"the Faithful Won't Yield On Religious Liberty"

[Storm Rider]

Cal, I think you have a point that is worthwhile to focus on; it is righteousness/holiness that we should strive after and teach.  The sins of individuals are all those things that detract us from following Christ.  Some of us have gross sins while others have minor sins to work on; the point is that we are all sinners. 

 

I would challenge you and others to take the focus off of SSA in all its forms from this board.  It should be a non-topic because it is only one of a myriad of sins that stunt our growth in Christ to our Father in Heaven.  There is nothing left to say about it; let us treat one another as we want to be treated and move on. 

 

I don't think there is any value in attempting to accuse others of creating a scapegoat or any of the other things; they are all peripheral issues that have nothing to do with where our focus needs to be.

[mormonnewb]

I think the Church does an admirable job standing against the world.

What the Church does a less admirable job against is standing against its own membership.

When a majority of members push hard enough for a change, that's when the change happens.

 

That was the real reason for OD1, changes to the garments, ordinances, covenants, practices, and doctrines.

Pressure from within is what we really can't stand.

 

Was the reason for OD1 really that the saints had gotten to the point where they were fed up with polygamy?  That doesn't seem to be the case from reading the excerpts from Pres. Woodruff's addresses after release of the manifesto.

 

In justifying OD1, he points exclusively to what OUTSIDERS (i.e., the US government) would do to the Church if they didn't change course.  It seems, from my (largely uninformed) reading, that he is desperately trying to convince the saints that they should not bolt from the Church.  He even gives the proverbial "If I'm lying, may God strike me dead" guaranty.  You don't do that if the vast majority of your audience agrees with you.  If the vast majority of saints couldn't wait to be freed of the burden of polygamy, OD1 would read a lot more like OD2.  In OD2, there is no declaration that the Lord will not allow the Church to be led astray.  I suspect that's because most members were on board with OD2 and for many, it truly was that "long-promised day" (when people would stop boycotting BYU sporting events).

 

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that change ALWAYS come from without.  I believe that the "I can't tell who is black" problem in Brazil was a major factor in the 1978 revelation.  But I would suggest that outside pressure affects the Brethren as well and that it's just as likely than not that the "squeeze" that brings about OD3 & OD4 will come from the outside.  Because if this week's events in Indiana and Arkansas demonstrate anything, it is that my gay and lesbian "peeps" know just WHERE to push.

[CV75]

But I stand by my point.  The Church will NEVER bow to the world on an issue like SSM.

I agree with this, of course.

 

However, we have an entire generation of kids being raised in a society where they are taught in school and society at large that SSM is ok, that discriminating against homosexuals is just a horrible thing to do, and that we should support them in their fight for equality.  63% of the US support SSM, and its growing.

***

So it's not an issue of the Church withstanding the world, it's an issue of the Church not wanting itself to fall apart.

I think the Book of Mormon, which to my read emphasizes the testimony of the cause of liberty, primarily for the free exercise of conscience and religion, second only to the emphasis on the testimony of Jesus Christ and His Gospel. Every generation needs to read and understand these two precepts and act upon them with the power the Lord will give them (it is the keystone of our religion after all). The Lord can but would rather not His work alone (2 Nephi 27:20-26; D&C 88:73).

***

How and when the Church will be preserved is in the Lord's hands, even in OD1 which deals with the "fall apart" problem. It is His decision, not the Church's.

 

When the percentage reaches high enough the change will occur.

 

It's happened before.

I have a different opinion. Neither the process nor the outcome for the examples you gave ever “happened before," as they were not results of the political processes we see carried out by those demanding ordination and marriage (essentially they are not operating within the Lord's councils). I think teh servants of the Lord will continue to preach invitation to Christ and repentance of obstacles to doin that, including on these two issues.

[rockpond]

So you have always been at odds with the Church of Jesus Christ on this subject then?

Back in 2000 I was out knocking doors in my California ward to encourage support of the original DOMA bill (the one that was later overturned making gay marriage legal in that state prior to Prop 8 ).

But shortly after, experiences in my calling led me to prayer, study, and pondering. My change in beliefs came from some overwhelming spiritual experiences that flowed from those efforts.

The "somebody" that got to me was the Holy Spirit. So in that sense I suppose you are correct but I didn't think that's what you meant, was it?

Edited April 3, 2015 by rockpond

[CV75]

Cal, I think you have a point that is worthwhile to focus on; it is righteousness/holiness that we should strive after and teach.  The sins of individuals are all those things that detract us from following Christ.  Some of us have gross sins while others have minor sins to work on; the point is that we are all sinners. 

 

I would challenge you and others to take the focus off of SSA in all its forms from this board.  It should be a non-topic because it is only one of a myriad of sins that stunt our growth in Christ to our Father in Heaven.  There is nothing left to say about it; let us treat one another as we want to be treated and move on. 

 

I don't think there is any value in attempting to accuse others of creating a scapegoat or any of the other things; they are all peripheral issues that have nothing to do with where our focus needs to be.

I think we need to adress those particular sins which have become popular and sanctioned by society straight on. The Book or Mormon focused a lot on the sins of Anti-Christ and secret combinations because that was the issues of those times and places and are suppsoed to be the key issues in the world of the Restoration / dispensation of the fulnes of times. This is another reason to read the Book of Mormon as I mentioned in a post above about religious freedom, the antithesis of Anti-Christ and secret combinations. Whatever the issue that is being used to undermine religious freedom needs to be addressed head-on, and it will be seen that such an issue involves elements of "Anti-Christ" and "power and gain." Reading the Book of Mormon with real intent will help us recognize popular sins that undermine religious freedom personal and general).

 

I think the Church's support of the compromsie legislation in Utah is an example of recognizing those precise elements of the social norm that is not about "Anti-Christ" and "power and gain" and how not to abuse relgious freedom.

[rockpond]

Standing against the world and keeping a pulse on the practical needs of the membership in decisions supporting the optimal and faithful exercise of the restored keys are part of the same thing: the Lord’s leadership through inspired councils.

The leaders themselves are part of the "within/among" because the kingdom of God is already come unto us all (Luke 17:21 and footnotes). But He runs His kingdom a certain way, suitable for His purposes and for the work to get done on His timetable. Being sensitive to the needs of the ministered without perverting the covenants of exaltation is a balance only the Lord can acheive, and in this Church that is exactly what He directs (you left out OD2 and women praying in conference!). Including the stance the Church takes on the topic of religious freedom and liberty.

Amen.

[Scott Lloyd]

Back in 2000 I was out knocking doors in my California ward to encourage support of the original DOMA bill (the one that was later overturned making gay marriage legal in that state prior to Prop 8 ).

But shortly after, experiences in my calling led me to prayer, study, and pondering. My change in beliefs came from some overwhelming spiritual experiences that flowed from those efforts.

The "somebody" that got to me was the Holy Spirit. So in that sense I suppose you are correct but I didn't think that's what you meant, was it?

No.

 

And in all honesty, I can't accept that the Holy Spirit would move someone to promote the redefinition of marriage.

 

Sorry.

 

Having greater compassion for and a desire to reach out in kindness and Christlike love to those beset with this condition -- that much I can get on board with.

 

But what you have described here is a bridge too far.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[carbon dioxide]

However, we have an entire generation of kids being raised in a society where they are taught in school and society at large that SSM is ok, that discriminating against homosexuals is just a horrible thing to do, and that we should support them in their fight for equality.  63% of the US support SSM, and its growing.

 

People like Rockpond are currently the miniscule minority in the Church.  However, when we reach the point the 3/4 of the membership strongly support SSM up to and including in the Church, that is when the leaders will change.  Every bishop, stake president, and even some GA's in 30-40 years WILL believe that SSM is completely ok and belongs in the Church.  That's my estimate.

So it's not an issue of the Church withstanding the world, it's an issue of the Church not wanting itself to fall apart.

 

But long before we see SSM in the Church we will see women being ordained.  As the percentage of members who support ordaining women grows and more and more women choose to leave over it the Church leadership will have no choice.

It won't be the protesters, the reporters, the feminists, the equal rights people etc.  It will be the everyday member that thinks the Church is in error, sexist, and is willing to leave because of it.  When the percentage reaches high enough the change will occur.

 

90% of LDS women do not want ordination.  84% of men do not want ordination.  The Church will always have a choice.  Does it water down doctrine to appease or retain members?  If the LDS Church is what it claims to be, it really does not matter what members wants.  It does not matter how many members leave.  If 90% of the members leave over gay marriage and woman ordination, that is a small price to pay than turning itself into a complete joke of  deciding right and wrong based on what direction the wind blows.  The Church will implode if it gives in to the standards of the world.  And if it chooses to do so, it deserves to self destruct. It will not happen in my lifetime but if this does happen,  I just hope if my kids are around they will leave the Church and find and break off sect that loves truth more than popularity.

 

Keep in mind as well that the acceptance of SSM may be growing in the US and Europe but in other places like Africa that is not the case.  So the Church would have a great problem accepting SSM because it in many places in the world, the membership will still reject SSM even if American LDS was to accept it.  It might become important for LDS to leave the US to join the body of the more righteous saints in other lands that will not compromise on this.  I can promise you that the the Church accepts SSM, it will tear apart the Church like a black hole tears apart a star that gets to close to it. 

Edited April 3, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[rockpond]

No.

 

And in all honesty, I can't accept that the Holy Spirit would move someone to promote the redefinition of marriage.

 

Sorry.

 

Having greater compassion for and a desire to reach out in kindness and Christlike love to those beset with this condition -- that much I can get on board with.

 

But what you have described here is a bridge too far.

No apology needed... my spiritual experiences do not apply to you. Likewise, the promptings of the Spirit to me don't require your approval. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

I'm grateful that you are on board with extending greater compassion, kindness, and love to our homosexual brothers and sisters.

[california boy]

Cal, I think you have a point that is worthwhile to focus on; it is righteousness/holiness that we should strive after and teach.  The sins of individuals are all those things that detract us from following Christ.  Some of us have gross sins while others have minor sins to work on; the point is that we are all sinners. 

 

I would challenge you and others to take the focus off of SSA in all its forms from this board.  It should be a non-topic because it is only one of a myriad of sins that stunt our growth in Christ to our Father in Heaven.  There is nothing left to say about it; let us treat one another as we want to be treated and move on. 

 

I don't think there is any value in attempting to accuse others of creating a scapegoat or any of the other things; they are all peripheral issues that have nothing to do with where our focus needs to be.

 

I absolutely agree with your points.  You might note that I have not started a thread on gay marriage for a couple of years.  I have not ONCE suggested that the church SHOULD ever accept gay marriage.  What I have said repeatedly is that I really don't care one way or the other whether the church ever allows gay marriage.  And I have also said that I believe that the law of chastity as I have always been taught is that sex outside of marriage is against the law of chastity.  I also fully acknowledge that the church has the Constitutional right to not allow gay marriage.  

 

I post on this board because I like to hear what members feel about this subject.  Obviously it is an important issue to me because I believe, as the courts have confirmed, that just because you are gay, you still deserve to be treated equally under the laws of this country.  

 

You might also note that while Scott has posted since I pointed out how insignificant gay marriage is, he didn't respond to any of what I said.

 

Some would rather focus on SSM as a scape goat than address what the real problems facing families today.  Now evidently the gays are going to be blamed for the downfall of any church that embraces SSM.  But hey, I guess "the gays" are used to being a scape goat for some members.  It seems to be the christian thing to do these days.

[Bobbieaware]

Nobody "got to me" regarding homosexual behavior.  What an odd statement.

It could be that the "somebody" who succeeds in persuading some church members to believe sexual immorality isn't sinful doesn't actually have a body.

[mormonnewb]

The Church will implode if it gives in to the standards of the world.  And if it chooses to do so, it deserves to self destruct. It will not happen in my lifetime but if this does happen,  I just hope if my kids are around they will leave the Church and find and break off sect that loves truth more than popularity.

 

 

Very prophetic words.  Perhaps, I can aid you in putting them into more prophet-like language.

 

“If we were to do away with our opposition to same-sex marriage, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can’t do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death.”

 

I know these words are prophetic because I took them from an address given by Wilford Woodruff (JOD 13:166).  The only difference is that replaced "our opposition to same-sex marriage" instead of "polygamy."  And, as you know, this is one of DOZENS of quotes of LDS apostles stating that the Church would NEVER give up polygamy; and that if it did, it would spell the end of the Church.  Yet, 125 years after the (official) end of polygamy, the Church is, what, 100 times larger in membership?  Yet, all of those who "loved truth more than popularity" can comfortably fit in one of Mitt Romney's garages and a FEW of their leaders are guilty of the worst behavior in applying the "principle."

 

What's true about life is also true about the Church -- the only thing constant is change.

[JLHPROF]

Does it water down doctrine to appease or retain members?  If the LDS Church is what it claims to be, it really does not matter what members wants.

 

Yes, it does.  Yes, it has.  More than most realise.

 

 

It will not happen in my lifetime but if this does happen,  I just hope if my kids are around they will leave the Church and find and break off sect that loves truth more than popularity.

 

Interesting notion.  Isn't that how the fundamentalists got started?

[california boy]

Very prophetic words.  Perhaps, I can aid you in putting them into more prophet-like language.

 

“If we were to do away with our opposition to same-sex marriage, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can’t do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death.”

 

I know these words are prophetic because I took them from an address given by Wilford Woodruff (JOD 13:166).  The only difference is that replaced "our opposition to same-sex marriage" instead of "polygamy."  And, as you know, this is one of DOZENS of quotes of LDS apostles stating that the Church would NEVER give up polygamy; and that if it did, it would spell the end of the Church.  Yet, 125 years after the (official) end of polygamy, the Church is, what, 100 times larger in membership?  Yet, all of those who "loved truth more than popularity" can comfortably fit in one of Mitt Romney's garages and a FEW of their leaders are guilty of the worst behavior in applying the "principle."

 

What's true about life is also true about the Church -- the only thing constant is change.

 

Your post puts into perspective just how unimportant SSM is.  The church will survive one way or the other.  It is up to God, not man.

[rockpond]

It could be that the "somebody" who succeeds in persuading some church members to believe sexual immorality isn't sinful doesn't actually have a body.

Well, you may have misunderstood my beliefs... I certainly do NOT believe that sexual immorality isn't sinful.

[Bobbieaware]

Well, you may have misunderstood my beliefs... I certainly do NOT believe that sexual immorality isn't sinful.

Excuse me if I sound rather unsophisticated and cliched, but isn't it painfully obvious that the way God designed the "machinery" of male and female bodies is that they are meant to compliment each other in the male/female paradigm of marriage and childbearing found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2? And shouldn't it be equally obvious, especially for LDS church members, that the misuse of male and female bodies in a manner that does not conform to God's clearly stated design is nothing short of a travesty?

I'm fully aware some may find my remarks insensitive, especially in today's rapidly transitioning world, but I cannot for the life of me understand how a believing member of the church can think it's acceptable to God that the sacred "fountains of life," that he created by his most holy will, can somehow be righteously used in a way for which they most definitely were not designed.

Compassion for souls who find themselves caught in the same sex attraction delema is a good thing. But excesses of compassion against the will of God, though superficially appearing to be sweet and kind, are not a good good thing. It seems likely one of the reasons why why the adversary's plan of salvation couldn't work is because it "loved" and "compassioned" the souls of men straight into hell.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[mormonnewb]

never mind.

Edited April 4, 2015 by mormonnewb

[CV75]

The "somebody" that got to me was the Holy Spirit.

This is why such a case for the Chuch changing its stance on these matters fails on a rational basis. And since it canmot be openly proselytized without the spirit of contention, and since those who operate legitimately within the councils of the Church haven't the same unanimous conclusion by the same means, it fails on an “irrational” basis as well.

 

Hence the need to protect religious freedom—oftentimes that which is not rational is certainly worth protecting. Undermining it to gain the advantage runs contrary to everyone’s best interests to believe and practice that which is generally deemed to be good. This is why the recent wave of activism is to create and promote a scripture-based religious belief that supports homosexuality and same-sex marriage (both in the LDS and other churches). It doesn’t matter if people really believe it or not, it makes the case on an irrational level acceptable to the legislative process. But it is not the Lord’s teaching, nor upheld by both the councils and membership of the Church.

 

This is where the conversation seems to switch from protecting people who are served by institutions established by God (government and marriage) to protecting those benefiting from the Restoration who now seek to change their Church as well as government and marriage. The Church will shrink? ooooooh... "For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together." (Mathew 24:28).

Edited April 4, 2015 by CV75

[The Nehor]

Same sex marriage is not the assault on the family it is often made out to be. Sure it might dilute it a little but it marriage is dying it is because heterosexuals are killing it. With divorce rates as high as they are are we going to argue that gays are the ones causing the problem.

 

I don't want to put rose-colored glasses over the past. Some positive changes have increased divorce statistics. Feminism gave women more courage to flee abusive relationships for one.

 

I find myself almost sympathizing with those who think marriage is outmoded. If it were a horse I'd be tempted to shoot it out of mercy. There are good marriages out there but our culture has become grasping, selfish, and desperate. We have so elevated sexual happiness as a kind of idol that to give up a chance on something better is seen as license to break any covenant or agreement. Our lust for self-fulfillment has been perverted to endless experimentation. Lust has become a god worshipped in media everywhere.

 

Blaming homosexuality is a copout. The reason homosexuality can successfully vie for acceptance is that our society is obsessed with sexual fulfillment. Heterosexuals can hardly blame them for seeking unlimited fulfillment without sanction when they preached the doctrine first. It is easier to blame "the gays" rather then look at the real disease. The Same Sex Marriage movement is a symptom, not the cause. There is still time and when the consequences become so severe that they break through the religion of license we have built we might see a societal U-turn and rush the other way......exacerbating problems of the other extreme. I have to admit I kind of prefer the looser standards to the stricter in society. It seems easier to see which side everyone is truly on.

[mormonnewb]

Same sex marriage is not the assault on the family it is often made out to be. Sure it might dilute it a little but it marriage is dying it is because heterosexuals are killing it. With divorce rates as high as they are are we going to argue that gays are the ones causing the problem.

 

I don't want to put rose-colored glasses over the past. Some positive changes have increased divorce statistics. Feminism gave women more courage to flee abusive relationships for one.

 

I find myself almost sympathizing with those who think marriage is outmoded. If it were a horse I'd be tempted to shoot it out of mercy. There are good marriages out there but our culture has become grasping, selfish, and desperate. We have so elevated sexual happiness as a kind of idol that to give up a chance on something better is seen as license to break any covenant or agreement. Our lust for self-fulfillment has been perverted to endless experimentation. Lust has become a god worshipped in media everywhere.

 

Blaming homosexuality is a copout. The reason homosexuality can successfully vie for acceptance is that our society is obsessed with sexual fulfillment. Heterosexuals can hardly blame them for seeking unlimited fulfillment without sanction when they preached the doctrine first. It is easier to blame "the gays" rather then look at the real disease. The Same Sex Marriage movement is a symptom, not the cause. There is still time and when the consequences become so severe that they break through the religion of license we have built we might see a societal U-turn and rush the other way......exacerbating problems of the other extreme. I have to admit I kind of prefer the looser standards to the stricter in society. It seems easier to see which side everyone is truly on.

 

The good news is that I agree with you.  The bad news is that this means the end is nigh.  Actually, I would have given you 3/4 of a rep point for your post (you lost me in the last sentence or two).  However, since that is not an option, and it's almost Easter, you get the full rep point.  But just remember, you owe me a quarter! 

[The Nehor]

The good news is that I agree with you.  The bad news is that this means the end is nigh.  Actually, I would have given you 3/4 of a rep point for your post (you lost me in the last sentence or two).  However, since that is not an option, and it's almost Easter, you get the full rep point.  But just remember, you owe me a quarter! 

 

Better collect it before the world ends. I am not sure if quarters (either financial or rep-wise) will be worth anything in the Millenium.

[california boy]

Same sex marriage is not the assault on the family it is often made out to be. Sure it might dilute it a little but it marriage is dying it is because heterosexuals are killing it. With divorce rates as high as they are are we going to argue that gays are the ones causing the problem.

 

I don't want to put rose-colored glasses over the past. Some positive changes have increased divorce statistics. Feminism gave women more courage to flee abusive relationships for one.

 

I find myself almost sympathizing with those who think marriage is outmoded. If it were a horse I'd be tempted to shoot it out of mercy. There are good marriages out there but our culture has become grasping, selfish, and desperate. We have so elevated sexual happiness as a kind of idol that to give up a chance on something better is seen as license to break any covenant or agreement. Our lust for self-fulfillment has been perverted to endless experimentation. Lust has become a god worshipped in media everywhere.

 

Blaming homosexuality is a copout. The reason homosexuality can successfully vie for acceptance is that our society is obsessed with sexual fulfillment. Heterosexuals can hardly blame them for seeking unlimited fulfillment without sanction when they preached the doctrine first. It is easier to blame "the gays" rather then look at the real disease. The Same Sex Marriage movement is a symptom, not the cause. There is still time and when the consequences become so severe that they break through the religion of license we have built we might see a societal U-turn and rush the other way......exacerbating problems of the other extreme. I have to admit I kind of prefer the looser standards to the stricter in society. It seems easier to see which side everyone is truly on.

 

Wow.  That was brilliiant.  You are right on the mark.

[rockpond]

Excuse me if I sound rather unsophisticated and cliched, but isn't it painfully obvious that the way God designed the "machinery" of male and female bodies is that they are meant to compliment each other in the male/female paradigm of marriage and childbearing found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2? And shouldn't it be equally obvious, especially for LDS church members, that the misuse of male and female bodies in a manner that does not conform to God's clearly stated design is nothing short of a travesty?

I'm fully aware some may find my remarks insensitive, especially in today's rapidly transitioning world, but I cannot for the life of me understand how a believing member of the church can think it's acceptable to God that the sacred "fountains of life," that he created by his most holy will, can somehow be righteously used in a way for which they most definitely were not designed.

Compassion for souls who find themselves caught in the same sex attraction delema is a good thing. But excesses of compassion against the will of God, though superficially appearing to be sweet and kind, are not a good good thing. It seems likely one of the reasons why why the adversary's plan of salvation couldn't work is because it "loved" and "compassioned" the souls of men straight into hell.

I don't want to derail the thread too much so I'll just say this to answer your questions...

No, it is not painfully obvious unless you reduce eternal relationships to nothing more than a single sexual act with a single goal. (There is more than one purpose to human sexual relations.)

For anther perspective, consider it this way...

God designed a small percentage of his children to find love, companionship, and fulfillment only through relationships with their own gender (rather than the opposite gender). Why create them as such and then tell them to be celibate?

[JLHPROF]

No, it is not painfully obvious unless you reduce eternal relationships to nothing more than a single sexual act with a single goal. (There is more than one purpose to human sexual relations.)

 

You know, I know this the popular thing to teach, even some GA's have said it.

But I'd like to know where God said it, where God said that sexual relations main job, the purpose of their existence, was for anything other than multiplying and replenishing the earth.

 

Not denying it has other perks, but as to its actual purpose in being, I think God has only ever taken one position.

[rockpond]

This is why such a case for the Chuch changing its stance on these matters fails on a rational basis. And since it canmot be openly proselytized without the spirit of contention, and since those who operate legitimately within the councils of the Church haven't the same unanimous conclusion by the same means, it fails on an “irrational” basis as well.

Hence the need to protect religious freedom—oftentimes that which is not rational is certainly worth protecting. Undermining it to gain the advantage runs contrary to everyone’s best interests to believe and practice that which is generally deemed to be good. This is why the recent wave of activism is to create and promote a scripture-based religious belief that supports homosexuality and same-sex marriage (both in the LDS and other churches). It doesn’t matter if people really believe it or not, it makes the case on an irrational level acceptable to the legislative process. But it is not the Lord’s teaching, nor upheld by both the councils and membership of the Church.

This is where the conversation seems to switch from protecting people who are served by institutions established by God (government and marriage) to protecting those benefiting from the Restoration who now seek to change their Church as well as government and marriage. The Church will shrink? ooooooh... "For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together." (Mathew 24:28).

That's hilarious. Well done.

In any case, I'm not suggesting that the Church should change its policies regarding homosexuality because if not, it will shrink.

I believe the Church will change because it's the right thing to do.