Church makes gays and their children apostates

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It is a PR nightmare. Given the limited number of situations where it might actually apply, it was short-sighted decision, one lacking illumination or insight.

Not so limited. Especially considering that there are more Mormon boys with SSA than society at large.

http://janariess.religionnews.com/20...-with-a-woman/

[MikeWaters]

http://mormonmatters.org/2015/11/08/...aith-and-hope/

[ute4ever]

Blue K those are all good points and I don't disagree with them. Obviously much good came from the loosened standard, otherwise The Lord would not have directed the brethren, and then the mission presidents, to promote it. The point I made earlier was now we are seeing the unfortunate downside of it. While I'm sure that many solid converts were found, who in turn kept the ripple effect going, many weeds sprouted alongside those seeds, and now it's the weeds who are demonstrating that they either never had a firm grasp on the iron rod, or once did but have since chosen to wander.

On a side note, I am reminded of one of President Foust's final general conference addresses, when he tried to answer the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" One of his three responses was, "maybe we're not as innocent as we like to think."

As I've pondered that, and kept an eternal perspective, our mortality is Phase Two of the Plan of Salvation, and the choices we make here will affect which way we are headed in Phase Three. Therefore, doesn't it follow that perhaps our choices in Phase One had some bearing as to where, when, and to whom we were born, and what obstacles we were predestined to face? After all, I rarely see people oppose any commentary that suggests that God saved his strongest and noblest for the last days, and I'm not referring to the debunked Boyd K. Packer quote. The whole concept suggests that our choices then, affect us now, and maybe babies aren't born as innocent as we like to think. Although newborns haven't transgressed while on earth, they bring the spirit that existed in Phase One and over the years, those talents (and burdens) are developed, "remembered," and made manifest.

I can imagine though why the enemy would want people to be so offended at the idea though. After all, it was his alternate plan that proposed removing all accountability and being celestialized regardless. If a third of the hosts of heaven had idled their time away and realized their choices would follow them into Phase Two, I imagine the popular sentiment among them was "oh crap. It's this plan or bust."

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Blue K those are all good points and I don't disagree with them. Obviously much good came from the loosened standard, otherwise The Lord would not have directed the brethren, and then the mission presidents, to promote it. The point I made earlier was now we are seeing the unfortunate downside of it. While I'm sure that many solid converts were found, who in turn kept the ripple effect going, many weeds sprouted alongside those seeds, and now it's the weeds who are demonstrating that they either never had a firm grasp on the iron rod, or once did but have since chosen to wander.

On a side note, I am reminded of one of President Foust's final general conference addresses, when he tried to answer the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" One of his three responses was, "maybe we're not as innocent as we like to think."

As I've pondered that, and kept an eternal perspective, our mortality is Phase Two of the Plan of Salvation, and the choices we make here will affect which way we are headed in Phase Three. Therefore, doesn't it follow that perhaps our choices in Phase One had some bearing as to where, when, and to whom we were born, and what obstacles we were predestined to face? After all, I rarely see people oppose any commentary that suggests that God saved his strongest and noblest for the last days, and I'm not referring to the debunked Boyd K. Packer quote. The whole concept suggests that our choices then, affect us now, and maybe babies aren't born as innocent as we like to think. Although newborns haven't transgressed while on earth, they bring the spirit that existed in Phase One and over the years, those talents (and burdens) are developed, "remembered," and made manifest.

I can imagine though why the enemy would want people to be so offended at the idea though. After all, it was his alternate plan that proposed removing all accountability and being celestialized regardless. If a third of the hosts of heaven had idled their time away and realized their choices would follow them into Phase Two, I imagine the popular sentiment among them was "oh crap. It's this plan or bust."

Good thing this has nothing to do with Mormonism. Your "God hates" theology is not going to be accompanied by gifts of the Spirit.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Good thing this has nothing to do with Mormonism. Your "God hates" theology is not going to be accompanied by gifts of the Spirit.

There are often pivotal moments in organizations and this will not be the last for the LDS. However, it seems to be failing this moment. It nominated three white guys from Utah-Idaho when it could have expanded its brand by reaching outside its normal confines, seeking to include from Africa, South America and Asia.

It is a war with women by excluding more than fifty percent of membership from leadership.

And now it is battling the social aspects of rejecting the children of members who don't fit the Mormon nuclear family. It seems as the Mormon Moment was just that, a moment, not longlasting and durable.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Blue K those are all good points and I don't disagree with them. Obviously much good came from the loosened standard, otherwise The Lord would not have directed the brethren, and then the mission presidents, to promote it. The point I made earlier was now we are seeing the unfortunate downside of it. While I'm sure that many solid converts were found, who in turn kept the ripple effect going, many weeds sprouted alongside those seeds, and now it's the weeds who are demonstrating that they either never had a firm grasp on the iron rod, or once did but have since chosen to wander.

On a side note, I am reminded of one of President Foust's final general conference addresses, when he tried to answer the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" One of his three responses was, "maybe we're not as innocent as we like to think."

As I've pondered that, and kept an eternal perspective, our mortality is Phase Two of the Plan of Salvation, and the choices we make here will affect which way we are headed in Phase Three. Therefore, doesn't it follow that perhaps our choices in Phase One had some bearing as to where, when, and to whom we were born, and what obstacles we were predestined to face? After all, I rarely see people oppose any commentary that suggests that God saved his strongest and noblest for the last days, and I'm not referring to the debunked Boyd K. Packer quote. The whole concept suggests that our choices then, affect us now, and maybe babies aren't born as innocent as we like to think. Although newborns haven't transgressed while on earth, they bring the spirit that existed in Phase One and over the years, those talents (and burdens) are developed, "remembered," and made manifest.

I can imagine though why the enemy would want people to be so offended at the idea though. After all, it was his alternate plan that proposed removing all accountability and being celestialized regardless. If a third of the hosts of heaven had idled their time away and realized their choices would follow them into Phase Two, I imagine the popular sentiment among them was "oh crap. It's this plan or bust."

So was it the man who was born blind or his parents who sinned?

Also, do some research to find out if the majority of prominent anti-LDS rabble rousers on the internet were converts or are mostly spoiled brats from families who have been LDS for generations.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Good thing this has nothing to do with Mormonism. Your "God hates" theology is not going to be accompanied by gifts of the Spirit.

32 And now, my son, remember the words which I have spoken unto you; trust not those secret plans unto this people, but teach them an everlasting hatred against sin and iniquity.

I take it you've heard the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner"?

31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;

33 And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Does this help you to better understand what (not who) God hates, and how to obtain the fruits of the Spirit?

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by BlueK

So was it the man who was born blind or his parents who sinned?

From Elder Oaks:

When we give thanks in all things, we see hardships and adversities in the context of the purpose of life. We are sent here to be tested. There must be opposition in all things. We are meant to learn and grow through that opposition, through meeting our challenges, and through teaching others to do the same. Our beloved colleague Elder Neal A. Maxwell has given us a noble example of this. His courage, his submissive attitude in accepting his affliction with cancer, and his stalwart continued service have ministered comfort to thousands and taught eternal principles to millions. His example shows that the Lord will not only consecrate our afflictions for our gain, but He will use them to bless the lives of countless others.

Jesus taught this lesson when He and His disciples met a man who was born blind. “Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” the disciples asked. “Neither,” Jesus answered. The man was born blind “that the works of God should be made manifest in him” John 9:2–3

If we see life through the lens of spirituality, we can see many examples of the works of God being furthered through the adversities of His children.

Thank goodness Elder Maxwell didn't bitterly kick against the pricks.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by BlueK

So was it the man who was born blind or his parents who sinned?

Meanwhile, if you meant your question in the context of it being wrong for the apostles to even surmise whether this man's blindness (not all mens blindnesses) was even an eternal principle, I offer you the following from Elder Burton:

This doctrine of a premortal life must have been taught by Jesus, for his apostles used this teaching to ask a question:

"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

"And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" John 9:1-2

How could the man have sinned before birth unless he had lived before? Life on this earth is a gift of God given to us as a reward for previous virtue. But his disciples failed to understand that so-called curses are oftentimes blessings. Jesus reminded them of the danger of passing judgment based on mortal existence alone:

"Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him" John 9:3

Note that he did not rebuke them for this doctrine, but merely told them not to pass judgment on people based on what we can see and experience as mortal beings. As spirit children of God, we covenanted to agree to accept this life. But life on this earth does have a purpose, and much of what we experience in this life is based on the kind of life we led before we came here. One thing we can state with confidence: God will give an opportunity to every man to make the best use of whatever life he was assigned in his mortal station. God has made it possible for us to find on this earth the reason for existence and has given or will give every man, every woman, every child born upon this earth an opportunity to make a new and everlasting covenant with him to accept Jesus Christ as a living Lord and Savior.

Just as this life depends upon the previous life, so this life is most important for the future, for life hereafter depends upon our life here in mortality.

[MikeWaters]

Yup, just like that treasured doctrine that black people were cursed for not being valiant in the premortal existence.

All hogwash.

But still quite popular.