Women to Pray at General Conference

[Harry Tic]

Women will pray at General Conference next month. Geez, what's next? All these rapid changes are making my head spin.

I'll tell you where this is headed: before you know it, illegal immigrant lesbians in pantsuits will be praying in Spanish to Heavenly Mother in General Conference. And all the remaining male GAs will be wearing purple shirts.

You heard it here first.

[wuapinmon]

I'll tell you where this is headed: before you know it, non-Caucasian illegal immigrant married lesbians in hemp pantsuits with visible tattoos and four earrings will be praying in Spanish to Heavenly Mother in General Conference. And all the remaining male GAs will be wearing purple guayaberas.

You heard it here first.

I embellished a little.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I embellished a little.

Welcome back, stranger.

[wuapinmon]

Welcome back, stranger.

Time can be an effective balm.

[Indy Coug]

Time can be an effective balm.

A time balm?

[Moliere]

This is tongue in cheek, right? Please tell me it is.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion...april.html.csp

Of course it's TIC. The scripture citations and talking points are not even close to in line with even the orthodox views. This guy is trolling all the progmos like crazy. My FB feed is lighting up with incredulous people.

[jay santos]

We will see women with the priesthood some day. I would guess in my lifetime, and if not at least in my children's lifetime. We will see gay relationships and sex within them allowed.

The idea of following a prophet blindly works very well in a fundamental organization. When the vast majority of the members are literal and fundamental in their testimonies, they can back up policies that go against mainstream culture and make us appear to be backwards or discriminatory. The internet information explosion that the church is going through is going to have a result of moving the church from a majority of believers being literal and fundamental in their testimony to the progmo view of prophets and doctrine as expressed in the Changing Mormon Doctrine book thread.

When you believe prophets speak to God directly and our doctrine is pure and perfect and the result of a restoration of Christ's true gospel (literal, fundamental view), then you step in line and follow the prophet, and if you're the prophet you feel no pressure to change anything. When you believe prophets are imperfect and revelation came as warm fuzzies that may or may not be correct, and you can trace mistakes make by past prophets, and are not completely sure anything in the church is perfectly correct, but you have faith that you're part of an organization that has some degree of truth and is evolving and getting better (progmo view), then issues that make Mormons look backward or discriminatory are now political issues not doctrinal issues, and prophets will make a change when the political climate becomes bad enough to force change.

I see the church moving in this direction (slowly). Now the church lowers missionary age for girls and lets women pray in conference. Ten years from now, pressures will cause more change, 20 years from now more change, and over time the idea that women should not receive the priesthood will be so obviously a backwards idea and so obviously a holdover from ancient cultural bias that it will someday change.

[Maximus]

We will see gay relationships and sex within them allowed.

Except homosexual relationships have basis for bans in the canon, in addition to the fact that men and women were taught to be together for one main purpose of procreation, which is part of the plan of salvation. Can someone please share how all of a sudden allowing these relationships would go along with scripture and the plan? There is basis for belief that the church will move towards being more accepting of gays, but I see no basis of the church ever equating homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since there is no room for disregarding scripture describing homosexual sex as a sin.

[jay santos]

Except homosexual relationships have basis for bans in the canon, in addition to the fact that men and women were taught to be together for one main purpose of procreation, which is part of the plan of salvation. Can someone please share how all of a sudden allowing these relationships would go along with scripture and the plan? There is basis for belief that the church will move towards being more accepting of gays, but I see no basis of the church ever equating homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since there is no room for disregarding scripture describing homosexual sex as a sin.

I'm quite certain someone fifty years ago could have expressed the exact same sentiment about the issue of race, even couching it in terms of canon, doctrine, plan of salvation, etc.

[Sullyute]

Except homosexual relationships have basis for bans in the canon, in addition to the fact that men and women were taught to be together for one main purpose of procreation, which is part of the plan of salvation. Can someone please share how all of a sudden allowing these relationships would go along with scripture and the plan? There is basis for belief that the church will move towards being more accepting of gays, but I see no basis of the church ever equating homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since there is no room for disregarding scripture describing homosexual sex as a sin.

You need to re-read jay's post. Once you start to question the prophet then where does it end? If a modern prophet can be wrong in his statements then why couldn't a prophet 4000 years ago be wrong? If we believe in modern revelation then it doesn't matter what was said in the past as anything can change when the prophet says "thus sayest the Lord..."

[Pheidippides]

Except homosexual relationships have basis for bans in the canon, in addition to the fact that men and women were taught to be together for one main purpose of procreation, which is part of the plan of salvation. Can someone please share how all of a sudden allowing these relationships would go along with scripture and the plan? There is basis for belief that the church will move towards being more accepting of gays, but I see no basis of the church ever equating homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since there is no room for disregarding scripture describing homosexual sex as a sin.

Please point me to the places in the canon that do this. I am aware of only one, and it's in Leviticus, so it doesn't count.

I am honestly asking because I haven't done a thorough search.

[Maximus]

I'm quite certain someone fifty years ago could have expressed the exact same sentiment about the issue of race, even couching it in terms of canon, doctrine, plan of salvation, etc.

I wish people would stop comparing thinking homosexual sex is a sin with anything race related, because they really arent related.

[Maximus]

You need to re-read jay's post. Once you start to question the prophet then where does it end? If a modern prophet can be wrong in his statements then why couldn't a prophet 4000 years ago be wrong? If we believe in modern revelation then it doesn't matter what was said in the past as anything can change when the prophet says "thus sayest the Lord..."

Well if that is our atitude, why not think that any point of doctrine could change? Could the prophet all of a sudden say there wasnt actually a pre earth life, or God and Christ are not actually seperate beings, etc.? I think it is one thing to say that gay marriage should be legal, and another thing to think the church will say someday gay sex is not a sin, when it has been taught it is a sin forever. No one ever taught being black is a sin, and there is really no exact comparison between thinking gay sex is a sin and anything race related IMO.

[wuapinmon]

I wish people would stop comparing thinking homosexual sex is a sin with anything race related, because they really arent related.

Well, if you view homosexuality as innate, and not elective, then they are perfectly related. I do, so I think you're wrong.

[Maximus]

Please point me to the places in the canon that do this. I am aware of only one, and it's in Leviticus, so it doesn't count.

I am honestly asking because I haven't done a thorough search.

Why doesnt leviticus count? Maybe I shouldnt say there is a direct canon quote, but the canon doesnt really lay out specific sins most of the time, besides the 10 commandments. I dont care about gay marriage being legal, im all for it. I do think it would be contrary to the churches and scriptural teachings on the plan of salvation in general if they all of a sudden say hey sex is okay. Isnt the purpose of man and women getting together to procreate? that is essential to the plan, and I realize there are health exceptions, but I just dont see how homosexual relations would fit in the plan. Why is it that we think the church should conform to modern thought anyways? Isnt it stated that the church shouldnt be going the way of the world? I see the church not publicly doing things like prop 8 anymore, but never saying homosexual relations are okay.