sunday has made us outcasts? For real? Seriously, this is Christian? Over a stupid, idiotic shot...you are going to throw away a friendship b/c I said no to a shot? SMH. Yeah, no thanks man...that's a religion that is in need of serious reform.

If we only thing that spiritual experiences can be positive then we aren't seeing the full range. Negative spiritual experiences are things when a religion indulges in the passions and allows the passions to run free. Positive spiritual experiences are things when a religion advocates for, teaches and practices the virtues and helps individuals bridle their passions. Emotions MAY be a part of that-however confusing emotions with the Holy Spirit is a huge, huge mistake.

Except you have it backwards. The rest of Christianity does not demand inerrancy and 100% correctness. They have the freedom to call out their leaders for evil, wicked or wrong acts, wrong doctrine. All one needs to do is take a look at this thread to see that is not the same for LDS. People in LDS culture are afraid, yes afraid of calling a spade a spade. It is tremendously sad.

At the end of the day it comes back to what is a prophet. I absolutely believe in modern day prophets. I do not believe that just because an individual has outlived everyone else in a group of people and that a another group of people proclaim that he is a prophet that THAT is what makes a prophet. The scriptures provide a pattern for prophets.

I agree. I have had many spiritual experiences with LDS. And I have also had spiritual experiences outside of LDS. I wouldn't have served a mission had I not had a spiritual experience from God in which I knew it was what I needed to do. While tremendously hard, I loved my mission, I still do. I wouldn't change a thing about it. However, over time it became self-evident to me that my spiritual well-being and those of whom I am in charge of providing for were being damaged by the faith of my youth. This wasn't a "I am so desperate to leave", this was "I/we are doing everything we can to stay". Eventually the quantity and quality of negative spiritual experiences overrode the positive spiritual experiences and we came to the point where we know that God was directing our paths outside the LDS Church. This is just as powerful of an experience (if not more so) than what it took to stay or as an experience gained to serve a mission. And now after the quantity and quality of positive spiritual experiences elsewhere that are tremendously positive-we feel God is calling us elsewhere.

But that is interesting. The reddit exmo post was made 5 days ago, which was when the thread was created. I had no clue about the video when I posted . . or I probably would have posted the video too! I only found out about the video a day ago. So that's interesting . . . someone is definitely watching this forum (insider or lurker . . who knows)! addendum: I don't astroturf. That to me is dishonest.

LOL . . .no reddit is a cesspool. I never go there.

Oh, don't worry...it will probably be mentioned. However, one thing I've noticed on in wokite, rainbow land. They very rarely celebrate their victories. Even when the DC Gay Men's Choir sings at the Temple Visitor Center in DC, 2019, 2022, (last year??), you generally won't hear a pip about it on their sites. Maybe one or two . . .but it's not enough. They have a singular goal and singular complaint. They will never be satisfied until they get the whole enchilada. And everything is geared towards that singular goal.

Nope. 50k views and over 500 comments. One of two videos.

Oh no, I didn't get it myself. I don't have that kind of time. But I do have places I go that provide me feeds (primarily twitter) that are highly reliable. I don't follow Cwic Media on twitter or youtube . . . but that guys sources end up being the same sources I get access to. He has tens of thousands of views, his two videos on this topic have ~75k views . . .that's not tiny. ExMoCringe on twitter also has SOME sources I use. I am never the guy that goes and finds the original information...maybe once in a purple moon I'll find something no one else has somehow. In general, I have access to the places where the LGBTQ+ wokites hang out...what they say, what they do when they think they are among friends. I am slowly extracting myself from the LDS world; but I still deeply care about it, the people, etc. It is/was my first religious love. And frankly, even if I am moving away from it, I do not want it to fall prey to this evil-because each Christian religion/denomination that does fall prey to it, causes the society and Christians in general to weaken. I can tell you from all the sources I've got, including where many of the individuals that have been paraded out by the Church as the "model" LGBTQ+ latter-day saint (ensign articles written by them, given stage time at large-scale LDS events, etc.), WHEN they are with their friends and their allies they sing a completely different tune. They are very much into pushing the church, advocacy, etc. for full member privileges. They are the very definition of snakes in the grass. As one of them has said before, as long as they don't scare people-they wear a nice suit, tie, don't act too crazy, they "look" the part, then they are able to spread their ideology far and wide. And they know that once they get the levers of power, they can use that to their advantage. No one will dare oppose a LGBTQ+ affirming Bishop or Stake President, YW President . . . their eternal salvation would be at stake for doing so. How dare you oppose the openly queer YW President? She is Temple Worthy-so says the Bishop and Stake President. Therefore, you are the one who is in need of repenting. I give credit where credit is do. The have been extremely patient and cunning.

Huh??? Are you nuts?

The answer to this is yes of course. An individual who murders someone else must pay the penalty, repent, etc. And the individuals who are affected by the murder must forgive. So yes, that is the beauty of Christ. He descended below all things, there is nothing that we experience or can experience that is below what He experienced. As such, He is able to take that which is horrible and turn it to His Glory. That said, if we look around and see a group of individuals who are threatening murder, we don't have to let ourselves be killed either. We can either fight back or we can leave the area and go somewhere safer. Standing around when options are available to take action and simply praying "don't let them kill me", isn't really a wise option. Now, if we are taken by surprise then that is the best course of action. But if we are looking out and seeing the dangers, then we have an obligation to act.

I would imagine in person-no. Individuals are in general too afraid of expressing any type of dissatisfaction with significant decisions the Church makes. The significant amount of social pressure to follow your leaders and obey is tremendous. The only people you might open up to would be really close friends and even then you take a risk that you might lose that friendship if one is seen as disaffected. Online is a lot safer.

This is all stylish, academic and whatnot . . . .until it becomes real. When your kids start becoming indoctrinated at Church to love all things LGBTQ+. When transgender cabins at youth camps are a thing, when same-sex pick-ups occur at youth dances, etc. etc. etc. When it doesn't affect you or the kids you are raising, what you say is all wonderful. But then it does affect your kids, your ward is infected, the ward next to you is infected, this stake, that stake . . . at some point . . .the theoretical "trust God and STAY IN THE CHURCH" becomes "trust God and flee the Church to a place where your children will be raised to be Christian". The hardest things for traditionalist in the Church is to accept and recognize that many people leaving are not the people where left of yesterday. Many who previously left no longer believed in God, Christ, any Christian values. Many today are leaving precisely BECAUSE of Christian values, BECAUSE they believe in God, Christ, traditional values and see it is not being taught, preached or practiced in the Church and they are leaving for other locations that do teach it. The only thing left individuals have to say "you MUST STAY", why? "because the Church is true". Okay, sure, but why when my kids are being indoctrinated into all manner of false idols and false gods and perversion? "it doesn't matter, you must stay!". Okay, I hear you. Appreciate the input-walk a mile in my shoes before requiring me to sacrifice my children upon the alter of the LGBTQ+ woke god infecting the LDS church.

Well you have definitely hit on something EXTREMELY important. "For one thing, it ignores the role of the reader in interpreting scripture." Exactly; which is why there are 64 thousand flavors of protestantism. It's why Dan McClellan has such a huge following. The LDS Church claims that the higher leaders of the Church have the ultimate authority to determine what the correct interpretation is of scripture. The problem with this idea is that again there is no firebreak. The LDS Church underlying it all as you have said can have one Prophet proclaim God has revealed that the sky really is green (picking something ridiculous) and the next Prophet can proclaim God has revealed that the sky is really red. The only firebreak is the collective belief that God would remove (i.e. cause to die) any man who attempted to lead the Church astray. Except that belief is not based in scripture, it is based in one of the men who flipped the switch on what was official doctrine and proclaimed that what he was saying was God's Word and then the members of the Church agreed it was. This was made 100% self-evident when during COVID, my Stake President got up and stated unequivocally that we could throw out the entirety of the Scriptures, we didn't need them, because we have a Living Prophet.

Excellent comment. "Religion by its very nature is conservative. Without that trait, it would not be a religion. It would be a fad political movement. If religion is to change so wildly with every generation, the purpose of any religion in society would be completely untenable." Absolutely!!! There is a reason why the major faiths have been around for 1000s of years. The Ancient Faith of Christianity-2000 years, Judism 4000, Muslims (which are really heretical, defiled Christians . . .did you know Muslims believe in the virgin birth and ever-virginity of Mary??? wild) 1400 years. Major changes in dogma result in splits; or wars to vanquish the infidels who do not believe in the new changes of dogma. This type of major change in dogma is causing splits across many denominations . . .and it isn't finished yet. As time progresses you'll end up seeing the consequences of the heretical beliefs as they are played to their natural consequences. The Muslims were Christians that split from mainline Christianity in the 400s and then Muhammed came and took them over. Over centuries one can see the similarities, but the differences are so great that they are not Christian. The same will happen with this issue. Those who want to indulge in this passion and those who do not have a strong enough backbone to resist it being taught will be part of a religion that will teach it is acceptable. It will become self-evident over time that whatever new religion it becomes it most certainly won't be Christian-regardless of whether it takes that name or not. Will this new religion stand the test of time? Only time will tell. For me, I think I'd rather rely on the Christian values that have stood the test of time rather than some new fangled idea regardless of who teaches it.