Dallin H. Oaks talk


Sunday21
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Maybe Bro Oaks is concerned that we may opt to have few or no children?

 

It may be among his concerns but it was my impression that his primary concerns are much wider and deeper.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

This:

 

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

But how is this different from the previous teachings of the church? No difference? Then why the need for a proclamation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

But how is this different from the previous teachings of the church? No difference? Then why the need for a proclamation?

An odd question. Why the need for general conference? None of the teachings there are new. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

But how is this different from the previous teachings of the church? No difference? Then why the need for a proclamation?

I think the information therein had not previously appeared as a collection with the degree of clarity that it has in that document.  While the various teachings therein (and there are a lot more than the few which get the most press time) are not new, I think the mixture, clarity, and voice are new, and they will be needed more and more lest the saints be worn down by the constant barrage from the enemies of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, zil said:

I think the information therein had not previously appeared as a collection with the degree of clarity that it has in that document.  While the various teachings therein (and there are a lot more than the few which get the most press time) are not new, I think the mixture, clarity, and voice are new, and they will be needed more and more lest the saints be worn down by the constant barrage from the enemies of God.

Ok. I see what you mean. So we have put all this info in one place, explained that this approach, these values are important so that the saints don’t stray. Right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Ok. I see what you mean. So we have put all this info in one place, explained that this approach, these values are important so that the saints don’t stray. Right? 

That, and many of the other things said in this thread - there's no need to assume only one purpose for its repetition.

IMO, this is an example of the Church trying to help the members and the world gain a deeper understanding of a basic eternal truth so that they can determine for themselves how best to align their lives with said truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just about ssm or law of chastity.  The Proclamation, in fact I'd say the meat of it outlines proper roles and responsibilities for husbands and wives.  It outlines the God ordained model of how a family should look and the duties inside it.

How many members of the Church subscribe to the belief that it's okay for mothers to work? That men and women are interchangeable in their prospective roles?  If we think of the Proclamation as just about SSM and law of chastity we are missing a large, large portion of it. 

I remember when it came out . . .pretty much everyone in the Church said something like "well duh, this is quite obvious why would the Church need to put this out . . .it's just basic common sense"  20 years later and within the Church how many disputations are there on the implementation of it?  How many members say . . .well that's good but this part here doesn't really apply to me??  Definitely way more than there were 20 years ago when it was common sense.

Oh and my second favorite talk was by Elder Stanley G. Ellis  awesome, awesome talk. 

Edited by JoCa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also need to remember that while all the doctrines of the gospel are important they are not all of equal value in terms of where our focus needs to be. The doctrines taught at General Conference should receive extra focus on our part for the next 6 months. The need to study and implement the things spoken about are paramount to our spiritual salvation right now. When the Church comes out with a special document such as the one on the Family, I see that as a generational focus that needs to be held long term. The same can be said about the brethren's statement about Christ they came out with 17 years ago. I find it especially interesting that even though Pres Monson didn't speak this conference his admonition about studying the Book of Mormon was repeated by at least three different speakers this time around. I see that as the Lord saying that Pres Monson's words are still in force for another 6 months. My guess is it was not as well received by the general membership as it should have been. I think I am guilty of that myself but now I will do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, laronius said:

We also need to remember that while all the doctrines of the gospel are important they are not all of equal value in terms of where our focus needs to be. The doctrines taught at General Conference should receive extra focus on our part for the next 6 months. The need to study and implement the things spoken about are paramount to our spiritual salvation right now. When the Church comes out with a special document such as the one on the Family, I see that as a generational focus that needs to be held long term. The same can be said about the brethren's statement about Christ they came out with 17 years ago. I find it especially interesting that even though Pres Monson didn't speak this conference his admonition about studying the Book of Mormon was repeated by at least three different speakers this time around. I see that as the Lord saying that Pres Monson's words are still in force for another 6 months. My guess is it was not as well received by the general membership as it should have been. I think I am guilty of that myself but now I will do better.

Thanks! This info is very helpful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

But how is this different from the previous teachings of the church? No difference? Then why the need for a proclamation?

I believe the proclamation is given by prophetic revelation both as a warning to our generation and as a witness of the restoration of prophetic keys.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2017 at 2:46 PM, Sunday21 said:

But how is this different from the previous teachings of the church? No difference? Then why the need for a proclamation?

Because of people who want to lead others astray and wrest the scriptures to fit their way of thinking. Consider this blog post that I won't be linking too:

Quote

 

"Effeminate" and “abusers of themselves with mankind” doesn’t refer to homosexuality

This week, I’m teaching the Gospel Doctrine lesson on 1 Corinthians 1–6. While I was preparing my lesson, I came across 1 Corinthians 6:9, a popular scripture among Christians who oppose homosexuality (or more specifically, anything that isn’t heteronormative):

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Specifically, those who use this scripture to justify their opposition to homosexuality, point out the mention of “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind.”

The problem with this interpretation is that it’s inaccurate.

What we translate as “effeminate” was in the Greek version malakoi. This word is more accurately translated as softness or moral weakness. Likewise, what we translate as “abusers of themselves with mankind” is arsenokoitai in the Greek, which more accurately describes something like shrine prostitution.

This is one of the problems with using modern cultural paradigms to understand ancient ones.

This kind of drivel is all over the internet from individuals trying to make a case for why same sex attraction is not a sin by whatever means they can contrive. People all over are suggesting that the only thing preventing homosexual sealings in the temple is a bigoted policy that needs to change, just like the end of the priesthood ban did. Elder Oaks very wisely put this kind of thinking in it's place by explaining how the proclamation came about (a consensus among the quorum of twelve apostles and first presidency) and that it is not merely a policy which can change. He also did it by kindly re-explaining what the God-ordained family looks like and setting it forth as the ideal.

Just like the Book of Mormon serves to reaffirm the teachings of the Bible and testify of Christ, so does the proclamation reaffirm teachings on the family in harmony with the teachings of ancient prophets in a day and time when such clarity and added support is greatly needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

Because of people who want to lead others astray and wrest the scriptures to fit their way of thinking. Consider this blog post that I won't be linking too:

This kind of drivel is all over the internet from individuals trying to make a case for why same sex attraction is not a sin by whatever means they can contrive. People all over are suggesting that the only thing preventing homosexual sealings in the temple is a bigoted policy that needs to change, just like the end of the priesthood ban did. Elder Oaks very wisely put this kind of thinking in it's place by explaining how the proclamation came about (a consensus among the quorum of twelve apostles and first presidency) and that it is not merely a policy which can change. He also did it by kindly re-explaining what the God-ordained family looks like and setting it forth as the ideal.

Just like the Book of Mormon serves to reaffirm the teachings of the Bible and testify of Christ, so does the proclamation reaffirm teachings on the family in harmony with the teachings of ancient prophets in a day and time when such clarity and added support is greatly needed.

I needed to clarify this point before it is taken wrongly and it seemed better suited to post a clarification than editing what's there. Same Sex attraction is likely no more a sin than opposite sex attraction, it is the jump from thinking that since same sex attraction isn't a sin than neither should same sex marriage be. This part is clearly not part of God's plan for the family. I believe it's precisely why Elder Oaks specifically mentioned both cohabitation outside of marriage and same sex marriage because they are both in violation of the bounds the Lord has set on family and the use/abuse of the procreative process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

Because of people who want to lead others astray and wrest the scriptures to fit their way of thinking. Consider this blog post that I won't be linking too:

People all over are suggesting that the only thing preventing homosexual sealings in the temple is a bigoted policy that needs to change, just like the end of the priesthood ban did. Elder Oaks very wisely put this kind of thinking in it's place by explaining how the proclamation came about (a consensus among the quorum of twelve apostles and first presidency) and that it is not merely a policy which can change. He also did it by kindly re-explaining what the God-ordained family looks like and setting it forth as the ideal.

Just like the Book of Mormon serves to reaffirm the teachings of the Bible and testify of Christ, so does the proclamation reaffirm teachings on the family in harmony with the teachings of ancient prophets in a day and time when such clarity and added support is greatly needed.

I do agree but then Elder Ballard states in his talk "We need to embrace God’s children compassionately and eliminate any prejudice, including racism, sexism, and nationalism,"

Okkie dokkie . . .I think I get what you are going for but my definition of racism, sexism and nationalism is way, way different than plenty of others.  For the Kate Kellies of the world, the Church is sexist by not allowing women to hold the Priesthood or to be Bishops.  My definition of sexism is saying in the eyes of God one sex is more valuable than another. The world's definition of sexism is anything that in any way, shape or form treats men and women differently.

In fact a google search on LDS.org for sexism and nationalism turn up almost 0 results.  Sexism returns: 

"Considerable controversy has been aroused of late around such terms as sexism, feminism, and machismo, as if there is something wrong with being too male, too female, or too virtuous. President Spencer W. Kimball said, “I sincerely hope that our Latter-day Saint girls and women, and men and boys, will drink deeply of the water of life and conform their lives to the beautiful and comprehensive roles the Lord assigned to them”

So is Elder Ballard directly contradicting a Prophet of God only 3-4 prophets ago? 

Nationalism.  My definition of nationalism is blind obedience to a country.  Kimball and ET spoke at length about the US, it's government, etc. and how it is inspired by God above all other nations.  To the left eliminating prejudice in nationalism simply means a one-world government.

So as much as I liked Elder Oaks talk, I dislike Elder Ballard's.  To simply throw a line out about "racism, sexism, nationalism" without actually defining what you mean is quite meaningless . .. especially when teachings of the Church over decades directly contradict the modern day usage meaning of those words. 

Which again goes back to what I've said before . . .the Church is speaking out of both sides of its mouth and leaves things unclear.  One Apostle proclaims The Proclamation is divine another Apostle proclaims sexism is bad . .yet clearly the Church does not have pure equality (the worlds definition) for men and women.

The only thing I can conclude from this is thatdefinition of sexism, racism, nationalism is different than the world's definition . . .otherwise Elder Oaks talk and Ballard's are incongruous.   

I find it a little disingenuous in Elder Ballard's talk when the 4th link on LDS.org searching for sexism is

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interfaith-coalition-president-congress-biased-religious-liberty-report

What we find even more disturbing is that, in a statement included in the report, Commission Chairman Martin Castro writes:“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance.”

Okay . ..where is Elder Ballard trying to go with that statement . . . . 'cuz that statement (taking the world's definition) sure doesn't have a whole lot of doctrinal backdrop (sexism returns a grand total of 4 results in LDS.org).  And in the context of nationalism a search reveals either historical discussion or the fact that the only way that nationalism will be eliminated is in the Kingdom of God.  Inside the Church, I totally agree Church is above nation . . .outside the Church totally different story.  So I'm not sure exactly where he was going with that. 

 

Edited by JoCa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

I needed to clarify this point before it is taken wrongly and it seemed better suited to post a clarification than editing what's there. Same Sex attraction is likely no more a sin than opposite sex attraction, it is the jump from thinking that since same sex attraction isn't a sin than neither should same sex marriage be. This part is clearly not part of God's plan for the family. I believe it's precisely why Elder Oaks specifically mentioned both cohabitation outside of marriage and same sex marriage because they are both in violation of the bounds the Lord has set on family and the use/abuse of the procreative process.

I understand the new doctrine on this from the Church . . .but it is cognitive dissonance.  If I have a thought that I want to kill people, I might say that fleeting thought isn't a sin . . .only if I dwell on it.  I completely agree.  Having fleeting thoughts about ssa would not be a sin . . .but dwelling on it would be.

How in the world can someone identify as homosexual and then make the claim they don't dwell on those thoughts. . . .it's incongruous and cognitive dissonance. That would be like identifying that I have consistently have murderous thoughts but don't worry I'm not dwelling on them so I'm not sinning . . . riiiiight play it again Sam!

Edited by JoCa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it is one reason why The Proclamation is so important.  It was signed by 12 Apostles and the 1st Presidency, i.e. they were all in complete agreement with each other on this issue.

I highly doubt that each member of the 12 is in complete agreement with each talk given by a fellow Apostle in GC.  I'm fairly certain they have plenty of disagreements . . .if they didn't there would be no need for 12 . .. however just like any good organization you never air disagreements in public.

When they act in unison on something that should hold a lot of weight.

Edited by JoCa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoCa said:

I understand the new doctrine on this from the Church . . .but it is cognitive dissonance.  If I have a thought that I want to kill people, I might say that fleeting thought isn't a sin . . .only if I dwell on it.  I completely agree.  Having fleeting thoughts about ssa would not be a sin . . .but dwelling on it would be.

How in the world can someone identify as homosexual and then make the claim they don't dwell on those thoughts. . . .it's incongruous and cognitive dissonance. That would be like identifying that I have consistently have murderous thoughts but don't worry I'm not dwelling on them so I'm not sinning . . . riiiiight play it again Sam!

I perhaps was once more closely aligned with these thoughts than I am now. If I think of SSA like OSA - I don't believe as a man I am in the wrong for being attracted to women. I really don't know if some people are inherently attracted to the same sex or have made misguided choices, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, it seems fair to view the attraction itself to be innocuous. However, once a person begins to lust after the desire of attraction there is indeed a problem. It may be a subtle distinction, but I believe it is a crucial distinction.

As for how someone can identify as homosexual but not dwell on it, I really can't say. It sounds a lot like the recovering alcoholic who always refers to himself as an alcoholic even though he hasn't had a drink in 30+ years. But it could also be like the alcoholic who constantly drinks and uses alcoholism as an excuse to drink because it can't be beat - so for me it all depends on context. Is someone identifying same sex attraction (or homosexuality as you have stated) as a trait they have or a particular weakness in order to recognize it in humility and fight it, or are they doing so as an excuse to not be held accountable for that which can't be controlled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SpiritDragon said:

I perhaps was once more closely aligned with these thoughts than I am now. If I think of SSA like OSA - I don't believe as a man I am in the wrong for being attracted to women. I really don't know if some people are inherently attracted to the same sex or have made misguided choices, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, it seems fair to view the attraction itself to be innocuous. However, once a person begins to lust after the desire of attraction there is indeed a problem. It may be a subtle distinction, but I believe it is a crucial distinction.

As for how someone can identify as homosexual but not dwell on it, I really can't say. It sounds a lot like the recovering alcoholic who always refers to himself as an alcoholic even though he hasn't had a drink in 30+ years. But it could also be like the alcoholic who constantly drinks and uses alcoholism as an excuse to drink because it can't be beat - so for me it all depends on context. Is someone identifying same sex attraction (or homosexuality as you have stated) as a trait they have or a particular weakness in order to recognize it in humility and fight it, or are they doing so as an excuse to not be held accountable for that which can't be controlled?

Well and this is where I again go back to definitions.  The very definition of words is changing.  Homosexuality and SSA means sex . . .it means sexual desire, period. And in no uncertain terms Christ commands us not to lust (i.e. have sexual desire) for anyone who is not our opposite sex spouse.  Period, end of story.

Acknowledging the good looking gal at work is not sexual attraction, acknowledging that Patrick Swazey (in his prime) is a good looking guy is not homosexual.  But yet we have a generation being raised to think that oh my goodness if the thought even crosses their brain that someone of the same sex is beautiful . . . they are homosexual!  And it doesn't have anything to do with it.  Studies have been done to show that beauty or what most people consider beauty is due to ratios, geometries and symmetry. We naturally recognize patterns and things that have proportions . . .the Golden Ratio. https://www.goldennumber.net/face/

One does not need to be homosexual to recognize beauty in the same sex or in the opposite sex.  It is just simply a recognition of beauty. The problem that religion has created over the past 20 years is that in order to not offend we can't talk about the actual problem . . .which is homosexual lust, i.e. sexual desire for someone of the same sex. 

Identifying as homosexual, whether one intends to or not, means that individual has sexual lust for someone of the same sex-that is sinful.  And lust most certainly can be controlled and banished . . .married individuals are expected to banish lust for anyone not their spouse.

And just so that it's clear at how much ground the Church has given up on this.  When was the last time you heard anyone in the Church say publicly that homosexual desire, i.e. lust, is sinful?

I'd love to have a quote, I really would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, JoCa said:

And just so that it's clear at how much ground the Church has given up on this.  When was the last time you heard anyone in the Church say publicly that homosexual desire, i.e. lust, is sinful? I'd love to have a quote, I really would.

Elder Oaks talk was all about this. We are to keep our desires within the bounds the Lord has set (if not, it is sin). An individual doesn't need to come out with an exact quote, "Homosexual desire, lust is sinful," for the statement to be there. This concept has been said over and over and over again.

The Church hasn't given up any ground. Lust is bad, hetero or homo.

Quote

Identifying as homosexual, whether one intends to or not, means that individual has sexual lust for someone of the same sex-that is sinful.  And lust most certainly can be controlled and banished . . .married individuals are expected to banish lust for anyone not their spouse.

Let's reword, "Identifying as heterosexual, whether one intends to or not, means that individual has sexual lust for someone of the opposite sex-that is sinful.  And lust most certainly can be controlled and banished . . .married individuals are expected to banish lust for anyone not their spouse." Heterosexual does not mean "lust." This is a personal interpretation that you are suggesting all should agree upon. I only have to bring up Christ to prove this to be incorrect. Christ was heterosexual, and he did not "lust" after any woman. Christ would have had heterosexual desires without lusting upon any woman. Conflating desire with "lust" is as one might say (in reference to Elder Ballard) "disingenuous." I have a desire to do well in school. This does not mean I have "lust" to do well in school. Desire does not equal lust. Heterosexual desire does not equal lust.

The heterosexual desire to be married to a woman does not equate with "lust." Just as someone identifying as "homosexual" does not mean they are lusting for other men, which is what the Church is now highlighting, not a new doctrine.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I tend to disbelieve this.

I assume you identify as "heterosexual", then would you have a problem with the following, "A person that identifies as heterosexual does not mean they are lusting for other women." Is this something you would tend to disbelieve?

Edited by Anddenex
removed: (I could be wrong, but I am believe I am probably right)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JoCa said:

I understand the new doctrine on this from the Church . . .but it is cognitive dissonance.  If I have a thought that I want to kill people, I might say that fleeting thought isn't a sin . . .only if I dwell on it.  I completely agree.  Having fleeting thoughts about ssa would not be a sin . . .but dwelling on it would be.

How in the world can someone identify as homosexual and then make the claim they don't dwell on those thoughts. . . .it's incongruous and cognitive dissonance. That would be like identifying that I have consistently have murderous thoughts but don't worry I'm not dwelling on them so I'm not sinning . . . riiiiight play it again Sam!

I wonder if the Church isn’t laying the groundwork for a sort of mad-genius-troll argument here.

For the last decade or so, a common subtext in gay-rights discussions has been “being gay is not just about the sex, you pervert!  it’s about a whole other way of thinking and feeling and being!”

”Fine”, saith the Church.  “Think and feel and be as gay as you want, and come join us!  We ask only that you abstain from the sexual behavior that you tell us is so non-essential to your identity anyways.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JoCa said:

Well and this is where I again go back to definitions.  The very definition of words is changing.  Homosexuality and SSA means sex . . .it means sexual desire, period. And in no uncertain terms Christ commands us not to lust (i.e. have sexual desire) for anyone who is not our opposite sex spouse.  Period, end of story.

Acknowledging the good looking gal at work is not sexual attraction, acknowledging that Patrick Swazey (in his prime) is a good looking guy is not homosexual.  But yet we have a generation being raised to think that oh my goodness if the thought even crosses their brain that someone of the same sex is beautiful . . . they are homosexual!  And it doesn't have anything to do with it.  Studies have been done to show that beauty or what most people consider beauty is due to ratios, geometries and symmetry. We naturally recognize patterns and things that have proportions . . .the Golden Ratio. https://www.goldennumber.net/face/

One does not need to be homosexual to recognize beauty in the same sex or in the opposite sex.  It is just simply a recognition of beauty. The problem that religion has created over the past 20 years is that in order to not offend we can't talk about the actual problem . . .which is homosexual lust, i.e. sexual desire for someone of the same sex. 

Identifying as homosexual, whether one intends to or not, means that individual has sexual lust for someone of the same sex-that is sinful.  And lust most certainly can be controlled and banished . . .married individuals are expected to banish lust for anyone not their spouse.

And just so that it's clear at how much ground the Church has given up on this.  When was the last time you heard anyone in the Church say publicly that homosexual desire, i.e. lust, is sinful?

I'd love to have a quote, I really would.

I thought that was the beauty of this talk - it clearly stated that cohabiting regardless of sexual orientation as well as marriage to the same sex is in opposition to the teachings of Christ and inconsistent with the goal of becoming an eternal family, and it did so using language that is clear to those who are paying attention but doesn't seem like a direct attack to others so it gives less ammunition to enemies of the Church than if he had just come out swinging crying out hell fire and damnation to homosexuals. No ground is lost when sexual sin is still sexual sin, and the higher law of not even lusting after another was also reiterated during this conference, probably in this very talk. 

I largely agree with what you're saying though, I just think there is room for compassion as well. Consider someone who does not "identify" as homosexual but does find themselves having attraction to their own sex. Imagine how hard it would be that person to be told that the very weakness they suffer is in and of itself evil so even if they never act out on it, even if they never let themselves think on it other than to notice that they feel their own gender is more appealing to them and they would rather have romantic companionship with their own sex - but they don't allow themselves to ever lust after anyone because it's wrong to lust... even so they are hopelessly condemned to a lesser glory simply on account of that particular weakness. Where is the faith, hope and charity in such reasoning. Imagine if the saviour's admonition was more extreme than to suggest that he who has lusted after a woman in has heart has committed adultery, but instead condemned everyone with any sexual desire by saying that he who is attracted to a woman is an adulterer and fornicator. This is essentially what is being pushed on those with same sex attraction by those of us who are unwilling to accept that it may just be possible SSA is simply a weakness that some have to bear.

Yes, when they "come out" and say they are gay - I would generally presume that the intent is likely not righteous. But even then, I'm not sure any one is really in a position to judge.

I truly believe that the church has lost no ground on this topic, but has opened up a greater outreach effort to our brothers and sisters who are afflicted by this weakness. At no time has the church ever suggested that there is room in the kingdom of God for homosexuality, and Elder Oaks strongly stated that this is not going to change.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic

I reject the idea that the church has "lost ground" anywhere. As Latter Day Saints don't we believe that we are led by prophets and apostles of God? President Eyring's talk in the Priesthood session was all about having faith that God still leads us through his chosen leaders, even though they are imperfect. 

 “It takes faith to believe that the resurrected Lord is watching over the daily details of His kingdom. It takes faith to believe that He calls imperfect people into positions of trust. It takes faith to believe that He knows the people He calls perfectly, both their capacities and their potential, and so makes no mistakes in His calls.”

Don't you believe that Christ leads his church? Honestly, it bothers me that you are so fervently criticizing Elder Ballard. I loved his talk and felt inspired by his prophetic counsel to love God by loving our fellow man. It's hard for me to understand how your constant and sustained critcism of our divinly called leaders does anything helpful. I know God is still in charge of His church no matter what we perceive His apostles' weaknesses are. Plus do you really have so little faith in our leaders that you truly believe the First Presdency would allow something to be spoken in General Conference that was not the mind and will of God without stopping or correcting what was said? I think it's innapropriate to nit pick the words spoken by our Savior's servants. After all, don't forget D and C 1:38 

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Traveler said:

I believe the proclamation is given by prophetic revelation both as a warning to our generation and as a witness of the restoration of prophetic keys.

 

The Traveler

A witness of the restoration of prophetic keys? I am not sure that I understand what you mean.  Are these keys related to a specific function? Eg Elijah and temple work? Is the proclamation a reminder of the previous restoration of keys that occurred at a previous date eg Kirland?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I assume you identify as "heterosexual", then would you have a problem with the following, "A person that identifies as heterosexual does not mean they are lusting for other women." Is this something you would tend to disbelieve?

I do not believe that identifying as "heterosexual" is equivalent to identifying as "homosexual". I believe the attempt to qualify the two as the same is a great part of the great lie that is perpetuated about homosexuality. There is, plainly speaking, in my opinion, nothing wholesome and proper about homosexuality. I do not believe that one can have wholesome lust-less homosexual thoughts, whereas I do believe one can have wholesome lust-less heterosexual thoughts. An example of this might be in the idea for the desire a boy might have to hold a girl's hand, which can be entirely wholesome. Applying the same idea to homosexual men and there is nothing wholesome about it. It is, simply, not equivalent -- despite what "the world" would have us think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share