What If Abinadi Lived Today

Perhaps the most repeated defense for the Prophets and leaders of the LDS Church, and why members or non-members (mostly ex-members) cannot or should not criticize the Prophet or other Church leaders, is that these men have the Authority to speak for God. To so many active and devoted members of the Church their authority seems like an impenetrable defense, unfortunately for them however, it is actually a very weak scriptural defense, one that is contradicted regularly in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. There are multiple accounts in both scriptural records proving that a Prophet's Authority is not enough to protect a Prophet from being rebuked over his own wrongdoing. Anyone who desires to protect the Prophets and Apostles will need to prove the defense of their leaders by other means after these examples are published and explained.

Abinadi's story is well known to Mormons, as is the painting of his trial before the Wicked King Noah, but perhaps the details of his situation are not so clearly understood.

Consensus vs Dissension

We regularly hear in the Church the idea that Consensus between the Brethren (Prophets and Apostles) is an indication of Truth. If they are united on a principle it is more likely to be appropriate and doctrinally true, or at least that we are told. We've also been told frequently (as was reiterated in Elder Rasband's talk this past General Conference) that it is acceptable to have questions but never to be "questioning" the Brethren. We are taught to sustain and unite with the Brethren in word and in deed. In essence we are told to be in Consensus with the Brethren of the Church at all times.

But is Consensus all that it is cracked up to be? Is Consensus always considered a good thing? President Monson openly acknowledges that it is not always for the best to be in Consensus and that sometimes Dissension is necessary and right.

So sometimes Consensus is right and sometimes Dissension is right.

Elder Bednar - No Gays in the Church

To be honest, when I first heard Elder Bednar say there were no homosexuals in the Church my reaction was: because anyone who is left is likely trying very hard to pretend they're straight so that they don't get bullied or kicked out, or even more importantly, so that they are allowed into heaven.

There are fewer and fewer gays who find the strength to keep attending and stay active, I stopped going months ago and many of the gays I knew nationwide (who were active) have also gone inactive since I left.

Soon Elder Bednar's words will actually be true, and in part I believe that that's how the Apostles want it. I honestly do believe that they don't want gays or anyone else who challenges their sense of perfection in the Church and I honestly believe it's because we are viewed as impure, unholy or simply "not good enough". I may be wrong but the Apostles haven't done anything to suggest that I am.

This is in both English and Spanish. Elder Bednar's rhetoric is so confusing and makes absolutely no sense to me. Also, if you're going to claim that there are no homosexual members of the Church then you have to also claim that there are no heterosexual members of the Church. At which point you have to acknowledge that your entire premise of sexuality and gender being integral to Salvation and eternity is flawed and non-existent.

The Proclamation on the Family made it very clear that gender and sexual identity are of eternal importance to the Plan of Salvation. So that alone makes the argument of a society without defined identities counterproductive to God's plan.

Also if we did have such a definition-less society there would be no point in making any distinction between heterosexual marriage and gay marriage which would effectively make gay marriage appropriate in God's eyes despite the Church's constant insistence on the opposite. Gay marriage would become, to the Church, the simple union of two loving children of God. Much like how it is already perceived by the so called Apostates of the Church.

Preguntas y Respuestas con élder David A. Bednar, del Cuórum de los Doce, 23 de febrero de 2016¿Cómo pueden hacer los miembros homosexuales de la Iglesia para vivir y seguir firmes en el Evangelio?
Posted by Biblioteca SUD on Sunday, February 28, 2016

Labeled by Sin or Name

I think a lot of people need to remember this when talking to others. Too often I hear members of the Church (and other churches) refer to people by whether or not they drink, smoke, are gay, looked at porn, had premarital sex etc. and continue to refer to that person by their sin for years. Just because we try to follow Christ does not mean that the Devil still can't use our mouths to do harm. 

Mormons for Trump?

Anyone who personally knows me will know that I have absolutely no respect for Donald Trump as a person or as a Presidential candidate, I've been quite clear on my views regarding his lack of qualifications and unsafe social/political positions. However, at this point I'm not going to go on a tirade about Trump himself or his views/policies. Instead I want to touch on a few basic realities about Mr. Trump and primarily focus on how terrified I am that Mormons, even "high ranking" leaders (including retired ones) are actually supporting him in his candidacy.

Donald Trump has proven himself to be racist, on multiple occasions and in multiple ways. Most recently he discussed torture tactics and promoted a (false) mass murder story of Americans butchering Muslims and claimed that that was the direction America needed to go in. Click HERE for CNN story. He's also promoted plans to forcibly identify Muslims in the U.S. (very similarly to how Jews etc. were treated in Nazi Germany) and bar immigration to an entire ethnic and religious group of people worldwide. All of this is in addition to other statements made against Blacks and Hispanics.

President Hinckley, one of the longest serving Presidents and Prophets of the LDS Church made his views on racism perfectly and crystal clear:

Are Mormons at War?

It may not be obvious to everyone but what you say and how you say it does and will affect the behavior of those who listen to you. Regardless of your intentions, your words have the power to inspire good behavior or extremely inappropriate actions. My purpose in this article is show that the LDS Church has repeatedly encouraged hostility against LGBT individuals worldwide, despite some official statements denouncing bullying and the like.

NOTE: In this post I am not contesting the Mormon position on sin. I do not believe that homosexuality is a sin but I recognize that at this time that is not the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Instead my focus is literally that hostile quotes frequently circulated in the Church inspire and encourage, as well justify, various forms of bullying among the LDS people.

I imagine a lot of people will ask me why the opinions the Church or its members would or should hold any weight to me after all the horrible pain they've caused me over the years. If you want some clarification on that bad blood and history feel free to read one of my previous articles The Church and I. As for the question itself, I'll counter with a question. Let's say you had an abusive parent or sibling, yet you still found place in your heart to have love for them (they're family); would you care about their perception of you? For some, the answer is undoubtedly "no", but we can see examples of a resounding "yes" all around us. The Church has meant everything to me for my entire life and their opinion still has the power to hurt or uplift me to some degree. Mind you, I do not consider the opinion of the Church to be always be the same as the opinion of God; if they were always the same there would be no need for future revelation on any subject. Nevertheless, the Church has its pull on me spiritually.

Mormonism 101

So I'm thinking that somebody, somewhere, somewhen (yes I know that isn't a word), might find my blog even though they aren't actually Mormon and I'm thinking that they might not know a lot about what the Church is and whatnot. I understand that there is a lot of mixed information out there from different sources and so I thought that this might be a good place to just go over a few basics; how the Church got started, what it claims to be, what certain terms mean, what the organizational structure looks like etc.

I know I've written a lot of really long posts lately so I'll do my best to keep this short and sweet!

Dear Sister Nelson

 Dear Sister Nelson,

I would kindly ask you to refrain from spreading false doctrines in your official speaking assignments. No one can completely condemn you just for your sincere (though incorrect and non-doctrinal) beliefs but you are not safe from scrutiny and condemnation when you teach those falsehoods publicly.

Now, you might very well become defensive and upset at hearing a statement like this and that is understandable. Nevertheless it is much more polite than what most members of the Church (and leaders) have said to members of the LGBT community and to persons who are friendly to our community, even recently. Still, it is true that you said things that are not doctrine and are in fact not accepted by the First Presidency. I am not simply stating my own opinion of your words but I intend to prove by the words of the First Presidency and various Apostles the truth of my own claims.

The Human Construct of Homosexual Sin

It's common knowledge in Christianity and various other religions that homosexuality, or in some cases homosexual behavior, is a sin against God. Normally I've heard people claim that the Bible says it is a sin or in my case as a Mormon I often hear that both the scriptures and the Prophets have said it is a sin. I want to examine those claims more closely in order to show that homosexuality is not a sin and that a legitimate homosexual relationship is also not sinful. Furthermore I intend to show that all claims to the contrary are human constructs or as we say in the Church: the wisdom of man. I do not believe that God is the author of the perceptions against LGBT persons world wide. The God I worship will not condemn a soul for being born gay, or transgender etc. because to do so would make God a "respecter of persons" which He is not.

Everything in this article comes from a Mormon perspective, so I can understand how people from other faiths may easily dismiss certain arguments that I will make here. There are certain teachings among Mormons in regards to homosexuality that are unique to our religion. To anyone else from any other faith who might read this I would ask that you look at the methods I use to break down the verses of the Bible that I quote and ask yourself if these same methods can be applied to better understand your own religious teachings, whatever they may be. If a Biblical verse appears to imply a condemnation against homosexuality but when dissected and examined in detail that verse no longer carries that meaning then we can assume that the verse had been misread or misinterpreted in the past. I tend to quantify the individual phrases, words and questions in all verses that I read, I take down definitions, wordings from alternative languages, and cross reference similar wordings between verses across the Bible or other scriptures. I invite anyone to do the same with their own religious records and quantify the particular and powerful meanings of what you believe. You might be surprised to find many things different than you were told or than you had previously assumed. God is just and righteous in all His forms.