old
-
Posts
101 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by old
-
-
2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
You and I have a different definition of what "shunning" means too.
And probably "browbeat" as well.
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).
-
1 minute ago, Carborendum said:
No, I was not saying you were. I don't know how you got that out of my post. What I was referring to is that
- One exmormon says we're reacting so badly to this that we're "losing it."
- Another one (you) say we're not objecting enough.
That's what I meant by polar opposite.
I appreciate the apology. And I mean that. In many ways you remind me of an exmo friend of mine. I'm pretty sure you're not him. But you still remind me of him.
Not at all. Virtually everyone on this board has said something along those lines at some point. I think that you're getting a tainted sample from what used to be your stake. I have extended family all over. And none of them have seen the level you're describing from your former stake.
All of us are quite aware that it is happening. And we don't like it. But based on my data points which cover about 40 stakes and wards (I have a very large extended family and friend network) it is fairly low and kept in check over much of the Church.
When we see some things happening, we do express concern. But it has to be pretty extreme to have it destroy our testimony. I'm sure you'd understand why if you'd realize that our experience has not mirrored yours. Perhaps the reality is somewhere in the middle. And maybe you consider me naive to "the reality." But what if I am? Maybe it is worse than my many data points indicate. But I'm worried mostly about me and my family.
And one fact is that I do believe that if it ever got as bad as you were describing in your ward, I would do everything I could to preach to them and tell them that they are violating the laws of God. It may be as futile as Lehi preaching the the people of Jerusalem. But I'd do it just as passionately as I'm certain he did.
And if I am cast out, I know that the Lord would find me a promised land to set down in.
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.
-
5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
What do you mean by "the LDS Church"? If you're talking about members being blown about by shifting cultural winds, I'd say yes. If you're talking about "Church leadership hired this guy who has said supportive things about those winds, and therefore there's a problem with church leadership", I'd say no.
And I'd like to point out site rule #1:
If this becomes an exit story, the mods'll shut it down. That's why we have reddit/exmormon.
If it becomes a thread criticizing church leadership, we'll shut it down. That's why we have mormondialogue.org.
I'm doing my best here 🙂 While trying to answer the questions and comments posed.
-
3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
What do you mean by "the LDS Church"? If you're talking about members being blown about by shifting cultural winds, I'd say yes. If you're talking about "Church leadership hired this guy who has said supportive things about those winds, and therefore there's a problem with church leadership", I'd say no.
And I'd like to point out site rule #1:
If this becomes an exit story, the mods'll shut it down. That's why we have reddit/exmormon.
If it becomes a thread criticizing church leadership, we'll shut it down. That's why we have mormondialogue.org.
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.
-
Just now, NeuroTypical said:
You and I have different definitions of what "spiritual experience" means. Witnessing humans making mistakes or sinning or being wrong isn't a "spiritual experience" from where I'm standing.
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?"
-
8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
I don't believe this is a fair accusation. I also find it interesting to recognize that this statement is the polar opposite of that lurker saying we're "losing it" over a pride supporter getting this position.
Why exactly would we "call a spade a spade?" What did you expect us to do? Denounce the Prophet because he made an appointment for someone to be communications director for the Church? Why would we do that?
For me, this person in a position as a communications director is not a spiritual matter. It is an administrative one. I can have an opinion. It may be correct, it may be incorrect. But is there some reason for me to openly declare that I disagree with the prophet on this one? Why would I bother? I expressed my opinion that it is fraught with risk. But who knows if that risk will turn out well or not? And if it turns out poorly? Then what? Is that supposed to destroy my testimony?
So, please explain what you mean by
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?
-
3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
I don't believe this is a fair accusation. I also find it interesting to recognize that this statement is the polar opposite of that lurker saying we're "losing it" over a pride supporter getting this position.
Why exactly would we "call a spade a spade?" What did you expect us to do? Denounce the Prophet because he made an appointment for someone to be communications director for the Church? Why would we do that?
For me, this person in a position as a communications director is not a spiritual matter. It is an administrative one. I can have an opinion. It may be correct, it may be incorrect. But is there some reason for me to openly declare that I disagree with the prophet on this one? Why would I bother? I expressed my opinion that it is fraught with risk. But who knows if that risk will turn out well or not? And if it turns out poorly? Then what? Is that supposed to destroy my testimony?
So, please explain what you mean by
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.
-
19 minutes ago, zil2 said:
I love that talk and the story it recounts. I whole-heartedly agree with it. IMO, when someone teaches in this vein (whether the SP in question or back in Joseph Smith's day), it is because the people within their stewardship are not giving heed to the living prophet, and the teacher in question feels the need to address this failing with strong emphasis. It is not because scripture is of no worth. If someone is trying to use scripture to justify themselves in ignoring living prophets, they understand neither the scriptures, nor the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Lord values the written scriptures - significantly. He wants us to have them and learn from them. He does not ask us to pick one (living prophets) or the other (scripture) - he gives us both. Further, I have yet to encounter the teaching of any prophet that is contrary to scripture. Expands them? Yes. Alters my understanding of them? Sure. But contradicts truths* they teach? No.
*As opposed to recounting the cultural norms of the people of the time.
If someone really needs me to provide the evidence of how much the Lord values written scripture, just let me know, I'll compile some examples (but it seems like anyone familiar with scripture would know them already).
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.
-
3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
Out of curiosity, what's a "negative spiritual experience"? I was under the impression that it's either a genuine spiritual experience, witnessed to by the Holy Ghost, or it's something else.
(And I hope you and your family finds peace too.)
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.
-
3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
Basically, if anyone loses their testimony over what current prophets do with how our alphabet friends fit into things, they should understand that the whole of Christianity is denied them as long as they demand inerrancy and 100% correctness.
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.
-
26 minutes ago, askandanswer said:
The Stake President's actions here are entirely consistent with one of my all-time favourite talks, given by President Benson at BYU in 1980 when he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve.
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/
Here is part of that talk:
Second:The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:
I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: “You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.”
When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.” [In Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19]
It always surprises me that people are more willing to give heed to the words of prophets from thousands of years ago in totally foreign cultures, than they are to the words of prophets living here and now.
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.
-
52 minutes ago, askandanswer said:
I remained active in the church because in my mid teens I prayed for and received a spiritual assurance that the church was true. I like to think that it would take a similar experience for me to leave the church - not a change in teaching or doctrine or leadership or communications directors - but a spiritual experience, as clear and as reliable as the experience that first led me to continue coming to church. Anything less would be open to questioning and doubt.
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.
-
20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
We made it on Reddit through an Exmo. Was that you, @old?
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/195bhm0/oh_no_new_lds_communications_director_supports/
Apparently we're the the only public site that qualifies as TBM. And we're "losing it" over this appointment. Hmm... Interesting.
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.
-
10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
We made it on Reddit through an Exmo. Was that you, @old?
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/195bhm0/oh_no_new_lds_communications_director_supports/
Apparently we're the the only public site that qualifies as TBM. And we're "losing it" over this appointment. Hmm... Interesting.
LOL . . .no reddit is a cesspool. I never go there.
-
14 minutes ago, zil2 said:
Discussions on the OP-linked news article include the same stuff - whether started by the same person, heaven knows. Even the SL Tribulation don't appear to have a discussion about him. (But apparently there's a dude with the same last name in some band - or was in 2011.)
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.
-
-
9 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
Not even our sister forum MormonDialogue.org, where they literally talk every topic like this to death, are talking about this guy.
It makes me wonder - @old, your opening post was a thoroughly researched and documented post. Did you get this stuff from somewhere, or did you get it yourself? I'm not demanding answers, but I would be interested if the work is yours or someone else's.
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.
- NeuroTypical and troverman
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, laronius said:
There are no "mistakes" that the Lord can't fix and ultimately use to His advantage. This knowledge acts like the metal rebar inside reinforced concrete in our teaching of following the prophet. Are prophets perfect? No. And they don't have to be because the Lord can take their best efforts and make it work. So it really doesn't matter whether these types of decisions are the result of direct revelation or just their best attempt to make things work because the Lord can and will make things work. This includes any negative fallout that results from decisions, inspired or not. It might cause us some hand wringing in the meantime but that is a natural part of how we grow in faith. This is how the Lord works with us in regards to our individual stewardships so I don't know why we would expect it to be any different for those who have a larger sphere of stewardship.
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.
-
8 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
Is there any noise in Utah over his hiring, or has it been regulated largely to social media? Are people talking about this in wards, in the newspapers, with each other?
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.
-
26 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Otherwise, what you get, just as you've described, is that fear is leading people near to leaving the church for Catholicism or Orthodoxy or whatnot. That's a result of fear. It's a result of not trusting in God.
Frankly, I find it a bit stunning that when I or others suggest that we should be at ease on the matter that there's so much resistance to the idea.
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.
-
On 1/16/2024 at 1:35 AM, Just_A_Guy said:
Fundamentally it depends on whether the modern prophets and apostles are what they say they are. If so, then we can trust them to act as the “firebreak” when necessary.
Insofar as the Church ever really taught that “scripture always trumps prophets”, I’m not sure that’s really an ideal paradigm. For one thing, it ignores the role of the reader in interpreting scripture. For another, scripture can often be cited for both sides of a particular controversy. For yet another, sometimes the scriptures are incomplete or silent or (most often in the case of the KJV) just plain wrong. And for yet another: sometimes God gives different instructions tailored to people in different times and places.
“Scripture always trumps prophets” might be a useful generality to teach primary children; but at a certain point the exceptions become glaring enough that we start looking for more useful paradigms.
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.
-
18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
"Nothing" "Completely".
These two words are where the liberals have a point. But the prick of that tiny point is somehow magnified into a ballistic missile of LGBTQ justification/rationalization that MUST be accepted and imposed upon the backwards conservative dinosaur who is too steeped in ancient superstition and tradition to understand God's "true" motives. So say the woke prophets who deign to speak to us from their protected positions of authority.
No.
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.
Religion codifies "acceptable behavior" in a manner that it would be tyrannical for government to do. But is required to be stable if it is to have any benefit. Only slow, gradual changes across several generations even have a chance at being a credible movement.
Any major changes in religion requires prophecy (not a social movement) to justify a sudden change.
The trans movement? It was so far off the radar that neither Obama nor Hillary were willing to allow trans to use the bathroom of the opposite sex. And pundits were touting the fact that it would never be pre-operative transexuals. Only post-op. And it would be ridiculous to believe the movement would go that far.
Well, here we are about 8 years later, not even a full generation, and it is being shoved down our throats without a consideration for all the harm it is doing to our children. It isn't even allowed to be debated in public forums open to the lay person. Parents are arrested for addressing a school board or a PTA meeting about how their daughters are being raped by a male pretending to be a girl.
And virtually all liberal Latter-day Saints are trying to claim this is the road that the Lord wants us to go down as a Church?
Back to the original point, Yes, almost nothing is off the table. But we obviously need to keep things that are absolutely core beliefs as sacred and undeniable. The Atonement of Christ is central. There is no substitute.
But when we consider some things so close to the core that most of the rest of our belief system simply wouldn't make any sense without it, we need to pause for just a moment to consider. How close to the core does it need to be for us to require and truly demand of the Lord that we receive a divine manifestation on the order of the First Vision?
Sealing, eternal families, the roles of father and mother, husband and wife. With the past 150 years of understanding how important these are, and to change to beliefs that have been condemned throughout all of human history, without any explanation other than, "Hey society is saying so, and we need to get with the program" do we not have a right to demand such a manifestation if we are expected to go along with it?
Where is the doctrinal and theological basis for such change?
All I've ever heard is "Society says so. Therefore, the Church will have to change to catch up."
Is this where we are? Society (not God) tells the Church which direction to go? I thought the whole purpose of the Church was for us to influence society -- not the other way around. God's law is to stand as immutable as possible. And we don't change our values, only our priorities based on the needs of that generation.
If we choose to go along with gay marriage and trans ideologies, it is to the destruction of the family and the death of the human race. We do this to the detriment of our eternal destinies and our utter destruction.
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.
LDS Church's New Managing Director for Church Communication
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
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.