This is the disadvantage of old men leading the Church. They are insensitive to the younger generations and to those not of their ilk.

I'm seeing a lot of reference to the sorts of things Ute4ever mentioned or implied. An Old Testament God. An angry God. A God who chooses whom he loves. Quotes from GA that God's love is not unconditional. God loves some of his children but not all. From people who support the decision to ban the children of gays.

This is the competing vision of Mormonism. Against the version that ponders a God who weeps.

What a mess.

The FP and Q12 have much more data in hand than any of us. They have statistics that we are not privy to. I'm guessing many of the numbers look bad. And perhaps this has contributed to a circle-the-wagons mindset.

"Because the world is evil and the members are succumbing to the world."

It was Orson Hyde who prophesied that a real test would come in the last days and half of church members would fall away, and Presidents Young, Kimball, Benson and Hinckley quoted it. I suppose this may be it. Likewise, many early church members struggled with the polygamy issue, refusing to participate. And we will prove them herewith to see if they do all things The Lord commands them. The Lord tried and tried Abraham again and again, and Joseph in Egypt, and Moses, and Paul, and Joseph Smith, and so many others. It's unfortunate that over recent decades, the church went from being peculiar, to having missionaries who will baptize anyone who wants a free meal, and look what we have now. Prophets have said again and again to feast upon the scriptures, read daily, attend the temple as often as you can, but instead the members picked those things apart.

No wonder over the past three years, the brethren placed such heavy emphasis on following the prophet. Not following celebrities on Twitter to see what the youth like.

I believe it is a function of having a bunch like-minded businessmen who are mostly very old and not familiar with even the sentiments of their own flock. They don't read or understand sociology and simply implement business strategies.

We exclude the voices of fifty percent of the population by excluding women. We next exclude all but the white race in making policy decisions. And finally, we only involved the very old and those from Utah in most decisions. Is it any surprise we have nothing but weird, insular decisions?

I've got bad news for you. Half of the members have already fallen away. There's >400 members in my ward boundaries and about 150 who attend. This is typical.

Oh, you mean that half of the currently active members will fall away. Which means that there will be less than 25% of the members left. Perhaps better yet, it can be squeezed down to 144,000 who can pack in and around Jackson County reading the latest Julie Rowe conspiracy theories on their smart phones.

God does not want any crowds in the celestial kingdom only those few who are misogynistic and homophobic. God only loves the angry and hateful who cry for vengeance in his name.

Ok, now you're disagreeing with the prophets. It's not like thousands of faithful missionaries were out there in Chile and the Philippines in the 1980s going against the training and instruction they got from their priesthood leaders by baptizing "too many." I was taught to extend the invitation to be baptized during the second discussion. It was right there in the instructions to the missionary within the discussions, and also taught at the MTC. If that was too soon for someone to join, somehow I think the Lord takes that into account. From what I can tell, the folks who are giving the church the most trouble over the internet these days are hardly coming from those who joined the church somewhere in the third world and just stopped showing up on Sunday. They come almost exclusively from families of the most rigid, unbending, black and white clique of mormons who care more about preserving a club that shares their political, social, ethnic backgrounds and who seem to care more about the meetings and organizational clutter mormonism than the true Gospel of Christ.

Christofferson's gay brother. Formerly excommunicated. Now rebaptized. http://www.wheatandtares.org/19470/t...on-transcript/

I must say I'm surprised by the whole lot of you. At first I thought you were trolling, but now it's apparent that you truly never knew the gospel's stance on homosexuality.

During all these years, while you've been starting threads about physical evidences of the Book of Mormon, and theological studies, and the life of Joseph Smith, did you seriously never even bother to read the actual scriptures that you've been proving authentic? What have you been doing during your Sunday meetings? And your Monday evenings? And your ward temple nights?

When the prophets said the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon remains sealed because the members don't even utilize the unsealed portion, they weren't kidding.

Waters, I just remembered something Eyring said in one of his talks, that the Brethren often disagree and have lively discussions but that ultimately they don't take action unless they're unanimous. He referenced some decision where they couldn't reach unanimity and pushed the issue off for further discussion until there could be. I hate to say it, but this decision was likely unanimous. The old "cannot look upon sin with any degree of allowance" angle won. You saw that and heard that in Christofferson's statement (what a horribly edited video, by the way. Amateur hour and hastily put together). Did nobody raise the teachings of the savior regarding children?

I repeat, the comet has struck. The dinosaurs are on their way out. With social media and the Internet, the death will be accelerated. If the Internet were around in the 70s during the Priesthood ban, we'd all be Episcopalians or Catholic.

I'm being dramatic but this hurts. This is probably the worst thing the church could have done. Punishing children because they don't want members to see gay families acting as families. But we see it all the time anyway. Monson said Prop 8 was the church's Gettysburg. This is the Church burning down Atlanta before Sherman can even get to it.

Uh, I never said anything about that. No one said anything about what is or isn't part of the law of chastity. And I was commenting on something completely different. I'm just having a hard time getting past your seemingly snarky comment about it being "unfortunate" that the church grew so much in recent decades. You're just as much out of line with the prophets with that comment as anyone else is on a different subject.

I think you misunderstood the context. Quantity vs. Quality. Rush through the discussions, have them attend church once, and they're in. And when they're inactive a month later? Too busy rushing more through the discussions to go find them.

It's fourth hand information (or even more distant), but I heard that Eyring is the one who drafted/wrote/approved the BSA gay leader press release.

I mean, it doesn't really matter which apostle it was. It was at least one of them.

The infants who will be refused an opportunity to receive a name and a blessing--they didn't violate any laws of chastity.

My thinking is along the lines of Levin. This is firing a shot across the bow, hoping to prevent gay couples from attending Mormon services. First we make you feel unwelcome. If you attend, we will excommunicate you. If you insist on staying after that, just be aware that if you have progeny none of them will receive any blessings of the gospel while under your care as children.

If all of this doesn't work, who knows what the next step will be.

Separating the wheat from the chaff? Discovering which virgins have oil in their lamps? The wedding feast?

I can't tell if you are not chumming the waters, because your posts are caricatures of real life.

Where were all the activists, the protest signs, the condemnation- when the church had this policy on the books for kids that are living with heterosexual unmarried parents? Where was the outcry for "civil rights" for an 8 year old? I guess the very few kids in THAT situation aren't up for political fodder?

The church made this policy because it doesn't want to get in the middle of families. But now that it extends to LGBT, even thought the church has made it clear on their stand about LGBT, only NOW they are robbing kids of their rights?

The point is, it wasn't missionaries or even their presidents being rogue or disobedient or misunderstanding what they should have been doing. They were faithfully following the direction of those who instructed them how to proceed on when to invite someone to be baptized. And those instructions came to them at the MTC and from their mission presidents who got it from the prophets and apostles of the time. So what. Ok, a few people got baptized who may not have been fully prepared, however you want to define that.

The Lord is merciful and won't come down on anyone who didn't really understand what they were doing or even those leaders who felt at the time that baptizing quickly was the way to go. The Lord's church has the authority to administer saving ordinances, but the Lord himself also recognizes that part of our purpose in this life is to try our best to figure things out sometimes the best we can and learn from our mistakes and correct and move on. That goes for non-members, regular members, and all the way up to the prophets and apostles. But I'm willing to be patient and don't have the need for every single policy and practice to be 100% perfect in order to believe the church is still true. And it's my weakness, but it's a littler harder for me to be as patient with members who are so quick to condemn other members and give them a dirty look for not wearing the right color shirt when passing the sacrament or using the wrong hand, or whatever other perceived weakness, including not believing things in the right way however we define it. That kind of nonsense is frequently all over cougarboard and sounds like kind of garbage within the church that the Book of Mormon comes down pretty hard against.

Is that really the policy for those kids?

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/

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.

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.

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.

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?

From Elder Oaks:

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

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:

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.

None of the quotes he posted are saying the same thing he is.

I suppose you may read anything into my statements that you please, and alter what you feel they mean, as long as it makes you feel better about your position. And let's revisit that position: on this thread, where you're arguing that both good and bad will come from the new church policy change, you've taken offense at the idea that both good and bad came from a previous church policy change.

To clarify my position for anyone who may be confused. I agree with all of the following:

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.:
"Unless we enjoy the Spirit of God we cannot understand the things of God; in fact, the things of God will appear foolish to us."

Boyd K. Packer:
"There are three areas where members of the Church, influenced by social and political unrest, are being caught up and led away. ...The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement, ...and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals."

Lynn G. Robbins:
"Lowering the Lord's standards to the level of a society's inappropriate behavior is apostasy. The scornful often accuse prophets of not living in the 21st century or of being bigoted. They attempt to persuade or even pressure the Church into lowering God's standards to the level of their own inappropriate behavior, which in the words of Elder Neal A. Maxwell, will 'develop self-contentment instead of seeking self-improvement and repentance'."

Joseph Smith:
"Men who...have no desire for the principles of truth, do not understand the word of truth when they hear it. The devil taketh away the word of truth out of their hearts."

Harold B. Lee:
"There are those among us who would set themselves up as critics of the Church, saying that the Church has gone out of the way. ...We should warn these, as well as those who are in danger of being led astray, of what the Prophet predicted. He said, 'That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly that that man is on the way to apostasy, and if he does not repent, he will apostatize, as God lives'."

Ezra Taft Benson:
"Suppose a leader of the Church were to tell you that you were supporting the wrong side of a particular issue. Some might immediately resist this leader and his counsel or ignore it, but I would suggest that you first apply the fourth great civic standard for the faithful Saints. That standard is to live for, to get, and then to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit."

Neal A. Maxwell:
"Studying the Church through the eyes of its detractors is like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus."

Neal A. Maxwell:
"Satan need not get everyone to be like Cain or Judas, he needs only to get able men to see themselves as sophisticated neutrals."

M. Russell Ballard:
"Those who live according to Heavenly Father’s eternal plan will not want to absorb any information that is illicit or untoward, nor will they destroy their spiritual sensitivity through immoral acts or the consumption of any harmful substances. Neither will they search for doctrinal loopholes to find reasons to challenge the ordained leadership of the Church nor tamper with the simple truths of the gospel. They will not attempt to justify any lifestyle that is contrary to the plan of happiness."

Thomas S. Monson:
"Every day is a day of decision, and our decisions determine our destiny."

By the way, I told my wife about this thread and she was shocked. Shocked that there was someone besides me posting on CG.

Your arguments don't make sense.

We interpret what you're posting is that you find nothing wrong with the policy change and that it is necessarily inspired. We further interpret that you find yourself righteous and those who feel any differently to be unrighteous and out of tune with the Spirit.

That is how you come across, and it puts off the reader.

Well, she didn't miss the mark by much.

Honestly, when I realize that the reader is also put off by members of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Apostles, and past leaders of the church, I don't feel insulted by the remark. Either you have faith in the prophet or you don't. It really is as simple as that. And there must be opposition in all things. So with every change in policy or every new move, there will be good for some and bad for others that accompanies it. When a person wants to know why a certain thing happened, he can inquire one of two ways: ask in faith like Nephi, truly believing, and seeking the wisdom of the decision, or he can ask in a murmuring tone like Laman and Lemuel, who said "The Lord makes no such thing known unto us." In the first Devotional of the current school year, BYU President Worthlin pointed out that Laman and Lemuel were probably active members of the church, but simply riding their father's coat tails and being present in body only, did very little for them.

Why is that I am pretty safe in saying that 99% of members don't expect the President of the church to address this issue in any kind of public give-and-take forum such as a televised interview or a press conference?

There is happiness, and then there is joy, and then there is fullness of joy. Those who insist that they are happy with their choices, and the direction of The Lord's servants does not, and they choose not to follow, aren't exactly going to spend eternity in torment. The Lord has prepared a place for them where they will exceptionally happy. Not a fullness of joy, but what they have decided they want.

I'm not saying anything here that hasn't been taught for thousands of years.

Again, either you believe the Church is led by revelation, or you don't. Or you believe it once was, but no longer is. (Same difference). Though having studied the signs of the times, the latter-day prophesies, and the seven years of tribulation that preceed the Second Coming in great detail, I can confidently say that if people don't have the faith to follow the prophet on this issue, then they certainly will not with what's coming next.