california boy

10 hours ago, Rain said:

The advantage of the released time for places in high density members are fewer teachers needed and less driving (even when church is closer). It also means that the teachers can have this as a full time job verses labor intensive callings in every ward/stake.  

One advantage for the school is slightly smaller class sizes. I saw this when I was in high school. I had early morning seminary and had driver's Ed scheduled for 4th hour.  When there were too many driver's Ed students they worked with the seminary - they had early morning driver's Ed and the early morning seminary students switched to driver's Ed and went to 4th hour seminary.  

It's not like the schools only release for religious things.  Some places also release students for work.  

I'm not saying there should be released time seminary. I'm just saying there are some advantages with released time for schools with a large population of members. 

Oh I can see the advantages of release time seminary.  But it is still just an option, not a necessity.  My bishop had no problem asking me to teach seminary for 6 years while I was raising a family and working a job. that required commuting every day.  I was happy to do what I was asked.  I am not special.  The majority of wards outside the Mormon bubble function this way.  

I guess I am just uncomfortable with the Church pushing to build buildings on public school lands when there are other options to consider that would not impose the Church on those that are not members even when that number is in the minority.  It just seems wrong.

4 hours ago, MorningStar said:

It doesn't work fine for kids who have zero hour classes. 

I don't know what zero class hour is.  Why doesn't it work.  

20 hours ago, JAHS said:

Sometimes that works OK. But in my California town the kids have two sessions of seminary they can go to in the morning before school. One is at 6AM for those who have an early morning school class and another time at 7AM. Then after school they might have other school activities or sports and they sometime dont get home till 6PM.
When my kids got home from school they would crash and have to sleep for a couple hours. Then they still had homework to do.
So it's not an easy thing for everyone to do. 

 

Sounds very similar to where I grew up, and is the common practice anywhere outside of the Mormon belt.

19 hours ago, Rain said:

When you have a school of 3000 and 2000 are going to seminary released time works better. 

 

But all of those 2000 students do have a chapel they meet at every sunday for instruction.  Building a special building just for seminary still isn't necessary.  It is a duplication of other meeting places that the church already owns.  And I bet those meeting houses are a lot closer to the high school than mine was in the Mormon belt.

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Did you have released time?

No.  But is that necessary?  No religion had any release time in high school.  It seemed to work fine to just go to seminary before school every morning.

22 hours ago, Calm said:

I wonder how long it would take to walk to some of the open areas.  Maybe they are zoned only for homes though.

I attended all my seminary classes in the ward building that was about 7 mines from my high school   I think that is pretty common outside of the Jello bubble.  There is no real compelling reason for the Church needing to build on or even near any high school.

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Are you implying that our prophets and apostles haven't spoken clearly on this subject?

Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if everyone demanded a " Thus saith the Lord..." in order to follow clear scriptural doctrine?

If a brother and sister desire to marry should they demand a "Thus saith the Lord..." before they abandon their plans?

So there is absolutely no claim of divine revelation on this issue that is so significant that it is preventing people from holding the priesthood and obtaining temple blessings.  No Church leader has even claimed that these policies came from God.  Just faliable leaders making their own decisions.  We have been fooled before about such decisions haven't we.  I know I fell for it when I believe that it was the will of God to keep people out of those same blessings simply because of their skin color.  Why should I believe they have it right this time?

this is nothing comparable to a couple wanting to get married.  Or can you not see how devastating this policy is simply because someone is born wanting to be with someone of the same sex.

Do you really think the two are comparable?

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I think you will experience regret once you realize what you rejected in order to live the life you desired here in mortality.  

That's above my pay grade.

That's above my pay grade.

If you do your best to obey Celestial law.

You are being myopic. You are only seeing the here and now and not trusting that God knows best what leads to a fullness of joy.

Do you think it is weird that I would rather be with my partner that I love and have been with for the past 16 years than somehow wanting to be with a woman for eternity?  Something that I didn't want to do at all when I was on earth?????

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

 

Good for you. I wish you the best.

You seem to confuse judgement with folks just believing what God has declared through His prophets. I have no interest in judging you, just in believing what God has clearly defined as His standards on issues of sexual behavior.

Do you think calling me myopic is a bit judgmental??

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

If my believing such is seen as being judgemental by persons such as yourself- well, frankly, there's nothing I can do to help that. You believe the Lord condones your homosexual activity and I'm not going to stop upholding the Lord's standards on morality, so we are at an impasse.

With that I believe we've concluded our discussion. I refuse to go on for 40 pages in an endless rehashing of the same things.

Good luck to you.

I have hopes that you will ponder more about your stance.  Realize that Church leaders have not always gotten the will of the Lord right when it comes to who should hold the priesthood and who should be allow to enter the temple.  I hope that you will consider the impact on so many faithful families who have left the Church over this issue.  I hope that you will see the importance of a revelation from God on this issue if the Church is going to bar gay couples from temple ordinances  I hope that you will consider that my relationship with my partner is not all that different than your relationship with your partner or any other committed relationship.  We are not so different.  We want the same things as you do.  Part of that is being together for eternity.  Without that promise, what is there really to work towards???

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Yes 

I reject the premise that there is no revelation on the subject. There is an abundance of revelation.

This is a very important question I have and I would really like a verifiable answer.  Can you point to where a prophet of God has declared a revelation from God on current policies the Church has on LGBT issues?  I will keep my question that simple.  Just looking for a simple answer.

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Do you comprehend how messed up your eternity will be if you decide your desires supercede the truth of God?

How messed up do you think my life will be when I face God?  What judgement do you think I deserve? Am I going to the Telestial Kingdom?  Is the Celestial Kingdom ever going to be an option for me anyway?  Will it matter if I can't be there with my partner that I love with all my heart?  For me, it won't be heaven without him. 

The very reason why I have made the choices I have in life is because I have learned to trust God more than man.  I do trust Him totally.  I am ready to accept any judgement He has for me.  It is why I don't really care how men in this life judge me.  Their judgement of me is totally irrelevant.  It is ONLY Gods judgement that matters.  

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I have made my views clear and the same questions and twisting happens over and over. These arguments have been replayed multiple times- it's like we ar all insane.

But I will go back and answer you queries one last time...

Thank you.  I appreciate you taking the time to treat my questions with respect.  I will also treat your answers with respect.  It doesn't mean that either one of us don't want further clarification on where we come up with these beliefs.

26 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You have zero interest in my answer- so why bother?

why do you make that judgement from me.  I have read every response you have written and I have given you my thoughts on what you have written.  I am actually looking for a honest response to the questions I have asked you.  

Maybe this is your way of not coming up with any answers to the hard questions I ask of you.  That is on you, not me.  Don't use me as your scapegoat for not answering my questions that I ask in all sincerity.

Maybe you have not given this though all that much time to think and ponder what the implications of your beliefs are.  I totally understand that.  This is an issue I have been dealing with since I was 12 years old.  I don't expect you to understand these issues as much as I have.  Maybe this is the first time you have ever realized that your position is more of a blind trust in fallible Church leaders that are products of their own times and prejudices.  Maybe this discussion has at least opened up to you the reasons why LGBT issues is one of the top reasons why people are leaving the Church.  Maybe just trying to understand why this is such a deal breaker for so many people, you should try and understand just a little bit where they are coming from.

8 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I will bring this back full circle to the question @The Nehor posed back at the beginning of the conversation -- how do we know that God requires these particular sacrifices of LGBTQ+ latter-day saints? What revelation (or other source of truth) do we point to when we make these moral claims? I don't recall anyone seriously answering @The Nehor's question in this thread (and am skeptical of claims in other places to such revelation).

Using Scott Woodward's doctrinal confidence model:

Is it repeatedly taught in scripture? LGBTQ+ issues show up rather infrequently in scripture. Most of the scriptures that are used have enough doubt around if and how they apply to modern LGBTQ+ people that this points to low doctrinal confidence.

Is it repeatedly taught by modern prophets? If memory serves, LGBTQ+ issues don't really show up in modern history until the mid-20th century. Since then, LGBTQ+ issues have been a semi-frequent topic for modern prophets and apostles, and they have been of mixed consistency. From believing some horrible things about LGBTQ+ people and believing that attractions/dysphoria are choices that can be repented of to the current attraction/dysphoria is not sinful but acting on it is. Somewhere in this, though, I can recall none who have claimed new, independent revelation (other than scriptures as noted above) for the church's stance.

Is it confirmed by the Holy Ghost? This seems to also be inconsistent. Speaking for myself, the Holy Ghost has not confirmed that God requires these sacrifices of all LGBTQ+ individuals. I encounter many (including many of those who have been on Br. Ostler's podcast) who indicate that the Holy Ghost has confirmed to them that God does not require these sacrifices for them.

Overall, it seems to me that doctrinal confidence that God requires these sacrifices of LGBTQ+ individuals is kind of low. As my own beliefs on the topic shift and change, it seems to me that there are some sacrifices that require rather high doctrinal confidence before I am willing to claim that God requires someone else to make that sacrifice. Some sacrifices seem small (like sacrificing alcohol in order to go to the temple) and perhaps it is okay to require those sacrifices even if confidence in their divine provenance is low. Other sacrifices (like sacrificing your child) seem so morally questionable that one ought to be absolutely certain that God requires that sacrifice. The sacrifices that the church requires of LGBTQ+ members calls for more confidence than I think we currently have on the topic.

Your points are very important things to consider and should not be just stuffed off as being unimportant.  It is pretty noteworthy that there is not a single scripture in the Book of Mormon, D&C, or Pearl of Great Price that says anything about condemning LGBT issues.  These three books are the foundation of the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  So at the very least, there is absolutely ZERO scriptural condemnation in modern scriptures that are fundamental to the restoration.  

Can you, @ZealouslyStriving actually guarantee that current Church leaders beliefs are not based on their own prejudices?  If you can, please site where that foundational belief comes from.

8 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Everyone has to set aside some weakness/struggle/temptation/desire in order to qualify for all the blessings of the Eternal Gospel.

The LGBTQ++++++ community is not unique in this.

Seriously?  Would you be willing to set aside the possibility of ever marrying and having a family just because Church leaders WITHOUT ANY REVELATION tells you it is wrong to fall in love with the opposite sex?  In fact, never go on a date, never kiss, never even hold hands with someone you were in love with?  All based on just the opinions of Church leaders who are men "products of their own time"?  Do you trust Church leaders so completely that you are sure they are right about this issue when they have. been wrong before on issues that were similar in the past?  

Tell me given their track record why you would trust Church leaders so completely when they have been so wrong before on who should and not should receive the priesthood and get married in the temple.  Do you even comprehend how messed up your life would be if they were wrong once again?  Loving someone and wanting to share your life with them in a marriage is not a weakness, it is fundamental to building a strong family.

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

They were expelled for apostasy.

who is they that you are referring to?  The Church?

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'm not going to justify your twisting of my words with any further response. Those with an actual sincere interest in a real discussion understand what I was actually saying and the point I was making.

But by all means continue to appeal to emotion.

But it is a very emotional issue.  When a parent has a child that they love and want to have a happy and productive life be denied the very human and. core need to spend this life with someone they love and what to share that life with denied the priesthood and the blessings of temple marriage, how can that not be an emotional issue.  When you take out emotions from this equation, then what do you have left?  Some pious belief that they are not like the rest of us, so they don't have the same needs as you do?  A companion, a partner, a family?  You don't find the need to consider the emotional impact of that?

47 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

If by inclusion you mean having the Church condone and perform homosexual marriages- you are correct.

If by inclusion you meaning forming loving friendships and encouraging in the covenant path our Heavenly Parents have laid out- you couldn't be more wrong.

In case you haven't researched it- it is the churches that have made "inclusion" their highest priory that are bleeding members- while those holding to traditional values are still fairing well

BTW, the Church's conversion numbers are climbing again, with significant gains in Africa and Latin America- or is it only the white numbers that count?

Would you say that the Church made "inclusion" a high priority when leaders refused to let black members have the priesthood and temple blessings?

2 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I believe this topic of support and equality of LGBTQ members will require a significant change by the church or the church will continue to lose significant member numbers and will cease to exist. This issue is very similar to the church denying those of African descent to have full blessings and participation in the church. 
Imagine where the church would be today had it not reversed that ban in 1978. I think the church would have died or would be a shadow of what it is today. If the church chooses to continue its current path with LGBTQ members/people, the church will possibly go extinct. 

Just like denying blacks the blessings of the priesthood and temple marriage without ANY revelation from God, we have the exact same situation with denying those who are in monogamy centered same sex marriages are denied the exact same blessings.

History repeats itself.  Not the first time in Church history this has happened.  Some day an apostle will be saying "forget everything you have heard a bout gay marriage".  Until then, more and more families and their gay children will leave a Church that does not allow their own children fulll participation when they find that special person they want to spend their lives with.  

Sad.

7 minutes ago, telnetd said:

I don't believe man can overthrow Christ's church.

  Evidently according to InCognitus, man can overthrow Christ's Church and has on several occasions.

On 3/20/2025 at 9:54 PM, InCognitus said:

Actually, that was my question to you.  Where in the world and what other period of time could God have set up his church to send missionaries to all the world, build temples, and be the headquarters of a world wide church?  Where could that have happened between 90 AD and 1830 and have it be preserved with same organization and teachings he intended up to the present time?  It’s an honest question. 

But all the examples you provided above are from when God was recovering His people and when they were trusting in direction from Him rather than following after their own whims. 

And your example of the Israelites fits your question perfectly, because it provides us some very good examples for comparison.  God called Moses as a prophet to gather the house of Israel after they had been in bondage for over 400 years. Why the 400 years?  Why not sooner?  And Moses led them out of bondage and to Mount Sinai (essentially the temple) where God gave them a covenant, a covenant that they promptly broke, resulting in God giving them a lesser covenant more fitting to their circumstances.  God led them into their promised land and also promised them great blessings if they would keep their covenant, but he also told them they would be scattered among the nations if they broke their covenants. 

And I think you know what happened to them a few hundred years after that:  The ten northern tribes became rebellious and were scattered among the nations, and then (another few hundred years later) the remaining tribes rejected Jesus as the Messiah and they were scattered among the nations.

In Luke chapter 21, when the disciples asked Jesus about the timing of the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, Jesus prophesied of the destruction of the temple and of the scattering of the Jews and even foretold how long it would last: 

“And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.  Then let them which are in Judæa flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.  For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.  But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.  And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”  (Luke 21:20–24)

So according to Jesus, all of the Israelites would be scattered and Jerusalem would be “trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

How long has Jerusalem been trodden down by the Gentiles?  The Jewish Virtual Library website has a timeline that summarizes the history quite well:  History of Jerusalem: Timeline for the History of Jerusalem

The timeline shows that during the “Roman Period (70 – 324 CE)” that Roman forces destroyed Jerusalem and demolished the second temple in 70 CE.  And it’s not until the bottom of the summary in the “Reunification (1967-Present)” section that it says Israel captured Jerusalem’s Old City and the Eastern half and reunites the city in 1967.

From 70 AD to 1967, that’s a total of 1,897 years from the time Jerusalem was destroyed and “trodden down by the Gentiles” until it was reoccupied in 1967.  And add to that another 700+ years for the time the northern tribes of Israel were scattered among the nations. That's a very long time.  And (as Jesus prophesied) Israel would remain in that scattered state at least until Jerusalem was no longer trodden down by the Gentiles.  And Israel is being gathered again now as part of the restoration.

Now, you gave examples of God protecting his people.  But how do you explain the prophecy of Luke 21:20-24 and the roughly 1,897 years that Israel would be in apostasy and scattered among the nations before God would begin to restore them again?

I see this as a direct parallel to the roughly 1,700-year period of apostasy of Christ’s church that we have been discussing. 

So why would God leave Christ's church and the house of Israel in this fallen state for such a long period of time?  I believe it's because of the reasons I gave you before, the overall plan of salvation includes the preaching the gospel to the dead and provides a way to recover all of those individuals in all periods of time.  God looks at the big picture, and judges each individual according to the light and truth they are given in whatever period of time they live in.

Your question above hits to the very heart of the survival problem and also at the very cause of the “captivity” that prevented freedom of belief and the pursuit of truth, because it was the same controlling governmental forces that persecuted Christianity that later adopted it as a means of perpetuating their power and control over the people. 

In 325 AD at the first Nicene Council, the Roman emperor Constantine was the one who insisted that a specific word be inserted into the creed that later redefined the oneness of God, as a way of supposedly unifying Christianity (the word is now the core of the doctrine of the Trinity, it is the word (homoousious) that defines the three persons as one substance or one being). 

And then on November 27, 380 AD, Theodosius I (the Roman emperor from 379 to 395), Gratian (the emperor of the Western Roman Empire from 367 to 383) and Valentinian II (the Roman emperor in the western part of the Roman Empire between AD 375 and 392), published the "Edict of Thessalonica", whereby they ordered that all their subjects should profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, threatening both divine punishment and imperial retribution for those who rejected the Nicene creed. 

So, the “true faith” became a matter for the state, and those who opposed it were executed.  That’s how they survived.

Right, in the beginning and in dire times.  And that’s how it worked in early Christianity and in the early days of the restoration.  But how could that be perpetuated throughout the world in the environment I described immediately above?

I see where you are coming from. But you are not able to show that the ENTIRE world would not allow for the Church to exist.  There are places in the world now that the Church can not exist.  China for example.  Even during the Egyptian captivity, even though it was suppressed, it still managed to survive.  I have a hard time believing that if God wanted the Church to provide, there would have been places that could have supported that Church.  What you describe seems like a pretty flawed plan.  Or the only other conclusion to be drawn is as you seem to believe, that it is not really necessary or even important to have the Church during one's lifetime.

 I guess that is good news for me.  I certainly feel like the Church is not something I can have in my life while here on earth.  

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Huh? Of course it was, in order to fulfill a necessary Eternal Law that informed the Plan of Exaltation.

I am trying to understand what your beliefs are.  Are you saying that God instituted baptism, but has no control over how it is done?

9 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I think @california boy's lack of understanding comes from assigning false creedal concepts of God's omnipotence to the true Latter-day Saint system- thus he is asking "Why couldn't God just do it this way?"

Well, because there exists eternal law that our Heavenly Parents could not violate when crafting the Plan of Exaltation and apparently one of those Laws makes it so that baptism must be performed by persons in a mortal state. They can't just snap their fingers and make it different- they are constrained to obey.

 

So baptism was not something instituted by God?

9 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I think "not needed" is a mischaracterization.  But how could the church be maintained during that period of time?  How or where would they do temple work or build temples?  How could it continue to exist given the environment that led to the apostasy to begin with? 

Are you suggesting that there was no place on earth for almost 2,000 years where it would be impossible for the Church to exist?? 

When you read about the great lengths God has protected His people in the past, like in leading the Israelites out of bondage from Egypt, I find that hard to believe.  Is it your position that God would do nothing to protect His people?  Because there are many stories where God stepped in to safeguard His people. Think of Joshua for example blowing horns to cause the walls to come down.  Or the story of David and Goliath, or Gideon.

And then there is the Catholic Church that managed to survive in the face of a lot of persecution and conflict.  How were they able to do that?  

As far as temple ordinances, we know that they don't have to be performed in an actual temple if they were unavailable.

11 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Because, according to whatever laws govern the Plan of Exaltation, baptisms must be performed in the mortal dimension.

 

So no one knows any logical or spriritual reason for this law??  That is interesting.

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

In their foreknowledge our Heavenly Parents understood that the vast majority of their children would be saved through vicarious work done for them. Ponder this interesting verse from Doctrine and Covenants 128:12

  "Herein is glory and honor, and immortality and eternal life—The ordinance of baptism by water, to be immersed therein in order to answer to the likeness of the dead, that one principle might accord with the other; to be immersed in the water and come forth out of the water is in the likeness of the resurrection of the dead in coming forth out of their graves; hence, this ordinance [baptism] was instituted to form a relationship with the ordinance of baptism for the dead, being in likeness of the dead."

** So, to answer your question about what important work this small group of people is doing:

The work for the dead in the Houses of the Lord. **

Would you mind explaining to me why a very important part of that plan requires a physical baptism at all and why it has to be done on earth?  Is there no water in heaven? And if baptism is so important, why can't baptisms take place after the resurrection in heaven?  Why require it to be an earthly ordinance knowing that billions of the children of God would not even have the chance to be baptized while on earth.  

6 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I missed this part of your post somehow (it wasn't intentional, I must have been in a hurry)...

As I implied above, it isn't important to God's plan that every person have every detail about his teachings made available to them all at once in every period of time.  God gives mankind what they can handle according to their circumstances at the time, and the circumstances of those people's lives in that day and age weren't very accommodating to being open to further truths.  The truths that they had during the time of the apostasy were sufficient to bring many sincere people to Christ and spread some of the Christian teachings throughout the world in preparation for further teachings that would come later on.  But at the same time there were those who took advantage of the circumstances to put forth false doctrines to confine and control the people.

And yes, there have always been people who sincerely would seek God wanting to know his will, and I believe God directed many people in that way during the period of the apostasy, but it just was not the time and place for a full restoration, that had to come later on when the environment was right.

And again, "allowing His Church to be completely wiped off the face of the earth for 1700 years" doesn't really eliminate the options for the people during that period of time given the preaching of the gospel to those in the spirit world and the temple work that is going for those people now and throughout the Millennium.  It isn't a problem to God's plan and the individual agency of those people given the big picture.

For me. this still doesn't explain why the Church was not needed for almost 2,000 years.  It seems like during that time, many could have benefited from having the Church on earth.  Even if some were not ready for it, I believe there has always been those who would have accepted the Gospel.

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, the Church exists even to bless the numbers against it, and I refute that there are "overwhelming numbers" against it. I took your original comment to refer to the overwhelming numbers that lived on earth without a dispensation of the Gospel and the organization(s) associated with each dispensation, which there are. So, "against" it seems a bit harsh as opposed to "without," "unaware," or otherwise lacking knowledge of or access to the kingdom of heaven on earth due to sheer circumstance. I'm not addressing how unpopular the Church is in your mind.

Why are you still trying to make sense of what you were taught as a child? What did it have to do with your claim that 99.98% of very sensical people are "against" it?

A relatively small group of people are enjoying the Church that God has provided. These will realize that eventual connection between the kingdoms in heaven and on earth. A lot is being done on the other side of the veil as well, so there are probably much, much larger group than meets the eye. The notion that God blesses all His children without inviting or organizing them into His way of life, which involves organization (i.e. a church), doesn't make sense.

Perhaps a review of what constitutes His way of life is in order, and I recommend connecting up with the Church to do that.

Against the Church is probably the wrong word.  I mean 99.98% of the world is not a part of the Church.  

What kind of work are you referring to that is happening on the other side of the veil? Are you talking about teaching people in spiritual prison?  That still doesn't explain why God took His Church on the earth for nearly 2,000 years.  Or why it is important to be a member of such a small group while here on earth when 99.8% of the teaching happens after death.