How much influence did the LDS Church have on California Prop 8?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

My question didn't say anything about SSM.  I wasn't asking what other members think.  Oh well. 

The topic of the thread is SSM. It seemed like a reasonable assumption, sorry. 

 

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Stick around and you'll see. I told you the normalization of gay marriage is only one of the initial steps on the devil's road to destroying the traditional father/mother family (rampant spousal and child abuse, infidelity and divorce also being numbered among those initial steps).  The adversary knows how important the father/mother family is to the Lord's program and so he will not stop in multiplying his perversions and hammering away at the traditional family until it is abolished and Karl Marx's brave new world of "free love" and the 'community of wives' takes its place. Have you not read the admissions of most radical of gay marriage advocates that their true end-goal is the destruction of the traditional family? Remember, "there is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (Proverbs 12:14)"

Should we also judge Mormons or Christians or Republicans by the most radical of viewpoints among them?  I don't believe for a moment that the "destruction of the traditional family" is the end goal of most gay marriage advocates.  I know many gay/straight SSM advocates not a single one wants the destruction of the family.  Remember, traditional families produce the vast majority of LGBT kids.  

How would gay marriage harm the mother/father led family?  Are you suggesting that gay marriage draws in people who would normally enter opposite sex marriages. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

The adversary knows how important the father/mother family is to the Lord's program and so he will not stop in multiplying his perversions and hammering away at the traditional family until it is abolished and Karl Marx's brave new world of "free love" and the 'community of wives' takes its place. Have you not read the admissions of most radical of gay marriage advocates that their true end-goal is the destruction of the traditional family?

Here's another one to add to your list. Until just this week, Roz Ward has been the coordinator of the Safe Schools Coalition headquartered at La Trobe University's Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, and she was largely responsible for getting the centre's Safe Schools Program adopted, first in Victoria and then nationally. The program was sold to government officials, educators and parents as a tool to reduce the bullying of gay, etc. youth -- which is a goal no one could/should argue against.

But then parents started wondering why their kids were coming home from school having been inappropriately sexualised and taught that gender is nothing more than a social construct. This, of course, was the real aim of the curriculum, as Ward herself admitted back in 2014: 'Safe Schools Coalition is about supporting gender and sexual diversity. Not about celebrating diversity. Not about stopping bullying. About gender and sexual diversity' (emphasis added).

What exactly does Ward mean, and what's her goal? Well, she explained that at a Marxism Conference last year: 'Marxism offers the hope and the strategy needed to create a world where human sexuality, gender and how we relate to our bodies can blossom in extraordinarily new and amazing ways that we can only try to imagine today ... Alongside sexism, homophobia and transphobia both serve to break the spirits of ordinary people, to consume our thoughts, to make us accept the status quo and for us to keep living or aspiring to live, or feel like we should live, in small social units and families, where we must reproduce and take responsibility for those people in those units' (emphasis added).

The willingness to use a compassion-generating anti-gay-bullying agenda merely as a cover from which to attack the natural family (and parental responsibility towards children!) has been so obvious that even the former leader of the Labor Party has been willing to call it a 'Trojan horse' designed 'to re-engineer our children’s sexuality and social values', with schools intentionally targeted as 'the frontline of this push'. I think a certain mother got it spot-on when she pointed out that the program is nothing more than institutional 'grooming' -- carefully introducing deviant behaviours to children in order to normalise the former and desensitise the latter.

And of course, as soon as students and parents (and eventually politicians) started to push back, they were all labelled small-minded and hateful bigots who want to deny people their civil rights ... which is the usual response to those who refuse to play the role of 'useful idiots'.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

The PoF isn't a principle at all, it's a statement of belief, so I sincerely don't know how to answer that question.

I can say that the doctrine of the church is that monogamy is the rule, and polygamy the exception.  Also, that polygamy is only acceptable when commanded by God.  Maybe that answers your question.

So the POF is nothing more than a statement that sometimes may be true and sometimes may not be true.  

. What other statements does the church make that may be true sometimes and may not be true other times?  Gay marriage is a sin perhaps?  Children not allowed to be baptized perhaps?  Right now we want to take away the civil rights of gay couples, but maybe later we will allow them to have their civil rights. 

What a shame. No wonder people are leaving.  Not everyone is willing to be a part of these attacks on gay couples

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Here's another one to add to your list. Until just this week, Roz Ward has been the coordinator of the Safe Schools Coalition headquartered at La Trobe University's Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, and she was largely responsible for getting the centre's Safe Schools Program adopted, first in Victoria and then nationally. The program was sold to government officials, educators and parents as a tool to reduce the bullying of gay, etc. youth -- which is a goal no one could/should argue against.

But then parents started wondering why their kids were coming home from school having been inappropriately sexualised and taught that gender is nothing more than a social construct. This, of course, was the real aim of the curriculum, as Ward herself admitted back in 2014: 'Safe Schools Coalition is about supporting gender and sexual diversity. Not about celebrating diversity. Not about stopping bullying. About gender and sexual diversity' (emphasis added).

What exactly does Ward mean, and what's her goal? Well, she explained that at a Marxism Conference last year: 'Marxism offers the hope and the strategy needed to create a world where human sexuality, gender and how we relate to our bodies can blossom in extraordinarily new and amazing ways that we can only try to imagine today ... Alongside sexism, homophobia and transphobia both serve to break the spirits of ordinary people, to consume our thoughts, to make us accept the status quo and for us to keep living or aspiring to live, or feel like we should live, in small social units and families, where we must reproduce and take responsibility for those people in those units' (emphasis added).

The willingness to use a compassion-generating anti-gay-bullying agenda merely as a cover from which to attack the natural family (and parental responsibility towards children!) has been so obvious that even the former leader of the Labor Party has been willing to call it a 'Trojan horse' designed 'to re-engineer our children’s sexuality and social values', with schools intentionally targeted as 'the frontline of this push'. I think a certain mother got it spot-on when she pointed out that the program is nothing more than institutional 'grooming' -- carefully introducing deviant behaviours to children in order to normalise the former and desensitise the latter.

And of course, as soon as students and parents (and eventually politicians) started to push back, they were all labelled small-minded and hateful bigots who want to deny people their civil rights ... which is the usual response to those who refuse to play the role of 'useful idiots'.

Excellent, highly informative post. The thing that causes me to wonder is just how bold and fearless are these advocates for radical societal change. For example, just yesterday I learned that the state of Washington is adopting a statewide program to bring "gender studies" to the classes of five year-old kindergarteners! If these radicals had tried to pull a stunt like this even 5 years ago the proponents of the program would have been widely denounced and and the program rejected. But today, while there is some expression of outrage, the program appears to be moving toward inevitable implementation.

Where does this boldness and courage of the wicked come from? Is it because they are shameless in their own personal lives and that same shamelessness spills over into their work of social engineering? Could it also be that because the institutions of higher learning and the news and popular media are filled to the brim with so many supportive "fellow travelers" that the radicals are getting emboldened to cast all caution and discretion to the wind? Or is it that when one is filled with the spirit of the adversary that a certain kind of bravado comes along with that spirit? There are likely other explanations but one thing is for sure -- it appears word has gotten out for the radicals to move forward full-speed ahead and, for whatever the reason, the 'generals'and the 'troops' seem up to the task. 

Edited June 3, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

Should we also judge Mormons or Christians or Republicans by the most radical of viewpoints among them?  I don't believe for a moment that the "destruction of the traditional family" is the end goal of most gay marriage advocates.  I know many gay/straight SSM advocates not a single one wants the destruction of the family.  Remember, traditional families produce the vast majority of LGBT kids.  

How would gay marriage harm the mother/father led family?  Are you suggesting that gay marriage draws in people who would normally enter opposite sex marriages. 

You're leaving the devil and his multitude of fallen angels out of the equation. If you could see what's actually going on in the spiritual world behind the scenes it's likely you would quickly change your tune and acknowledge the Church leaders have been right all along. Throughout history, it has often been the case that a minority of the most radical "squeaky wheels" got most of the grease. As a primer, read Hamba Tuhan's and my post just above.  And remember, one of the devil's most often used techniques is to transform spiritually deadly things into things that appear good, wholesome and lovely. 

Edited June 3, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Daniel2]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Here's another one to add to your list...

A dozen quotes (including several from 40 year-old sources) don't illustrate that the aim of "a majority" or even "most" of the LGBT movement is "to destroy marriage or the family altogether."  We are not the demonic and untrustworthy enemies these cherry-picked quotes attempt to make us out to be.

You won't find examples of such radicalism from ANY of the largest, most active, and most effective mainstream pro-equality organizations, nor from any grassroots organizations, social media, etc. simply because the majority of those of us who are gay and lesbian really aren't that different from our straight counterparts--we want the freedom to protect, nurture, and safeguard our families and pursue happiness according to the dictates of our conscience, just like everyone else.

As Rockpond said,

Should we also judge Mormons or Christians or Republicans by the most radical of viewpoints among them?  I don't believe for a moment that the "destruction of the traditional family" is the end goal of most gay marriage advocates.  I know many gay/straight SSM advocates not a single one wants the destruction of the family.  Remember, traditional families produce the vast majority of LGBT kids.

[gopher]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't believe for a moment that the "destruction of the traditional family" is the end goal of most gay marriage advocates.

Just as I don't believe for a moment that denying homosexual couples civil rights was/is the end goal of most gay marriage opponents.  But I don't blame either side for wanting to push their most persuasive arguments in making their cases.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Where does this boldness and courage of the wicked come from? Is it because they are shameless in their own personal lives and that same shamelessness spills over into their work of social engineering?

Or maybe they're just bold because their attempts at social engineering are working?

Quote

Bisexuality is booming, with the number of people who bed men and women more than doubling, a study says.

Some 7.7 per cent revealed they had bi romps in 2014, compared to 3.1 per cent in 1990.

...

Study author Professor Jean Twenge, of San Diego State University, said: 'These large shifts in both attitudes and behaviour occurred over just 25 years, suggesting rapid cultural change'.

Twenge said several social and media factors are driving this change, but broadly Americans appear to care less about social norms and more about their own wants.

She added: 'These trends are another piece of evidence that American culture has become more individualistic and more focused on the self and on equality'.

 

Edited June 3, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

53 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

A dozen quotes (including several from 40 year-old sources) don't illustrate that the aim of "a majority" or even "most" of the LGBT movement is "to destroy marriage or the family altogether."

I don't think you were actually responding to me; my quotes were all from the past two years.

Regardless, the exact number of those who understand the intended aims of any social revolution is immaterial. In the case of the Latter-day Saints, it should be enough that God's chosen prophets have, for decades, understood these aims and warned against them -- clearly, emphatically, and repeatedly.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Daniel2]

15 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't think you were actually responding to me; my quotes were all from the past two years.

Regardless, the exact number of those who understand the intended aims of any social revolution is immaterial. In the case of the Latter-day Saints, it should be enough that God's chosen prophets have, for decades, understood these aims and warned against them.

Thanks for the clarifying comment/questioin, Hamba Tuhan.  You're correct--I was responding generally to several posters who have cut and pasted various sources alleging that the "true" aim of the LGBT movement is to destroy marriage and the family. 

When it comes to the duty and obligations of Latter-day Saints to accept/reject the warnings of God's alleged chosen prophets: Each of us is given the ability and agency to decide what teachings to follow; which teachings are "the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture"; and the ability and obligation to ascertain which of today's doctrines may be tomorrow's essays dismissing unsubstantiated "doctrinal theories."  Speaking as a former Latter-day Saint, I always appreciated the scripture in Galatians 5 which admonishes us to "Examine ('Test') all things; hold fast to that which is good."

Edited June 3, 2016 by Daniel2

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Each of us is given the ability and agency to decide what teachings to follow...

Yes, as has been the case since the very beginning, people -- Saints and otherwise -- have the agency to reject the prophets of God.

[Daniel2]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, as has been the case since the very beginning, people -- Saints and otherwise -- have the agency to reject the prophets of God.

Just as people -- Saints and otherwise -- have the agency to reject the self-professed, alleged prophets of God.  As well as discern when said prophets are fallible, as they themselves profess to be.

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

So the POF is nothing more than a statement that sometimes may be true and sometimes may not be true.  

. What other statements does the church make that may be true sometimes and may not be true other times?  Gay marriage is a sin perhaps?  Children not allowed to be baptized perhaps?  Right now we want to take away the civil rights of gay couples, but maybe later we will allow them to have their civil rights. 

What a shame. No wonder people are leaving.  Not everyone is willing to be a part of these attacks on gay couples

I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said it was sometimes true and sometimes not. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

Just as I don't believe for a moment that denying homosexual couples civil rights was/is the end goal of most gay marriage opponents.  But I don't blame either side for wanting to push their most persuasive arguments in making their cases.

That was explicitly the goal of all gay marriage opponents. 

[rockpond]

On 6/2/2016 at 11:25 AM, bluebell said:

Again, i don't believe that a prophet has to be doctrinal infallible in order to not lead the church astray.  Refer to my previous post with the analogy about false things being taught to my kids in school but that that not leading their eduction astray.

JS said that though he never claimed to be perfect, there was no error in the revelations that he taught.  That, in my opinion, is a good example of how a prophet can be fallible while never leading the church astray.

Your response here brings us full circle.  You made this point before, I asked "what would be leading the church astray", you gave examples, I provided an instance that met the parameters of your examples, and then you said that wasn't leading the church astray.

This is where I return to my suggestion that while you may claim the prophets are not doctrinally infallible, when it comes to your own religious practice they are doctrinally infallible.  I don't buy this argument that teaching false doctrine isn't leading the church astray.

[rockpond]

10 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

You're leaving the devil and his multitude of fallen angels out of the equation. If you could see what's actually going on in the spiritual world behind the scenes it's likely you would quickly change your tune and acknowledge the Church leaders have been right all along. Throughout history, it has often been the case that a minority of the most radical "squeaky wheels" got most of the grease. As a primer, read Hamba Tuhan's and my post just above.  And remember, one of the devil's most often used techniques is to transform spiritually deadly things into things that appear good, wholesome and lovely. 

You ignored all of my questions.  If you want to dialogue with me, you'll have to actually make an attempt to answer questions.  I give the same courtesy to you.  If you just want to preach your opinion at me, I'm not interested.

Here was my post that you responded to, if you want to go back and answer the questions:

"Should we also judge Mormons or Christians or Republicans by the most radical of viewpoints among them?  I don't believe for a moment that the "destruction of the traditional family" is the end goal of most gay marriage advocates.  I know many gay/straight SSM advocates not a single one wants the destruction of the family.  Remember, traditional families produce the vast majority of LGBT kids.  

How would gay marriage harm the mother/father led family?  Are you suggesting that gay marriage draws in people who would normally enter opposite sex marriages."

Edited June 3, 2016 by rockpond

[Jeanne]

10 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

You're leaving the devil and his multitude of fallen angels out of the equation. If you could see what's actually going on in the spiritual world behind the scenes it's likely you would quickly change your tune and acknowledge the Church leaders have been right all along. Throughout history, it has often been the case that a minority of the most radical "squeaky wheels" got most of the grease. As a primer, read Hamba Tuhan's and my post just above.  And remember, one of the devil's most often used techniques is to transform spiritually deadly things into things that appear good, wholesome and lovely. 

Bobbieware, what do you see actually going  on in the spiritual world hehind the scenes?

[Bobbieaware]

 

24 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Bobbieware, what do you see actually going  on in the spiritual world hehind the scenes?

What the scriptures and modern prophets testify to be the case: which is the planned diabolical destruction and damnation of the human race. If one believes the scriptures and the living prophets, he doesn't have to possess a superior intellect to figure out what's going on.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

What the scriptures and modern prophets testify to be the case: which is the planned diabolical destruction and damnation of the human race. If one believes the scriptures and the living prophets, he doesn't have to possess a superior intellect to figure out what's going on.

Wow..this sounds wonderful.  I know that i don't know the scriptures of the Bible as well as you do so I can't say anything contrary except I was hoping they were doing other things.

[Bobbieaware]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You ignored all of my questions.  If you want to dialogue with me, you'll have to actually make an attempt to answer questions.  I give the same courtesy to you.  If you just want to preach your opinion at me, I'm not interested.

Here was my post that you responded to, if you want to go back and answer the questions:

"Should we also judge Mormons or Christians or Republicans by the most radical of viewpoints among them?  I don't believe for a moment that the "destruction of the traditional family" is the end goal of most gay marriage advocates.  I know many gay/straight SSM advocates not a single one wants the destruction of the family.  Remember, traditional families produce the vast majority of LGBT kids.  

How would gay marriage harm the mother/father led family?  Are you suggesting that gay marriage draws in people who would normally enter opposite sex marriages."

I was in a rush before work but I thought I did answer your questions. When the most radical among the opposition are the devil and his angels, and the proactive "squeaky wheel" activists who so often seem to get a disproportionate amount of the dirty work done, it doesn't matter that much that there are moderate fellow travelers on the same side. The devil loves the moderates on his side because he is able to use their apparent moderation and goodwill to disguise his real malicious and terribly destructive intent. 

I hope you can see now I was addressing your questions, howbeit laconically.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I was in a rush before work but I thought I did answer your questions. When the most radical among the opposition are the devil and his angels, and the proactive "squeaky wheel" activists who so often seem to get a disproportionate amount of the dirty work done, it doesn't matter that much that there are moderate fellow travelers on the same side. The devil loves the moderates on his side because he is able to use their apparent moderation and goodwill to disguise his real malicious and terribly destructive intent. 

I hope you can see now I was addressing your questions, howbeit laconically.

No, you still didn't answer my questions.  I'll try one more time:

Should we also judge Mormons or Christians or Republicans by the most radical of viewpoints among them?

How would gay marriage harm the mother/father led family?  Are you suggesting that gay marriage draws in people who would normally enter opposite sex marriages?

[bluebell]

58 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Your response here brings us full circle.  You made this point before, I asked "what would be leading the church astray", you gave examples, I provided an instance that met the parameters of your examples, and then you said that wasn't leading the church astray.

This is where I return to my suggestion that while you may claim the prophets are not doctrinally infallible, when it comes to your own religious practice they are doctrinally infallible.  I don't buy this argument that teaching false doctrine isn't leading the church astray.

I sincerely don't remember you giving any examples that matched the parameters. 

Its fine that you and I disagree about this. It doesn't give me any pause and I'm sure it doesn't give you any either. But I do t believe that I'm being inconsistent, which is what it sounds like you are saying. 

[Bobbieaware]

32 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Wow..this sounds wonderful.  I know that i don't know the scriptures of the Bible as well as you do so I can't say anything contrary except I was hoping they were doing other things.

In a way it is wonderful because we are free to choose, and if one knows what the adversary is up to he or she can decide to stay safely on the other side and take part in the foreordained victory that will end with the devil and his followers being cast into the bottomless pit from which there is no escape. 😀

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I sincerely don't remember you giving any examples that matched the parameters. 

Its fine that you and I disagree about this. It doesn't give me any pause and I'm sure it doesn't give you any either. But I do t believe that I'm being inconsistent, which is what it sounds like you are saying. 

I don't believe you are being inconsistent.  I just think that in your actual religious practice, the prophets are doctrinally infallible.