LDS Church issues statement of support for LGBTQ concert event

[brlenox]

Supporting sin is sin. Christ came to free people from their sin, not tell them that it is okay to be defined by it eternally so long as you don't currently practice. Perhaps the church is testing us to see how much we will take? Does anybody remember Joseph lecturing the brethren about shedding blood needlessly and then shooting a squirrel and walking off without himself picking it up? Perhaps this is a test. I don't really care because I am not paternalistic on this Earth but principled. You can not take sin as an identity and be free from it, it never was nor will be possible. Looking around I can only wonder what Sodom and Gomorrah could possibly have done more than we to deserve destruction? My fidelity is to God and Christ. If the church asks me to choose between them there is no question whom I will choose. God has often chastised the church but the church can never rightly condemn God. The audacity to condemn the promotion of "white culture" (ever been to Swiss Days or the Highland Games etc...?) whilst promoting the perversion of youth is not lost on me! I could not hold my head up before God without condemning it openly!

I get how intersex fish happen and that society is facing an onslaught of hormone mimicking chemicals etc.. as well as social conditioning that encourages gay behavior from infancy. What I do not get is how anybody could preach that we should surrender to our circumstances or be defined by them. The spirit is to subjugate the flesh not the other way around.

Perhaps this is one of the tests we must overcome before being fit for Zion? When you think of it those called would not be fit if they put men and society above God and principle.

You gravely misunderstand how Joseph would respond in this situation in my opinion. This quote fits to a T and should inform our own responses:

“It is one evidence that men are unacquainted with the principles of godliness to behold the contraction of affectionate feelings and lack of charity in the world. The power and glory of godliness is spread out on a broad principle to throw out the mantle of charity. God does not look on sin with allowance, but when men have sinned, there must be allowance made for them. … The nearer we get to our heavenly Father, the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs. …

All the religious world is boasting of righteousness: it is the doctrine of the devil to retard the human mind, and hinder our progress, by filling us with self-righteousness.

...We must walk uprightly all the daylong. How glorious are the principles of righteousness! We are full of selfishness; the devil flatters us that we are very righteous, when we are feeding on the faults of others. We can only live by worshiping our God; all must do it for themselves; none can do it for another.

“… How oft have wise men and women sought to dictate Brother Joseph by saying, ‘Oh, if I were Brother Joseph, I would do this and that;’ but if they were in Brother Joseph’s shoes they would find that men or women could not be compelled into the kingdom of God, but must be dealt with in long-suffering, and at last we shall save them. The way to keep all the Saints together, and keep the work rolling, is to wait with all long-suffering, till God shall bring such characters to justice. There should be no license for sin, but mercy should go hand in hand with reproof.”(History of the Church, 5:24; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on June 9, 1842, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Eliza R. Snow.)

First of all Brienox, that discourse or talk, (IMO) is quite a stretch of that to just blanket cover over the LGBTQRSTUV community. Joseph was talking about the daily imperfections, faults, and also some what you could say are even more grave sins ... But never have I read in any early LDS history of Joseph having to deal with any member practicing homosexuality.
" There should be no license for sin but mercy should go hand and hand with REPROOF..
Reproof is what is being eliminated. And then the legal licensing of that sin has already happened. You do not sin unless you act? think it all the day long but if you do not act there is no sin? what ever happened to " garnish thy thoughts with virtue unceasingly" and " if a man even looketh upon a woman to lust after her he has already committed adultery in his heart"...
All this love love love talk is doing nothing but coddling and promoting the lgbtq agenda. Sin is sin is sin, be it adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, hypocrisy, pride, selfishness, etc etc etc.. so many ways to sin they can't be numbered ... but to welcome that lifestyle in our homes for our children to see and to set an example of this new age love fest going on is ridiculous. I'm sorry but the church is wrong on this, that church promoted Macintosh video is pathetic to say the least...
Thus far in our house that has not been an issue ( thank God) with our children, aunts , uncles, cousins , etc. but no question it is getting very close to home. I have taught my children it is a sin and it will not be tolerated, period, to the point of disowning my own if necessary. there is such a thing as " tough love" ... We are commanded to repent lest He destroy us. Yes we are to love our enemy's and do good to those that despitfully use us, but to twist that into loving and accepting the lgbtq community is an embarrassing stretch of charity. I would say it makes love and charity hide their faces in shame...
Now the only thing I have ever read in scriptures that you could twist into something a little favorable to the lgbtq agenda is that Jesus said it would be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than the hypocritical Sadducees and Pharisees in the day of judgment. So yes there are worse sins, but, it still does not justify a complacent attitude towards them..
And again look what apostle Paul says....

Romans 1:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.....


"they which commit such things are worthy of death" , that does not sound like the new age loving Jesus we're told about today. but then again our church and christian society has almost made Jesus out to be gay, or very feminine to say the least...

God have mercy on us all, which, looking around today how could He but have mercy and very long suffering putting up with us and all our sins....

"We first endure, then pity, then embrace". we are between the pity and embracing stage, actually right at the embracing doorstep...

Yes, there is a day when these things will be. That day is not yet and until then I am convinced that we are under judgement as well for whether we possess sufficient charity and forgiveness in our hearts that we may merit the same for our short comings. I am in agreement we may safely judge these behaviors as not to be accepted, however, it appears we may disagree as to when those who practice such shall be judged and to whom is the right to judge permitted. In time we will all understand more clearly.

[Sirocco]

Well age does humble people, some people, indeed some become more picky (it's a psychological thing people do to make themselves feel better, it's so they don't have e to face any of their own problems and instead can pass blame onto others, if no men measure up it's their fault, why should you change?)
And our culture encourages that sort of thinking, most people wise up to it, though sometimes it's way too late, I understand my flaws and feel I'd be an alright husband and father, but I do feel the deck stacked against me, Mormon or not.

Sadly in today's world with today's women the one that gets to be the husband/father is not always the one that will make the best husband/father. They want the rich, good looking guy that they cant trust.

Over and over and over I have seen this example. Actually, I don't think I've seen any examples lately that didn't follow this and it's pretty sad.

Well better get that train set I always wanted :))

[bbsion]

To have love and charity toward the individuals who state they are homosexual does not require you to permit the sin even though you are sinful. I really do not know why there is a discussion over this. I am not out there with hateful protest signs saying "God Hates Gays" or whatever. That kind of opposition is obviously wrong.

The problem lies with endorsing an LGBT concert. You can love your neighbor without endorsing their sinfully labeled concert can you not? I feel like the Church should have just said nothing at all in this situation. They are consistently feeling the need to make political statements. I do believe, however, they can/should continue to rebuke the sin entirely during conference though.

[brlenox]

To have love and charity toward the individuals who state they are homosexual does not require you to permit the sin even though you are sinful. I really do not know why there is a discussion over this. I am not out there with hateful protest signs saying "God Hates Gays" or whatever. That kind of opposition is obviously wrong.

The problem lies with endorsing an LGBT concert. You can love your neighbor without endorsing their sinfully labeled concert can you not? I feel like the Church should have just said nothing at all in this situation. They are consistently feeling the need to make political statements. I do believe, however, they can/should continue to rebuke the sin entirely during conference though.

Or the problem lies with steadying the ark. Half Dozen of one , six of the other.

[bbsion]

To have love and charity toward the individuals who state they are homosexual does not require you to permit the sin even though you are sinful. I really do not know why there is a discussion over this. I am not out there with hateful protest signs saying "God Hates Gays" or whatever. That kind of opposition is obviously wrong.

The problem lies with endorsing an LGBT concert. You can love your neighbor without endorsing their sinfully labeled concert can you not? I feel like the Church should have just said nothing at all in this situation. They are consistently feeling the need to make political statements. I do believe, however, they can/should continue to rebuke the sin entirely during conference though.

Or the problem lies with steadying the ark. Half Dozen of one , six of the other.

I kinda feel like you might be grasping at straws now. But if you want to use that analogy then I guess you are acknowledging that the ark is stumbling and rocky. Heaven forbid anyone has an opinion on the matter.

[Serragon]

A couple of things. First, it is apparent that you passed right over the scriptural example that you requested and I provided for your consideration. It is first very important to understand the reasoning of God as best as man is able. I do not think it even possible to grasp the current state of things if you do not grasp the nature of this New Testament situation concerning marriage. One of the most challenging things about scripture is it is very difficult to take circumstances shrouded in the conditions, circumstance and language of the current day and recognize that practically all experience is somewhere addressed in scriptures in the language of scripture speak for our understanding. We have to diligently search it out to even hope for such. Failing to do so, we do just exactly what you and several others I have observed of late have done. You claim no scriptural precedent exists and then begin to condemn based on a selective view of personal preference. However, the Moses situation should be compelling to you as it embraces too many of the same elements to be so handily ignored. Your thoughts?

My thoughts are the same as they were before. You are stretching to try and make the changing position of the church fit in with your paradigm. Look at all of the adjectives you are using to state how difficult and nuanced this issue is. It isn't nuanced at all. It is very simple. The adjectives are simply you trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

Your video selection was not the church stance on anything. When does the church claim to base any doctrine on your life story or theirs. It was the story of a family. It was their view. It was the manner in which they addressed an exceptionally difficult and ongoing circumstance in their family. You have your stories of circumstance for things in your family and I have my stories for circumstances within my family. They are our personal journey's but not the churches stance on anything.

Your statement would be correct if this were a public site hosted by the church where people could upload their own unedited stories. But it isn't that type of site.

This a church produced video, not some random family story. The church chose this story. They produced and directed the video. They published it on their website with the utmost prominence. It is still the headline video on the site. And they did not choose the other stories where people have overcome their homosexuality. This is most definately their position. Apply your same logic to the Ensign to see test how ludicrous your proposition is.

As to the sons of helaman and their parents as an example: The story simply doesn't fit. In addition, equating the noble sacrifice the sons were making to a concert celebrating homosexuality and transgenderism is digusting.

The sons were not committing a sin by participating in the war. The only thing that made the parents fighting sinful was their personal covenant with the Lord. Bringing them provisions was not sinful as it did not violate their covenant, and it did not aid and abet their sons in committing sin.

Suppose the sons of helaman all came out and said they were homosexuals and wanted to have a concert to celebrate this wonderful new discovery. I doubt the parents would have brought provisions to the concert to assist them in their sin. I suspect they would do all in their power to help them overcome this delusion of Satan, not revel in it.

It is not my nature to preconceive my ideas and then build narratives to support my opinion. I study, I research, I pray and I seek the Lords guidance and insight. In this instance, I have done an excellent job of gathering the sources that inform my belief and they are the scriptures and the words of the prophet. I assure you that without the guidance of the spirit, practically no one is going to see the value of Christ's response to the Moses situation and how it applies to this situation. They are going to do as you have done and miss the point entirely. The quote I used for what Joseph Smith said I have been searching for for weeks until this morning as I was composing my response to your post an exact phrase entered my head and I found it searching on that. That was not coincidence in the least.

I cannot speak to your nature, although it is my experience that none of us knows our nature half as well as others do. Perhaps you are one of the few who have had the luxury of a deep self reflection. I know not. You do let us know quite often in other threads how intelligent you are and how you are able to toy with others. I find it hard to understand how someone who understood themselves so well would need to say such things even once, let alone so often.

I believe it to be a bit of arrogance on your part to determine that I have no charity in my tone or that I have missed your point. I assure you I have not missed your point. I simply find it lacking and unpersuasive. And if charity does not find its way into my "tone", at least it resides in my heart.

One more point, as I am sure you can observe there has been a increasing change in the common voice of the younger generations of members in the church. I don't read it as intentional as much as they are growing up in a society that is characterized by a conditioned acceptance of tolerance of gays and other such classes. So profound is this indoctrination of a generation that like all generations they have instantaneous response to certain things that shut the mind down and they will not listen to a more truthful perspective. Go around condemning LGBTW voices and they simply reject the messenger and the message. Why do you vote to lose them on a point of indoctrination when if you can let them have their social engenderment, then you have a chance to teach them the other aspects of the Gospel in the hope that they will overcome the baggage of a generation. God is charitable in this fashion - should not we be the same? Again D & C 19 speaks to this principle but I'll not elaborate tonight.

If you can provide anything other than personal opinion, yours or family's in video's, if you can justify your stance by any prophetic source, that will add much credibility to your perspective that I am unable to extend at this time.

I'll be interested in your response.

I understand this logic. It is leading or parenting from a perspective of fear, not love. The perspective of the LDS youth is changing because they are given nothing of substance to counter the message of the world. Embracing this perspective further is simply folly. If there is no distinction between sin and good, what is there to choose?

[brlenox]

A couple of things. First, it is apparent that you passed right over the scriptural example that you requested and I provided for your consideration. It is first very important to understand the reasoning of God as best as man is able. I do not think it even possible to grasp the current state of things if you do not grasp the nature of this New Testament situation concerning marriage. One of the most challenging things about scripture is it is very difficult to take circumstances shrouded in the conditions, circumstance and language of the current day and recognize that practically all experience is somewhere addressed in scriptures in the language of scripture speak for our understanding. We have to diligently search it out to even hope for such. Failing to do so, we do just exactly what you and several others I have observed of late have done. You claim no scriptural precedent exists and then begin to condemn based on a selective view of personal preference. However, the Moses situation should be compelling to you as it embraces too many of the same elements to be so handily ignored. Your thoughts?

My thoughts are the same as they were before. You are stretching to try and make the changing position of the church fit in with your paradigm. Look at all of the adjectives you are using to state how difficult and nuanced this issue is. It isn't nuanced at all. It is very simple. The adjectives are simply you trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

Your video selection was not the church stance on anything. When does the church claim to base any doctrine on your life story or theirs. It was the story of a family. It was their view. It was the manner in which they addressed an exceptionally difficult and ongoing circumstance in their family. You have your stories of circumstance for things in your family and I have my stories for circumstances within my family. They are our personal journey's but not the churches stance on anything.

Your statement would be correct if this were a public site hosted by the church where people could upload their own unedited stories. But it isn't that type of site.

This a church produced video, not some random family story. The church chose this story. They produced and directed the video. They published it on their website with the utmost prominence. It is still the headline video on the site. And they did not choose the other stories where people have overcome their homosexuality. This is most definately their position. Apply your same logic to the Ensign to see test how ludicrous your proposition is.

As to the sons of helaman and their parents as an example: The story simply doesn't fit. In addition, equating the noble sacrifice the sons were making to a concert celebrating homosexuality and transgenderism is digusting.

The sons were not committing a sin by participating in the war. The only thing that made the parents fighting sinful was their personal covenant with the Lord. Bringing them provisions was not sinful as it did not violate their covenant, and it did not aid and abet their sons in committing sin.

Suppose the sons of helaman all came out and said they were homosexuals and wanted to have a concert to celebrate this wonderful new discovery. I doubt the parents would have brought provisions to the concert to assist them in their sin. I suspect they would do all in their power to help them overcome this delusion of Satan, not revel in it.

It is not my nature to preconceive my ideas and then build narratives to support my opinion. I study, I research, I pray and I seek the Lords guidance and insight. In this instance, I have done an excellent job of gathering the sources that inform my belief and they are the scriptures and the words of the prophet. I assure you that without the guidance of the spirit, practically no one is going to see the value of Christ's response to the Moses situation and how it applies to this situation. They are going to do as you have done and miss the point entirely. The quote I used for what Joseph Smith said I have been searching for for weeks until this morning as I was composing my response to your post an exact phrase entered my head and I found it searching on that. That was not coincidence in the least.

I cannot speak to your nature, although it is my experience that none of us knows our nature half as well as others do. Perhaps you are one of the few who have had the luxury of a deep self reflection. I know not. You do let us know quite often in other threads how intelligent you are and how you are able to toy with others. I find it hard to understand how someone who understood themselves so well would need to say such things even once, let alone so often.

I believe it to be a bit of arrogance on your part to determine that I have no charity in my tone or that I have missed your point. I assure you I have not missed your point. I simply find it lacking and unpersuasive. And if charity does not find its way into my "tone", at least it resides in my heart.

One more point, as I am sure you can observe there has been a increasing change in the common voice of the younger generations of members in the church. I don't read it as intentional as much as they are growing up in a society that is characterized by a conditioned acceptance of tolerance of gays and other such classes. So profound is this indoctrination of a generation that like all generations they have instantaneous response to certain things that shut the mind down and they will not listen to a more truthful perspective. Go around condemning LGBTW voices and they simply reject the messenger and the message. Why do you vote to lose them on a point of indoctrination when if you can let them have their social engenderment, then you have a chance to teach them the other aspects of the Gospel in the hope that they will overcome the baggage of a generation. God is charitable in this fashion - should not we be the same? Again D & C 19 speaks to this principle but I'll not elaborate tonight.

If you can provide anything other than personal opinion, yours or family's in video's, if you can justify your stance by any prophetic source, that will add much credibility to your perspective that I am unable to extend at this time.

I'll be interested in your response.

I understand this logic. It is leading or parenting from a perspective of fear, not love. The perspective of the LDS youth is changing because they are given nothing of substance to counter the message of the world. Embracing this perspective further is simply folly. If there is no distinction between sin and good, what is there to choose?

First I want to compliment you on a reasonable response. Very uncommon here and refreshing indeed. Still, I think you might be guilty of what you are accusing me of. The whole thing about adjectives is not very compelling and is definitely forcing a perspective . First there is not an inordinate number of adjectives and I think you might simply be referencing my style of writing which can tend towards verbose. I provide substantive references to illustrate how the round peg of this issues fit's very clearly into round hole by which it should be considered. Yet you are shooting down Joseph Smith and the Moses scriptures on the force of an opinion. Hardly adequate. Even a marginal effort could surely find a verse or two to wrest. However, in the absence of such let me strengthen my own point with a further sound example of merit:

John 8:3-5,7,9,11
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Within these verses reside reference to both sides of this debate. There are those who wish to note the grievous sexual impropriety of another and in their self-righteousness they hope to force the Saviors hand to judge by the law. He invites them and they decline because they cannot measure up to the caveat of being without sin and recognizing their own sorrowful state they depart. He does not condemn but commands that she sin no more.

The question is, where are you and I on this scale of measurement. Will you haul the lot of these reprobates before the Savior accusing them and seek his condemnation? Clearly not the wisest take. Still perhaps the better question will you step over this scripture also and claim it does not apply to you and I? That would be the greater tragedy.

I would think that it would be compelling that you cannot find scriptural resources to reinforce your position. Even I can think of several that you could at least presume association but they do not fit quite as neatly as these I have provided for your consideration.

Considering your take on the video. I think you know you are way out on a limb here. The logical extension of your claim is that the church scripted their response and told them what to say - thus making it not their story at all. You are doing a similar thing that Emma Lee did when she made reference to the churches stance by cherry picking a quote out of context to make her point while ignoring everything around the quote that provided needed clarification. Why make an assumption from your video when the church very clearly states its stance on same sex attraction. Why would you prefer your assumption to actual statements which countermand your position. You are simply illustrating that your opinion takes precedence over truth.

The churches stance:

Feelings of same-sex attraction are not a sin. Elder M. Russell Ballard stated:

“Let us be clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that ‘the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including [those with same-sex attraction]’” (“The Lord Needs You Now!” Ensign, Sept. 2015, 29).

While same-sex attraction is not a sin, it can be a challenge. While one may not have chosen to have these feelings, he or she can commit to keep God’s commandments. The parent of a child who experiences same-sex attraction or identifies as gay should choose to love and embrace that child. As a community of Church members, we should choose to create a welcoming community.

You seem to want to force the claim that the church sanctions the ideology of "born this way". Have you looked? Have you researched. You will not find that ever said by one of the brethren. In fact you will find just the opposite.

The Sons of Helaman was an effort to illustrate a principle, a simple principle that completely flew over your head. All I was saying is that guilt by association is an inadequate justification for your opinion that the church is sanctioning all things gay simply because of a congenial voice of support. I'm not going to try to explain that further - as I cannot see a better means of saying than I already have.

On your wonderment if the parents would support them if they were engaged in sin. I like your point. It is a good and compelling counter. Yet, and I do not know if you are a parent or not but there is not many that will not feed their children in their need. And I feel this is what is required of us in most situations. We do not do it to sanction their behaviors but only because we love and I have seen far too many parents sacrifice so much for their wayward children. Once in a while, they win and their prodigals return. A long road for a merited day of rejoicing.

Concerning my intelligence - I am intelligent. I know it and it is obvious to any comfortable in their own skin. However, apparently my other traits of lacking at times common sense, struggling to overcome the carnal man, being verbose, being a putz, and an occasional jerk and so on are not sufficiently mitigating bad traits to offset the recognition of the good traits in me. I know who I am and what I am and the clue you provide that you cannot say the same is this one statement: "it is my experience that none of us knows our nature half as well as others do." You can not know someone else until you know yourself for until you can be honest with yourself you are only viewing others through the same lens of dishonesty that shapes your own view of who you are. My experience is quite the opposite. Very few really know themselves at all, they only know what they want others to see and they put on airs to achieve such.

Toying with others is partially a childish trait I possess that I find entertaining from time to time. I'm much better than I used to be and who knows maybe now that you have reminded me I'll be perfect by next week. "Need to say" as you put it...I don't need to say anything, however, the other part of my childish trait is that sometimes when you are trying to see just how confident or mature another person is if you give them bait to use against you and they pass over it then you know something about that person. I almost always provide fodder for both sides of the coin, I point out the positive elements of my nature and I always deprecate a little more on the negative aspects of my character. You imply that you know yourself - perhaps you can tell me what it means that you only highlighted my points of "arrogance" while overlooking that in the same sentence is quite the contrary. It reveals a little bit of you and that is what I look for.

Then of course my "arrogance" concerning implying you possess a lack of charity. Simple enough, you compare yourself to Joseph Smith's quote that I provided and find even one element of his perfectly applicable quote that exonerates your accusing, condemnation, of the church and its leaders and gays. Find one element of his statement that indicates that the nature of your response comes under the banner of a charitable response. To make this an easier task for you let's observe just the first paragraph:

“It is one evidence that men are unacquainted with the principles of godliness to behold the contraction of affectionate feelings and lack of charity in the world. The power and glory of godliness is spread out on a broad principle to throw out the mantle of charity. God does not look on sin with allowance, but when men have sinned, there must be allowance made for them. … The nearer we get to our heavenly Father, the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs. (History of the Church, 5:24; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on June 9, 1842, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Eliza R. Snow.)

Is this the mantle of charity you toss on these "perishing souls". That is who they are of course - perishing souls just like you and I. Do you feel to ever take them on your shoulders and cast their sins behind your back? Or are you looking that they should be cast out? Are you acquainted with the principles of godliness or are those your true feelings that appear contracted and lacking in charity. My observations of your lack of charity are simply because you can't muster up the behaviors that would qualify according to a legitimate quote that I provided to illustrate my perspective. All you have countered with is your opinion. Joseph however, counters your opinion with the following, "We are full of selfishness; the devil flatters us that we are very righteous, when we are feeding on the faults of others." Isn't that precisely what you are doing? Feeding on faults?

Now, I can go on all day long showing you more scriptures and I have quotes galore that I have used to inform my state of mind. It is the common man to criticize and condemn. To "point the finger of scorn" and "make an offender for a word" and in my youth I might have chosen such an approach in response to this voice of support that the church has lent to the gay event. However, I have no desire to do that with the church or it's inspired leaders because I see it as questioning the Savior himself or attempting to steady the ark as if He is unable to manage his own organization. I wonder if it was you on one side and your decision to condemn the church and gays and the brethren on the other and their decision to support this event and Christ in the middle considering upon the two perspectives, upon which side do you suspect the gavel of judgment would fall? It is an interesting thought don't you think?

My perspective on not alienating on a point of social convention, which you characterized as parenting from a point of fear. Perfect illustration of how inadequate your understanding of the Moses scriptures is for it is precisely the same principle upon which he made his decision to permit divorce...and you know how afraid poor Moses was

Now I have given you a fair response as you were good enough to do the same. Nonetheless, in crafting a response such as this of candor and directness I can't help but feel that I may have become the accuser myself. I do not like to feel such and so I will not be taking such a tack further. I have made my points clearly, and with adequate supporting material that you can only miss the mark by choice. However, if that is your choice then so be it and may the Lord bless you in your just causes. There is no need to respond to this as again, I'll not put myself in this position again. If however you find some compelling support for your perspective in either scripture or quote I am always interested in the inspired words of prophets and apostles be they ancient or current. Only, in this way might you be able to alter my perspective which is founded on the words of such great men. Opinions though are of little value esp. when they conflict with the Gospel of Christ.

Thank you again for your time and response.

[Toto]

On Frogs and Freedom

Atrazine and homosexuality
http://www.naturalnewsblogs.com/chemica ... sexuality/

Always follow the money (changers)…

Syngenta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta

Ah, the corporations that grew up around the banks that Thomas Jefferson warned about!

But the vast majority don’t have to worry about living under the New World Order, because they are not part of the BIG CLUB and scheduled for elimination anyway… http://planet.infowars.com/health/gmo-e ... -your-food

[bbsion]

One of my friends posted a clip from this concert. He is very pro-LGBT stuff and not religious in the least bit. He loved the concert. I know this is yesterdays news, but I was thinking more about this concert and the vision of the Tree of Life. I asked myself, "can I see this concert being held next to the Tree of Life or in the great and spacious building?" To me the answer is obvious. I, personally, cannot applaud the concert.

[ShockHouse]

This continues to seriously trouble me. The church is not supposed to ever be led astray in the last days, but what is it doing...

[jfb55]

Yes Christ dined with sinners, but he did not condone their behavior. Instead he urged repentance and told them to go and sin no more.

[Yahtzee]

One of my friends posted a clip from this concert. He is very pro-LGBT stuff and not religious in the least bit. He loved the concert. I know this is yesterdays news, but I was thinking more about this concert and the vision of the Tree of Life. I asked myself, "can I see this concert being held next to the Tree of Life or in the great and spacious building?" To me the answer is obvious. I, personally, cannot applaud the concert.

I'm at peace about the statement now, but I really like this. I can be supportive of stopping kids from committing suicide without attending a venue that has too much Babylon in it. I will continue to be kind to those whom I disagree with, but I will not leave the straight and narrow path to do so. To be protected in the last days, we must stand in holy places. Despite positive attributes of the concert, I cannot see this as a holy place. If they do continue this in future years, I hope to use this imagery to guide my children. Thank you for this.

[bbsion]

I know this is old news but I just came across this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE2tZO_A2X0

"To be gay is beautiful, wonderful, perfect." Dan Reynolds

This is why it was bad for the church to support the Love Loud Festival.