It's not only to get butts in the seats it's to keep butts in the seats. When Christophe G. Giraud-Carrier was told that a queer, drag queen BYU student in a BYU YSA ward was preaching from the pulpit against the apostles and prophet about the church's LGBTQ stance every testimony meeting he said "It's a fine line. We don't want them leaving the church". He also ignored the fact that this young man was also promoting his drag queen events during Elders Quorum meetings. There are also young adults who are active, worthy and living righteously who are being punished. I know a situation where a worthy young adult was held off renewing their temple recommend because they hadn't attended their ward for a few weeks even though they had attended other wards due to different circumstances. Another student had their ecclesiastical endorsement secretly removed for the exact same thing. The hypocrisy is real. We're losing great members due to this.
I had a bishop at BYU-I who told the whole ward that if they missed more than three Sundays in the semester he would pull their ecclesiastical endorsement. I also had a singles ward in AZ where they had two trans people (men pretending to be women) that they let go to Relief Society and use the women's restrooms (they weren't as outspoken as your BYU drag queen though).
I was just listening to Alma 5 today, where Alma repaired the church in Zarahemla. Verse 60 in particular stood out to me: "... the good shepherd doth call after you; and if you will hearken unto his voice he will bring you into his fold, and ye are his sheep; and he commandeth you that ye suffer no ravenous wolf to enter among you, that ye may not be destroyed." I fear we have let a wolf in, who has hijacked our kindness, and we are now being destroyed from the inside out.
Amen. The biggest test today is with the older, orthodox LDS generation who fail to be flexible with continuing revelation and evolved perspectives. The compassion of Pres. Nelson is causing them to stumble. When they find out there are liberal Apostles they go into shock.
Joesph Smith is the wolf in sheeps clothing, dreaming up a once man God and brother of Lucifer Jesus. The true living God will crush all false religions
@@_SeeIt The gender-confusing community is the wolf. I do not blame the people who have been convinced by this deception, but the corruption of the binary of gender is evil. "God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created he them."
The problem I see is that we have changed what REPENTANCE is. To repent means we have a change of mind and mend our ways. Those were the original ideas behind repentance. Now we are baptizing people who, on the contrary, are joining to bring their agenda into the church.
Here's what people don't understand about God. Whatsoever God commands it is right even if its may seen out of place to us at the time. Example. God asking Abraham to go and sacrifice up Isaac for an offering. That is clearly wrong. But God commanded him to do it, and Abraham obeyed. This gay thing, bringing a trans and a former gay activist into the church, could this be God's way to wrench the heartstrings around of those who have become too self-righteous in their own eyes?. Maybe. God could bring changes in the church if he wants to wrench around the heartstrings of the Saints that way to see if under such circumstances will they will continue to choose what God commands or not. Joseph Said that this would turn the Saints faith into glass and shatter it into a million pieces who haven't developed that faith like Abraham and Moses have and this is why they are now crashing out of the Church because they won't accept the changes that God is making in the Church. Because those saints they are holding onto past dead prophets and refuse to accept the changes in the church from the current living prophet. President Russell M. Nelson did say that the Gospel is about Change, not about holding onto past dead prophets. Because president Nelson is the Prophet to help prepare us for the Return of the Lord...
@germanslice God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son is the ultimate test to prove Abraham is willing to be like God. God sacrificed his son. As for the argument that the Gospel is about change. God doesn't change, Jesus doesn't change, and the scriptures are clear on this issue. Go back to the Book of Mormon where the 12 nephite disciples we praying and Christ appears to them, and it's a question about the name of his church and he questions them why they need to even ask and refered them to what was already written. The only times where God appears to change is when people keep prodding for a change and God gives it like with Martin Harris and the lost pages becomes the result. By the way a change in policy is prophesied about in scripture but it won't be a good: "28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" (Romans 1:28)
God has high expectations of us. He also understands us perfectly. Jacob is right, we have a purpose, there is a plan, and only following Jesus Christ can we be saved from death and Hell and achieve our fullest potential. That is the truth. We shape and change ourselves to the truth. We do not shape or change the truth for ourselves.
Dan "data over dogma" McClellan has a habit of negotiating with Biblical text in ways that always seem to conform perfectly with modern leftism. It's difficult to watch him because of how disingenuously he pretends to be objective and to have no agenda other than 'data over dogma'.
I don’t know how the church could be more clear about the doctrine of marriage and gender and anyone holding out hope that the doctrine will change is wasting their time and denying themselves progress along covenant path.
my friend do not lose your faith once you become unclear on issues. The pride and knowingness can knock us right down once we are humbled. We must be able to not know, not be right and truly want the truth even if it disagrees with us. I only mention this because your comment indicates you have chosen not to study church history, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as one is humble. Once scripture and the church are put under rigid scrutiny it is not as we "knew" it was. A new kind of knowing I would like to show you. Know that our anchor is Christ. Know that literalism is never the answer, but the spiritual message behind it is. Know that the HG within you is the highest authority for your knowledge, not the current church leaders (as they will change today and tomorrow...and that is not a problem as they are men). The church is pliable because it is run by men and members are solid one day and weak the next. The spirit within you is the only authority you can trust (and even it wil instruct you different today and tomorrow based on your level of growth). The answer...see the church as your extended family and the HG as your final authority, always. Peace.
@@TheMightyJor If I had a dime every time I heard that I’d be rich. The priesthood ban has precedence in the scriptures and so does polygamy. Show me in the scriptures any time that got has sanctioned marriage between same-sex couples. You won’t be able to find it because it undermines His very plan of salvation. Do you think God gave us a sexual drive so we would not breed? Peopling the earth and bringing spirits into mortality is central to His plan.
@@TheMightyJor My comment indicates that I have chosen not to study church history? I’m not sure how you can come to that conclusion. If you’re referring to the weak argument about polygamy or the priesthood ban see my other comment.
Correct! Leaders have been abundantly clear. We will not become like the rest of the world and cave in to lobbying efforts from LGBTQ. Same sex does not fit into the directive to multiply and replenish the earth. LGBTQ is clearly of the devil. So many Christian denominations have become worldly and the concept that "God made me this way" just as flawed as doctrines such as "original sin".
34:58 at this marker, jacob begins to tie his shoes together so that in a few minutes he can trip over his own feet advocation for celibacy in another religion that is viewed as an abomination by the book of mormon.
Jacob said our doctrine isn't confusing. He's correct. It's not confusing. It's clear. Then, Jacob says it's confusing to watch members act as if it's not clear. I'd say it's frustrating, not confusing, to watch members behave as if the doctrine isn't clear. I'm not confused that some (not all) liberal members wish and advocate for a different policy, etc. I understand what they're doing. And don't agree with them. But I'm not confused. There's nothing confusing about their actions. Their actions are, in fact, aligned with their wishes. Instead, I'm disappointed in their approach.
This is an excellent episode. It brought up things I had not thought about in such a way. Also there is something else that came to mind. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is truly a New Testament Church.
My old believing self would 100% agree with Jacob! People should be taking the gospel more seriously. It still kind of bothers me that members seem so relaxed about stuff. Thanks for the conversation! It was valuable to listen to.
Interesting how Jacob repeatedly states false doctrines creep into the Bible and into church teachings but doesn’t see that the same thing happens now.
Worthy = Ready Worthiness = Readiness Ready to be baptized Ready to take the Sacrament Ready to attend the Temple Ready to increase in Knowledge and Development
Great job pushing back on Jacob about the priesthood and the Levites! He dodged it by saying that Africans aren't mentioned. That's true, but God limited which races could hold the Priesthood, so there's scriptural basis to limit priesthood based on race. Additionally, if it was just cultural, then why did David O. McKay keep praying to the Lord and kept receiving a "no priesthood" answer?
One possibility is... it was cultural. Not everyone in the 12 was ready for it... let alone the majority of the church. Up until 1963, inter-ratial marriage was illegal in Utah. Once the culture changed, the leaders and members were ready to accept.
@@MichaelWalmsleyJr100% possible. It could also be that had blacks been able to have the Priesthood in the early 1900s that the government would have torn the Church down. Who knows. But I don't think that we should assume the reasons why. I like this quote by Dallin H. Oaks: "If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, 'Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,' you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it. … Don’t make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies."
I tend to disagree with Jacob on this topic. My takeaway from my study of the priesthood ban is that the ban was directed by God, but He did not give an outright reason for it. The church has rolled back many of the reasons that had been given for the ban, but not the ban itself. The idea of a ban in and of itself does not contradict the scriptures. The fact that multiple prophets prayed about it and said it would take a revelation to rescind it and that it wasn't the right time show to me that there was divine direction.
More people are denying the church. It seems to me that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon tell us that judgement day is coming for the church and that half will survive.
I guess you did not understand what the prophet Joseph Smith wrote in 1842 , the Articles of Faith when he said “we believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
The biggest question here in my mind is: Do we 1. Accept Christ and thereby denounce the doctrines of the world and the traditions of men? Or 2. Accept the Church as the official representative of Christ's word on this Earth and do whatever the church teaches, even if they align with the traditions of men, putting off all prejudice and judgement in the name of grace, love, tolerance and acceptance? The choices framed this way are a choice between "heresy" or "bigotry" - I wonder if it's Heresy in the eyes of God vs. Bigotry in the eyes of man? Definitely a latter-days conundrum it seems, a separation of wheat and tares perhaps?
The whole point of sex is to create new life, first commandment, go forth and multiply and replenish the earth. It's not something we should do for pleasure if we're not going to be responsible for the new life that we could create. The gospel of Jesus Christ demands change from the natural man or woman to a saint. These people are so engrossed in what they are doing, that they don't believe they have the strength to overcome this weakness. Therefore they want to change the church rather than themselves. In Philippians 4:13 13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. They need to ask for this strength to overcome their weakness. Then all will be well!
The whole purpose of sex within the hierarchy of evolved life is procreation. Animals as they get more complex start introducing perversions to that (hello dolphins and bonobos), until we poor humans inherit concealed ovulation, permanently high male testosterone levels and attendant complications. Societal stability has always been founded on some kind of sexual restraint and artifice. I believe in a God who is way ahead of all this and gave commandments that make sense in light of the numerous scientific discoveries we have been allowed to make so far.
I would push back on the idea that “the whole point of sex is to create new life”. For women going through menopause or a man who becomes sterile is there no point in sex? Is every time my wife and I are intimate with each other for any reason other than having kids pointless? You are definitely entitled to your opinion and if you feel that the whole point of sex in your life is to have kids, I say you do you. I feel like this perspective is analogous to saying the whole point of a song is to play one note. In my opinion the point of sex is so much more than just one note.
@@jbitter5776 Ok, where is the church trying to take us as men and women? To the Celestial Kingdom to be Gods and Goddesses whether you believe that or not that's what we are told. If we are faithful we will have all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, what were those blessings? That our seed will be as numerous as the stars of heaven or the sand upon the sea shore. For that to happen we need to be having children beyond this life as our Heavenly Father dose. So two men or two women cannot create life here and I believe neither in the eternities, I don't believe personally that God no longer needs His wife to create life, it's the reason why we are married for time and all eternity because it's not acceptable to God to have children outside of marriage. Because He wants us committed to each other so when children come along we raise them rather than kill them or walk away and leave one parent raising a child, not ideal as men and women have different talents that the child needs to help them develop. I was talking more so on a eternal basis as this was talking on gay marriages in the church as I remember. In the eternities with perfect bodies everyone married to someone of the opposite sex will be able to create life, obviously spirit bodies rather than flesh and blood. No point in creating worlds if you cannot populate them, so if you decide to remain gay is there any point going there? It's not that God has anything against someone with gay tendency but it maybe impossible for them to create life, and they need to know that so they can make a more informed choice. If you accept that and still want to be with someone of the same sex then fine no disappointment in the future. But let's be real about this, God can do miracles but I do believe that there are some things that are impossible for even Him, although I might be wrong.
Thanks for doing this interview. I think you did a really good job in helping to bring out the best in Jacob. I feel like I more fully understand where he is coming from, and pretty much agree with him on most things. Yes he is outspoken, but I like what he has to say. He certainly doesn't beat around the bush and there is no ambiguity in his views.
No 'real' church can embrace sin of any kind or even approve of someone's sin. James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” (do not commit homosexuality) said also, “Do not kill.” If you do not commit adultery but do kill (but do commit homosexuality), you have become a transgressor of the law. If Jesus built his Church and the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matt 16), then why would it ever need to be 'restored'? Any church that embraces sin or approves sin is the actual 'great' falling away in the latter days the LDS church speaks of so often.
One other thing, our compassion towards those who struggle (well said by jacob) is not condoning sin and weakness. We show compassion and empathy and admit we are sinners too so that we dont unintentionally push people further into sin and weakness. How many faulty leadership styles (devoid of the spirit and acted more as hirelings than shepherds) made decisions that effectively discouraged those sinning so that they sinned all the more as they were burdened down by shame and hopelessness. So yes, love, compassion, empathy are necessary so as to provide and nurture an atmosphere where we can all maintain some dignity as we try to repent.
I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. God set the pattern with Adam and Eve and continued on with Noah and Lehi's groups. No gay marriage and no polygamy.
If you are looking for somewhere to worship and you are LGBT, or if you are someone who likes to worship without excluding a tenth of humanity, the Community of Christ is your answer. They want to be here longer than until our children take over, so they accept all members.
I guess the question is will the mainstream LDS church follow the path of Community of Christ? I for one hope so. The very conservative members will be alienated but I think it’s time for this change.
@@Zeett09that's ridiculous. Conservative means to "conserve" which includes values and principles and doctrine, and ultimately covenants and salvation and exaltation. If we abandon those things we are left with nothing.
@@crazyaboutcards You certainly changed your conservative principles in 1978 when you finally allowed black people to be married and sealed in your temples. I had conservative LDS friends that also disagreed with that change using your conservative argument. Funny how they were all white. My hunch is you are probably not part of the LGBT community arguing against this marginalized group.
Jacob talks about certain differences, being significant enough, puts people in 'different churches' around the 46:00 mark...isn't that the same argument non-members use to explain why "Mormons aren't Christians"? Should we not therefore allow someone that disagrees with LDS dogma to consider themselves members?
This really isn't the same comparison though. There isn't one Christian church that dictates doctrine, so the standard is meaningless because they all contradict each other on some level. But the COJCOLDS is one church and can therefore set definitions for what constitutes a member. Same with the Catholic church or really any other unique church.
@@joshuaadams3090 Creedal Christians almost all agree on that point, though. Those that don’t are in the minority, but this disagreement isn’t even material as there are members of TCOJCOLS who disagree with other members too (be they in the minority or majority).
@ElectroDoom I see what you're saying, but the COJCOLDS also doesn't claim to be part of their "church". It admits that they are distinct but still with a shared belief in Christ. The problem is those who say they are believing members of the COJCOLDS, yet don't believe in its tenants. That is fine, but they shouldn't continue to identify those values with the church that don't actually align.
@@joshuaadams3090 oh, I think I see what you mean…if I understand you correctly, I completely agree - it’s one thing to identify as X while acknowledging you have differing opinions/beliefs on certain doctrines, but when you share those ‘differing ideas’ as the actual teachings of X, it’s not entirely honest.
Exmormon but all I gotta say is I much prefer interacting with off (and on) the internet the type of LDS people that are like Murph instead of Thoughtful Faith. It boils down to how both talk about the people they disagree with and view the humans on the other side of the disagreement. (but uh, if we definitely look up multiple definitions of bigot, Jacob Hansen meets the criteria. I've thoroughly explored his content, social media, and private internet group and there's more than mountains of evidence to back up calling him a bigot.) On a side note, one way we can judge the "fruits" of a person is by examining the followings people cultivate on social media. Jacob's is quite hateful and vitriolic and the juxtaposition of Murph's comment sections speaks for itself in regards to who is a better "tree."
Jacob- as Cardon’s alibi, as you were manning boat w/ Cardon & his dad in it, the day Cardon’s 65 yr young mom died suddenly & unexpectedly taking a nap- was there anything fishy going on that day 8/4/23? Cardon thinks he’s smarter than all others. His family owns Unipest pest control & has access to lots of toxic poison!! Not surprising, same Poison caused Cardon’s leukemia, as he still sprays toxins daily. Mom was in good health. Something smells here.
His channel is a bit culty a lot of people on the defensive. I want to see him do a response or debunking of the videos were a guy talks about his vision into hell. When he was a kid. Saw things and didn’t find out until later on that he saw Joseph Smith and his followers. And worshiping a demon or such. Or has anyone made a response to that? And where can I go to get questions answered?
Ward Radio did. The dude had a drug and alcohol OD-induced hallucination, what he claimed to see didn't actually make sense and was full of impossible stuff, like seeing Joseph Smith in the Red Rocks of Utah when Joseph Smith never went to Utah. He caimed he saw Joseph Smith's little daughter with her teddy bear when Teddy bears are from the 20th century, but the early 1800s, and Joseph Smith never had a daughter. Basically it's all transparent lies and provable nonsense from a drug addict who by his own admission was super drunk and high at the time.
The brethren have proclaimed men and women are the church’s form of marriage, but they are aware gay couples are married and participating in the church. They need to be consistent and clear if they speak for God. Otherwise, it makes no sense to allow this. They are showing favoritism to famous or more prestigious gay couples. I have to question their leadership. This is a huge red flag and it adds to many other contradictions in the teachings of the church over the years.
Read the gospel topics essays then you will know the church lied and deceived us in just about every thing there is in church history. Then read the CES letter because that’s the reason they put them up in the first place! They knew they can’t hide it any longer
I can see the church moving towards accepting it as marriage or some other word but probably not the same as the procreative marriage top level. I can see it but I don't know if/when they would. They can't deny the benefit of stable relationships in the lives of LGBT wanna-be participants. It's almost like some of them are trying to say "shut up and take my money". I'm wary of that and find it hard to believe tbh. But it's already kinda happening too. It's a cruel joke on those who have CPTSD over the church that some pretty (token photo op/PR) couple in a rich progressive ward gets the crystal goblet treatment while others got the stone.
One more thought I have on this issue, if the church caves to gay marriage and present it as a revelation thst will totally undermine the 1978 revelation giving blacks the priesthood and show the church is just responding to social pressure and calling it revelation
At 11:10 God had already declared all things kosher in the days of Noah: "3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (Genesis 9:3-4) So God was not providing "additional light qnd knowledge" when presenting the unclean qnimals to Peter, but restoring to them a privilege they lost under the law of Moses.
Here’s the thing, the entire argument that there can’t be gay temple sealings lies on the doctrinal premise that a male and female god are required to create new spirits. That’s a problematic premise because it’s not substantiated in the scriptures, in fact it contradicts it. The book of Abraham and Joseph Smith taught that we are coeternal with God. That He did not literally create us by some form of celestial intercourse with Heavenly Mother. Joseph Smith taught: “I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven. …As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it.” (Joseph Simth, King Follet Sermon) God did not create our spirits. We have always coexisted with Him. He spiritually adopted us and provided means to become like Him. That is a process that does not require a male and female God.
I don't think Joseph knew or was critically analyzing his own revelations or how those revelations used particular words. In his sermons he freely and interchangeably uses the terms intelligence and spirit as equivalent, but I don't think his revelations, particularly the Abraham 3, does the same. A distinction is made in Abraham 3 between the masses of intelligences gathered together those of their number which were noble and great which were spirits. This suggests that all spirits are intelligences, but not all intelligences are spirits. This is a particular place where I think Joseph simply got some things wrong, and these ideas were never fully developed or written into the D&C, we only get little glimpses. The term intelligence in D&C 93 is not used as a noun in all cases, but as an adjective, a quality that scales with the glory of different "intelligent" beings. The co-eternality of human consciousness with the consciousness of God is something he got right, but I think he misconstrued the meanings of the different words and assumed they were interchangeable because that's the way he had always used them. Furthermore, Joseph's philosophizing in the King Follet discourse and Sermon in the Grove never makes statements about sex or gender, but are completely pre-occupied with dissolving the paradigm of creatio ex-nihilo and the species difference between man and God. This is a place where I disagree greatly with Blake Ostler. In order for Blake's synthesis to be correct, it would require a dismissal of all Apostolic teaching after Joseph Smith, which teachings seem to echo First Temple understandings of the divine council and kin-theology. Joseph had only just started to receive revelations about these matters, and had he continued, I think there would have been expansion. The Temple liturgy, and D&C 132 both point toward our current doctrine of divine parentage and a male and female eternality and divinity. Brigham also got things wrong, but he and later prophets were far more explicit about divine parentage and the gendered nature of the human soul. In this sense, I think the harmonization proposed by B. H. Roberts, which is poo-pooed these days by Ostler and Givens, I think had better thinking behind it than it is given credit for. D&C 93 suggests that intelligence is the "substance" of spirits or so-called "spirit matter". Roberts opined that intelligences were clothed in spirit bodies by heavenly parentage. This might be partially true, but instead of some nebulous entity which then is captured into the womb of a Celestial Mother by means of Godly reproductive processes (as Roberts seemed to think) the material used for the assembly of a godling spirit is itself intelligence. Our earthly body is organized from gross materials, while our spirits are organized from more refined eternal materials. That's certainly not the end of the conversation, but I think it is fundamentally wrong to think Joseph is either the first, last or most authoritative word on the subject.
@@TheYgds Whether or not there is a difference between “spirit” or “intelligence”, isn’t particularly relevant. Both Joseph and Abraham agree that spirits do not have a beginning (ie. they were never created). If they did have a beginning then they could have an end. The Lord Himself said: “…if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.” Abraham 3:18 Joseph went so far as to say that we are co-equal with God, stating: “God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.” Regarding eternal gender, Joseph nor the scriptures speak on this, but it isn’t relevant. The matter at hand is that our spirits are eternal, they weren’t created and thus cannot end. Is it possible that a male and female God are required to adopt spirits? Sure. But spirits are not created by them.
Interesting variation on Gnostic ideas: our spirits as sexless, and the millions of years of evolved sexual reproduction on earth as, what, the corruption of the Demiurge? I've heard this tune before and I won't dance to it.
@@TrebizondMusic-cm6fp Huh? I, nor Joseph, nor the Book of Abraham indicated that our spirits are sexless. Simply that they are eternal and thus without beginning.
@@bbbarham6264 I've encountered your argument before and I've seen where it leads, and if you're unaware of it, I'm disappointed with your neglect of thinking it through... unless you're trying to sneak it in. Your reasoning feeds right into the notion that sex has nothing to do with spiritual existence. That is in obvious opposition to the Family Proclamation, though you try to defend it by canonized scripture and the King Follet Discourse (do you consider that fair game to elevate to canonical status since the Proclamation "hasn't been canonized"?). If you can't find justification for spirits being sexless in the sources you're focusing on, can you find justification there for spirits being sexed? In a binary? Let's think this through: If sexual union between exalted beings is not needed to beget, adopt, or in any other way advance spirits, then is there any other meaning or reason for it? You say no. Then what use is it to even believe in an eternal sexual nature of our spirits? If we accept that a homosexual union can just as legitimately enter and endure through exaltation as a heterosexual one, then why should we regard the biological reality of sex as anything other than a necessary evil? Why not do all we can with our technology to circumvent and liberate ourselves from it? And what about non-binary people? Isn't the assertion of that gender identity within a context of LDS theology essentially a declaration of a sexless spirit? There are schisms within this apostate faith: some people might assert an eternal gender identity that includes non-binary as an option and that quite frequently is paired with a mismatched physical body. More logical in my mind, though, would be to assert that gender is a mortal construct, imposed socially by some variation of oppressive powers, or claimed individually as an act of liberation. Not only that, but sex itself is... like I said, a feature of a physical universe that is corrupt and imprisoning. This is not a new idea at all: that's why I called it Gnostic. People have believed in this kind of idea for thousands of years. And this is where I see your argument leading. As a repeat of an ancient heresy it has a certain appeal. But If you really don't see it (if you're not trying to sneak it in), then your argument is as shallow, rigid, and unimaginative as any fundamentalism, and your appeals to "the scriptures" are flimsy and don't affect me as a supporter of a Church led by continuing revelation.
The leaders at the time they lifted the priesthood ban were pressured by activists and a small handful of apostles pressuring from within. The leaders of today may well follow suit and allow temple marriage for gays. As for BY, he fully believed that black people were designed to be slaves. Joseph did not feel that way and gave the priesthood to worthy black men. He even sold Emma's favorite horse to get money to pay for the freedom of a slave.
Pretty simple. The church just changes the doctrine and says it was only ever a policy. They don’t give any explanation beyond this and the members grow to call it revelation. In time, most members don’t even remember that things like the proclamation on the family ever existed. When a studious member discovers it and wants to discuss it with family, friends and church leaders they tell him he’s in danger of apostasy, stop inviting him to activities, and refuse to discuss the topic. It has happened many times in the past.
Didnt the church disgard the we will become gods worlds without end polygamy doctrine? WTF is Jacob talking about he is advocating for a church that no longer exists except for in his head.
What the church tells the world in public is not the same that the church tells those who are all in! The church is very dishonest and the gospel topics essays tell it all!
He’s holding onto a church that is long gone. I’m 41 and the church was everything. But I finally had to come to terms with the fact that the church hasn’t kept a single “doctrine” consistent since the supposed restoration.
It’s been said that unmarried ppl in this life will have a chance to marry in the next. So they could seal gays for time only & then say in the next they have to marry a woman or man. I admit this is odd, but there’s been way weirder things said before.
Sorry, just stepped out of my time machine and missed some context. When Jacob said, "“There’s a lot of people in this church who are…trying to give people false hope in change, and those people need to be stopped," was he referring to the LGBTQ issue or the priesthood ban?
But Joseph Smith ordained black men to the priesthood, and then changed after he passed. Show me where Joseph sealed homosexual relationships in the temple?
first of all even when the ban was put in place it was told it would have an end and there were always exceptions to the rule from the beginning. Name me the dispensation past or present where Homosexual behavior was condoned by any prophet? In fact is has been condemned in everyone of them. Many members keep expecting the lord to agree with them not the other way around as ET Benson would say. We need to make certain we are not falling into the trap Paul warned about where we the members will not endure sound doctrine but will heap to ourselves teachers with itching ears or are we like the nephite Samuel spoke against in Helaman 13:26-27 who will reject true prophets because the testify against wickedness but if one comes and says there is no iniquity or you can do as you want walking in pride (again see ET Benson Beware of pride-oh how ironic that the LGBTQ movement marches under this self professed banner title) of your eyes and those no consequences you will accept that one.
@@WyoCutlass71 Why did it change when Joseph passed? And then change back again? If Brigham Young was wrong, why did generations of church leaders perpetuate and rationalize (from the pulpit) this doctrine? Be careful with absolutes. Be careful with assumptions. In a church membership that claims the doctrine of continuous revelation but strongly prefers to believe that through revelation we already have all the answers, we would do well to head President Nelson's admonition: "If you think the Church has been fully restored, you are just seeing the beginning. There is much more to come. Wait till next year, and then the next year. Eat your vitamin pills. Get some rest. It’s going to be exciting.”
the official ban start date is unknown . Most seem to attribute it to the 1850's address of Brigham young to the legislature although even that is up to the debate. It is also interesting to note Brigham even in this address states the ban would have an eventual end and he NEVER claimed a doctrinal revelation on the matter even though he did feel it was a inspired policy. which is also interesting is policies are not doctrine they are more social procedures such as in the churches Covid policies during the pandemic. There are those who try to establish it back to Joseph Smiths time but that seems to be unsubstantiated given Josephs recognition of the ordination of Elijah Able and others. Also his bid for president platform contained and abolishment of slavery. I believe George Q Cannon claims joseph taught a ban doctrine but his memory is in question due to other instances recognized with his mental health at the time and it is also 20 years after the martyrdom. The church leaders for the next century seem to be divided also on whether this was a doctrine or a policy from Brigham to David O Mckay and beyond you find them also on both sides of the issue .They all agreed though that the lord should provide a revelation on the matter despite this there were continuous exceptions to the rule ban that had nothing to do with race. Black Aborigines' and New Zealanders could be ordained going back into the 1800S as the church expanded Black Phillipino converts were being ordained in the early 1930S(radical for its time) Elijah Ables descendants also were given the priesthood as well. Meanwhile the rest of the American religious and secular regards to the matter were just as or even more divided on the issue reminds me of the first century Christians when the gentiles came in to the church and the apostles were trying to work out how much of Jewish custom and law was to apply or not such as circumcision's or certain ceremonial policies adherent to the Judaism all the first Christians were converts from@529
Gay marriage is just evidence that Satan counterfeits everything good. He won that little victory but ultimately he can never win the war. He's recruiting ever larger armies but it's still futile. It can never be holiness which is required for exaltation.
Being a former LDS member now Christian , the LDS church have not interpreted Jesus correctly. They often quote Jesus out of context and put themselves into the texts. They are guilty of mixing grace and the law of Moses together.
Oh so happy that you are now “Christian”… We as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints are Christian… I believe you’ve decided to ignore that Truth.
Come on it is so old and lame to say we are not Christians!! What are the quotes you are referring to?? Ask your pastor what happens to people who died without a knowledge of Jesus Christ and see if that resonates with you!
@@Jace28142 Or maybe that when one’s faith is based on the Jesus of the Bible text it’s clear Mormonism never knew this Jesus. And it’s clear for a former LDS member to see the deception of the LDS church . No the LDS church is not Christian. Sure they practice stolen valor with the name of Jesus in there titles.
The doctrine will change. There will be a revelation sometime between 2030 and 2040.I'm not taking a position on what's true or good by making this statement. I just want to put it in writing so that when it happens I can say I told you so. 🙂
In the past we were taught it was a Choice. We know now that its NOT A CHOICE its complicated. (look it up) No gay has ever changed. So it comes down to ethics and doing the right thing. This is what changes everything. Now it is OK to be Gay you just can't act! So we have to ask ourselves do they deserve rights like you and I? what is the right thing to do?
1. Can nonprofits discriminate based on gender? [ NONPROFIT ] does not and shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion (creed), gender, gender expression, age, national origin (ancestry), disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or military status, in any of its activities or operations. Is Heavenly Father "afraid" of the USA government?
The fact is that the Brethren have NOT been clear. The doctrine vs policy issue is exactly why people get confused. People do understand the greater issues. If prophets have demonstrably been incorrect in the past, there is a great chance they are demonstrably incorrect on this. Therefore, your hard stance is conveyed as bigotry.
34:53 Jacob here defending electro shock therapy.... human torture! Because God has bigger plans for us in the afterlife.... so strange that people describe him as bigoted or hateful... 34:53
The church came out last year and said that we won’t become gods, after teaching that we will for as long as I can remember. So using that as a reason to follow church teachings means nothing.
First, your user name is hilarious. But you really should go read the article from the church about our divine potential, we definitely still teach and believe that we will become like God. The youth quote it every Sunday.
@@mormonismwiththemurph There’s some pull-back on the “becoming Gods” doctrine as well. But yes, getting your own planet was taken off the table last year.
Jacob, you were inspired in this interview. One thing i might add is that Christ let his will (yes, Christ had his own way of thinking) be swallowed up in Gods will. Christ understands every human weakness, struggle, internal battle, sin, etc because the atonement allowed him to experience the depths of each individual stretching in a way that not only effected the psyche, the mental, physical, emotional, but also how it effected each spirit and the spiritual. Our weeping, painful battles he gets. And he was willing to give away every desire and craving so that he could accept Gods will. Make no mistake, he gets and understands the fornicator, adulterer, liar, our ugly sins including pride and our lgbtq brethren and sisters. In Alma 12:33 to 34 we learn that the savior has power to claim us if we repent and harden not our heart. That sometimes sounds like an event but its a process. Clinging to ones will is a form, possibly central to hardening and digging in and refusing to bend. But the process of repentance involves bending, twisting, and reshaping of our desires, appetites, and passions. In that process we are allowing christ to change us, reshape us so that we learn to let our wills be swallowed up in Gods will as well that we might be one in Christ as Christ is with God. Christs mercy can claim us, "he" can claim us, before the father as one for which the law of justice has no power because we met the condition of entering in and continuing in a process that extends well into the next life where our covenants allow christ to mentor, tutor, and transform us as we let our will melt, our hardening and digging in, and cleaving to individual will give way to christs will until we are perfect (complete).
@@scottvance74 because just like with polygamy and the priesthood ban the church is Slow Rolling its way towards acceptance of gay marriage. Maybe never in the temple, but I see them changing the temple rituals regarding marriage sealings... such that it only is a special ordinance given to only the most devoted members of The Cult
I was taught black people were less righteous in the pre mortal life, Lamanites were Native Americans, homosexuality was a choice, we would one day be gods, Joseph translated the Book of Mormon with the plates there and not with a rock, Joseph told people about the first vision when he was young, we should not intermarry with other races, and I was never told how Joseph had so many wives before ever telling Emma. So many things have changed in the narrative just in the last 10 years it seems. I don’t understand how they can justify so many differences in what I was taught and what is taught now. I’m 51 years old. It’s very confusing.
@@Surelyserious1who did you learn all this from? Parents, teachers… I’ve been a member my entire life and what you are saying you were taught and what I was taught are way different,
If you believe a prophet can't lead the church astray, it can't change. When it does change, more will realize they are members sitting on a board of directors and not prophets, seers and revelators.
Theres been policy changes, and a lack of revelation actually. How long will our prophets and leaders still not make a decision either way. Why are some wards in the US having gay couple serve, but refuse to allow it overseas? Choose. I dont have an issue if they are gay, i have issue that our prophets dont draw a line. Dan McClellan's (lds scholar) channel seems to explain the scriptures, but our church doesn't. I get the basic explanation and why a man and a woman are the ideal, but the church still isn't drawing a line in its US wards. God hasnt ungayed me yet, and thats cruel, even if i wanted a regular marriage, i dont have that attraction., its devastating.
I haven't heard anyone speak or address the large elephant in the room. If the criminal and State authorities for violation of due process and equal protection of gay rights If the LDS Church doesn't adequately accommodate gays the Gov remedy can be even to disencorporate the church.
35:00 in and this has been a severe disappointment in the amount of “devil’s advocate,” but this is all I can handle for now. You guys are not addressing the tough questions and the representation of the theological basis for change has been poorly represented. But this notion of sacrificing everything…BS. Jacob has said so, himself, that if he were gay he would not be able to live a life of solitude. And how about Jacob’s other pursuits? This MMA thing? How in the hell does that build the kingdom? It’s just so obvious that he fits and doesn’t have to sacrifice but is just so eager to recklessly impose a higher sacrifice onto others. Isaac was not killed upon the alter, and Mary chose the better part. Loyalty and sacrifice have scriptural bounds.
@@mormonismwiththemurph hey, Murph. I did just finish up and dropped in another comment. Again, props to you for engaging, but I think the hurley missed the sliotar, if you catch my drift. In fairness to you, you stated your theological agreement with Jacob, which acknowledgement of bias is much appreciated, but I have wonder if you sufficiently understand the opposing view to represent it properly.
32:15 but you lie here, Jacob. It's not consecrating everything you have to the building up of the kingdom of God. It's consecrating everything to the corporation of the church to do with as they please.
Big request could you do a response or debunking of the videos were a guy talks about his vision into hell. When he was a kid. Saw things and didn’t find out until later on that he saw Joseph Smith and his followers. And worshiping a demon or such. Or has anyone made a response to that? And where can I go to get questions answered?
I don't understand why folks like Jacob keep calling this a "crisis" or "confusion". I see no confusion. As it sits marriage is between a man and a woman. Some have hopes in some way that temple ordinances could allow non hetero couples to be sealed, and enjoy the blessings of eternity. Them having hope that there is a way for that is NOT an inherent denial of what we believe already. I bristle so much at that characterization. I feel like those who have LGBT friends and loved ones want hope there is a middle way. That isn't denying the faith, or denying doctrine (necessarily). It's hoping there is room in a way we don't now see. If anyone isn''t willing to accept a "no" in eternity, that's a problem. Hoping that there's more we don't know (and this is what I feel the case is for a Jim Bennet type of person) is NOT being in a different church. I hate this false dichotomy.
He uses the word Mormon all the time. But we really shouldn't be known by the name of a book. But rather by it's central message. Muslims aren't called Korans. Jew's aren't called Torah's.
But a victory for Satan if someone uses it as a name for the church? That’s so dramatic and such a weird thing to say especially since it has been acceptable to every other prophet. So many things are way more important. I would love it if the church showed the world how much good they can do in the name of Jesus. They are so powerful and they could help so many with their wealth. I get upset knowing how much I have paid to them and so little of it is actually being used for charity.
@@txcinyou must not pay attention to All that the Church gives throughout the world. When any disaster takes place The Church is one of the first to respond with help.
I love my children and I am straight, but there are people that do not want children and that is their ideal. So I find this argument that gay marriage isn’t ideal because of wanting children does not make sense.
I don't find Jacob's "evidence" against gay marriage overly compelling. Nor do I find his explanations of all the changes in doctrine... or was that "policy" (?!?!?!?) particularly convincing.
Absolutely NEVER, because God Himself gave us the very specific definition of marriage. Anything that does not conform to his definition is NOT marriage.
Absolutely NEVER? What about continuing revelation that corrects absolutes like this: “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” - Brigham Young
Topics I would like to hear you both to discuss.the church teaches temple marriage is sacred between a husband and wife,why do the church allow men to marry a 2nd wife,why do they need to marry a 2nd wife,i dont get the need or want for that.the women in the church don't get a say in this.also the church teaches all about families and families are forever.why does ther need to be 3 kingdoms,everyone is not guaranteed to be in the same kingdom as their families.i was always taught if you don't get sealed to your family in the temple you won't be in the same kingdom.if God is all about families why does ther need to be 3 kingdoms and why wud families be split up.
We need to be ALL sealed as 1 family from father Adam to the last generation. Families are the simplest way to gather the unbroken chain. The millennium will be the time to finish all the temple work that needs to be done. We actually can only guess what actual "marriage" will be like in the next life. But I do believe it requires the balance of a divine male and a divine female.
This was exceptionally poor and excruciating to listen to, it truly has a zero value and is 100% hypocritical. Marriage is temporal through all human history. Then Joseph Smith Jr one days says that all changed and Jacob agrees with both. Then Jacob's Prophets say polygamy is a requirement, and Jacob is good with that. Then the Prophet says polygamy is bad and Jacob is okay with that but if the next Prophet says gay marriage is good Jacob says that can't be correct because the Prophets can't change marriage.... yeah.
If the Church performed same-sex sealings, would it keep the requirement of a couple's sexual abstinence before the sealing, and sexual fidelity afterwards? Does anyone really think that would satisfy the activists?
I personally think it would keep the law of chastity and no sex before marriage. If it were to make the change I think they'd just say marriage is redefined to include gay marriage. But again I think our discussion illustrated doctrinally speaking why this would be a difficult doctrinal change to make
@@mormonismwiththemurph It would be difficult to put it mildly. If it were to happen, I also would expect the Church to try to keep the Law of Chastity in place, just with this one modification. That would be acting as if male homosexuality in particular is of essentially the same character as heterosexuality, just with a change in orientation. Some activists might try to put forth this picture to try to capture our sympathies: the poor persecuted homosexuals in the Church who just want to be able to chastely court and then faithfully marry like the rest of us, except they just happen to wish to do so with a partner of the same sex. Even a casual observation of the behavior of those who leave the Church because of their homosexuality shows that to be absurd. Read even a couple of books on the science of human sexuality and you can see even more clearly that it's absurd. If the Church made that change and tried to still keep the Law of Chastity, the activists would immediately start agitating for the abolition of the Law of Chastity. The Church's defense of marriage is made more difficult because marriage was already redefined within secular society to be mostly about feelings and emotional intimacy and self-actualization and so on. Once that happened, and the bases of regulating sexuality and providing for family and economics were done away with, in that context there is no logical reason why it should not be freely available to any consenting parties. The Romantic-sentimental idea of marriage, and the subsequent layers of consumerist attitude, have already infected the Church culture to an alarming degree in the First World. Sex therapists within the Church have already been chafing against the Law of Chastity. The last thing a world-wide church built on a serious commitment to the restored universal Gospel needs is to cave in to the petulance of spoiled creatures of post-industrial conceits.
I feel like you could replace the anti-LGBTQ words being spouted here by Jacob with anti-black racist words, and we would be where the "doctrine" and majority of the membership was pre 1978.
LDS leaders have already accepted and approved baptism for LGBTQ members. That's reality. Jacob is talking about something other than the current church, he's talking about the church in the past, which has changed. Jacob is a "small tent" Mormon. But leaders want a big tent church. Jacob is opposed to the leaders of the church
Jacob- as Cardon’s alibi, as you were manning boat w/ Cardon & his dad in it, the day Cardon’s 65 yr young mom died suddenly & unexpectedly taking a nap- was there anything fishy going on that day 8/4/23? Cardon thinks he’s smarter than all others. His family owns Unipest pest control & has access to lots of toxic poison!! Not surprising, same Poison caused Cardon’s leukemia, as he still sprays toxins daily. Mom was in good health. Something smells here.
How does anyone justify the belief of a literal skin color change that happened as a result of sin? Marvin Perkins has made the Hebrew idiom of skin of blackness very clear. These are notes mostly from his video: Idioms are not for idiots. 😂 Idioms do not make sense from one language or culture to another. Scripture list compiled from video “ Blacks in the Scriptures” by Marvin Perkins Mat 22:36-40. All doctrine fits into loving God and neighbor. D&C 1:24-28 all people including church leaders make mistakes. The Lord is OK with it. D&C 35:23. The Holy Ghost proves prophet’s words. Race theory invented by Johann Friedrick Blumenbach 1775. Later tried to recall his publication.People are people. All shades of brown. Black and white mixed makes gray. Idioms: phrases that do not mean what the words literally say: That smells fishy,There is a dog buried here (Swedish),He is a hard nut to crack,Break a leg, Give it a shot, It’s raining cats and dogs. Curse: separation from God and the Spirit. NOT skin color changes. Moses 5:36,38-39 Cain cursed from God’s presence. D&C 29:41 Black and white are idioms. Darkness or gloominess, dejection= black. Not skin color Righteousness, spiritual purity, happiness = white. All people are shades of brown, not shades of gray. Jeremiah 8:21 black means gloomy Jeremiah 14:2 black means gloomy,Joel 2:6 Nahum 2:10 black means frustration Job 30:30 skin is black. Sad because of trials Lamentations 5:10 skin is black like an oven. Gloomy because of starvation. 2Samuel 13:19. Tamar put ashes on her head to show her mourning. She made herself black with ashes. Gloomy 2 Nephi 5:21 full of 10 idioms. Can you see them? We are so used to idioms in our language, we can’t even see them. 1Samuel 16:7 the lord looks on the heart. How could He change appearances His children, and then claim He is only looking on the heart? He does not change skin color as a result of sin. Laman and Lemuel did NOT change skin color. Jacob 3:8 skin is part of the idiom like Job 3:30. 3 Nephi 2:15 skin is part of the idiom. Gloominess was removed and gladness and joy prevailed. Just like lamentations 5:10 Alma 3:4-6 . Why did they have to distinguish themselves after the manner of the Lamanite? A: because they had the same skin color. Most likely a tattoo was the distinction. People mark themselves with their tattoos. ALMA 55:8-9. A search had to be done. It was not obvious by skin color to distinguish Nephites from Lamanites. Then, Laman had to tell them that he was a Lamanite. And those with him were not obviously seen as Nephites. Lamanites could not tell skin color of Nephites. Substitution trio of same meanings: 2 Nephi 26:33. Alma 1:30, Alma 11:44 These are idioms! These three phrases are interchangeable:1. Black or white. 2. in or out of the church, and, 3. wicked or righteous. These three interchangeable phrases explain the idiom! Skin color is a great blessing given by God to help regulate sun exposure for health in sunny places (dark brown) and to regulate more vitamin D3 production in less sunny places by (lightest brown) Lehi’s people were dark when they left Jerusalem, as natives from Middle East, and descendants of Joseph and the Egyptian princess Asenath. Possibly even darker than other Hebrews. How many generations of Joseph’s male descendants married beautiful Egyptian princesses? How did this affect the gene pool of the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim? D&C 4:5 qualifications for priesthood D&C 36:4-5 all to receive priesthood D&C 63:57 D&C 121:21-23, 24 persecutors to not hold priesthood but will be forgiven if they repent. There were African Americans who held the priesthood during most if not all of the priesthood ban timeline.
@@txcin that was false doctrine. Sad but it was taught. However, I suggest reading the verses brother Perkins referenced and remember that the false doctrine has been disavowed but was made up hundreds of years before the restoration. Moses was a Hebrew and knew the idiom. Europeans did not. God lets us make our mistakes, even His church. Even you, even me. I forgive those who conflated that Protestant doctrine with restored truth. I simply want people to stop teaching it. God never changed any skin color due to sin.
Please do not position Jacob as defending or speaking for our church. I’m sure he believes he’s a defender of the faith, but he’s like a modern day Pharisee with a social media presence who cherry picks quotes (both of church leaders and those with whom he disagrees) to build-then-demolish straw men and promote his brand of orthodoxy. In times past, I can imagine him arguing zealously to keep gentiles out of the church and in favor of the priesthood ban. Jesus was a bridge builder. Jacob is a wall builder.
Love this conversation. Very important for these things to be discussed and explained.
It's not only to get butts in the seats it's to keep butts in the seats. When Christophe G. Giraud-Carrier was told that a queer, drag queen BYU student in a BYU YSA ward was preaching from the pulpit against the apostles and prophet about the church's LGBTQ stance every testimony meeting he said "It's a fine line. We don't want them leaving the church". He also ignored the fact that this young man was also promoting his drag queen events during Elders Quorum meetings.
There are also young adults who are active, worthy and living righteously who are being punished. I know a situation where a worthy young adult was held off renewing their temple recommend because they hadn't attended their ward for a few weeks even though they had attended other wards due to different circumstances. Another student had their ecclesiastical endorsement secretly removed for the exact same thing. The hypocrisy is real. We're losing great members due to this.
I had a bishop at BYU-I who told the whole ward that if they missed more than three Sundays in the semester he would pull their ecclesiastical endorsement. I also had a singles ward in AZ where they had two trans people (men pretending to be women) that they let go to Relief Society and use the women's restrooms (they weren't as outspoken as your BYU drag queen though).
You aren't worthy or righteous if you are gay. Leave if you disagree with the doctrine. There's no fine line it's very BLACK AND WHITE.
I was just listening to Alma 5 today, where Alma repaired the church in Zarahemla. Verse 60 in particular stood out to me: "... the good shepherd doth call after you; and if you will hearken unto his voice he will bring you into his fold, and ye are his sheep; and he commandeth you that ye suffer no ravenous wolf to enter among you, that ye may not be destroyed."
I fear we have let a wolf in, who has hijacked our kindness, and we are now being destroyed from the inside out.
Amen. The biggest test today is with the older, orthodox LDS generation who fail to be flexible with continuing revelation and evolved perspectives. The compassion of Pres. Nelson is causing them to stumble. When they find out there are liberal Apostles they go into shock.
Joesph Smith is the wolf in sheeps clothing, dreaming up a once man God and brother of Lucifer Jesus. The true living God will crush all false religions
@@_SeeIt The gender-confusing community is the wolf. I do not blame the people who have been convinced by this deception, but the corruption of the binary of gender is evil. "God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created he them."
The problem I see is that we have changed what REPENTANCE is. To repent means we have a change of mind and mend our ways. Those were the original ideas behind repentance. Now we are baptizing people who, on the contrary, are joining to bring their agenda into the church.
Here's what people don't understand about God. Whatsoever God commands it is right even if its may seen out of place to us at the time. Example. God asking Abraham to go and sacrifice up Isaac for an offering. That is clearly wrong. But God commanded him to do it, and Abraham obeyed. This gay thing, bringing a trans and a former gay activist into the church, could this be God's way to wrench the heartstrings around of those who have become too self-righteous in their own eyes?. Maybe. God could bring changes in the church if he wants to wrench around the heartstrings of the Saints that way to see if under such circumstances will they will continue to choose what God commands or not. Joseph Said that this would turn the Saints faith into glass and shatter it into a million pieces who haven't developed that faith like Abraham and Moses have and this is why they are now crashing out of the Church because they won't accept the changes that God is making in the Church. Because those saints they are holding onto past dead prophets and refuse to accept the changes in the church from the current living prophet.
President Russell M. Nelson did say that the Gospel is about Change, not about holding onto past dead prophets. Because president Nelson is the Prophet to help prepare us for the Return of the Lord...
@germanslice God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son is the ultimate test to prove Abraham is willing to be like God. God sacrificed his son.
As for the argument that the Gospel is about change. God doesn't change, Jesus doesn't change, and the scriptures are clear on this issue. Go back to the Book of Mormon where the 12 nephite disciples we praying and Christ appears to them, and it's a question about the name of his church and he questions them why they need to even ask and refered them to what was already written.
The only times where God appears to change is when people keep prodding for a change and God gives it like with Martin Harris and the lost pages becomes the result.
By the way a change in policy is prophesied about in scripture but it won't be a good:
"28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" (Romans 1:28)
God has high expectations of us. He also understands us perfectly. Jacob is right, we have a purpose, there is a plan, and only following Jesus Christ can we be saved from death and Hell and achieve our fullest potential.
That is the truth.
We shape and change ourselves to the truth.
We do not shape or change the truth for ourselves.
Love to see you interview Daniel McClellan on this same topic and discuss these same scriptures and topic.
Daniel distorts the scriptures to do his narrative
@@ja-kaz I'd love to see an interview with Dan plus someone else as counterweight.
Dan "data over dogma" McClellan has a habit of negotiating with Biblical text in ways that always seem to conform perfectly with modern leftism. It's difficult to watch him because of how disingenuously he pretends to be objective and to have no agenda other than 'data over dogma'.
@@ldr540 out of interest, which LDS bible scholar would you rank as most objective (i.e. not equally biased in the other direction) ??
@@ja-kaz I believe he states on his channel that we all do. Do you believe that you dont?
I love that you called Jacob an ass. He grows on you that’s for sure.
with a combover, yes
I haven't watched the video yet but if Murph said that Hansen is an ass, I feel I almost have to do so. Just because it is sooo right. Thanks.
I don’t know how the church could be more clear about the doctrine of marriage and gender and anyone holding out hope that the doctrine will change is wasting their time and denying themselves progress along covenant path.
my friend do not lose your faith once you become unclear on issues. The pride and knowingness can knock us right down once we are humbled. We must be able to not know, not be right and truly want the truth even if it disagrees with us. I only mention this because your comment indicates you have chosen not to study church history, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as one is humble. Once scripture and the church are put under rigid scrutiny it is not as we "knew" it was. A new kind of knowing I would like to show you. Know that our anchor is Christ. Know that literalism is never the answer, but the spiritual message behind it is. Know that the HG within you is the highest authority for your knowledge, not the current church leaders (as they will change today and tomorrow...and that is not a problem as they are men). The church is pliable because it is run by men and members are solid one day and weak the next. The spirit within you is the only authority you can trust (and even it wil instruct you different today and tomorrow based on your level of growth). The answer...see the church as your extended family and the HG as your final authority, always. Peace.
@@TheMightyJor If I had a dime every time I heard that I’d be rich. The priesthood ban has precedence in the scriptures and so does polygamy. Show me in the scriptures any time that got has sanctioned marriage between same-sex couples. You won’t be able to find it because it undermines His very plan of salvation. Do you think God gave us a sexual drive so we would not breed? Peopling the earth and bringing spirits into mortality is central to His plan.
@@TheMightyJor My comment indicates that I have chosen not to study church history? I’m not sure how you can come to that conclusion. If you’re referring to the weak argument about polygamy or the priesthood ban see my other comment.
@@peterhook2258yes! Literalism is the cause of soooooooo many issues. Shout it from the rooftops!🗣️
Correct! Leaders have been abundantly clear. We will not become like the rest of the world and cave in to lobbying efforts from LGBTQ. Same sex does not fit into the directive to multiply and replenish the earth. LGBTQ is clearly of the devil. So many Christian denominations have become worldly and the concept that "God made me this way" just as flawed as doctrines such as "original sin".
34:58 at this marker, jacob begins to tie his shoes together so that in a few minutes he can trip over his own feet advocation for celibacy in another religion that is viewed as an abomination by the book of mormon.
Jacob said our doctrine isn't confusing. He's correct. It's not confusing. It's clear.
Then, Jacob says it's confusing to watch members act as if it's not clear. I'd say it's frustrating, not confusing, to watch members behave as if the doctrine isn't clear. I'm not confused that some (not all) liberal members wish and advocate for a different policy, etc.
I understand what they're doing. And don't agree with them. But I'm not confused. There's nothing confusing about their actions. Their actions are, in fact, aligned with their wishes. Instead, I'm disappointed in their approach.
5:06 I’ve never thought Jacob was a jerk. I’ve always seen him as a valiant defender of truth!
This is an excellent episode. It brought up things I had not thought about in such a way. Also there is something else that came to mind. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is truly a New Testament Church.
Glad you enjoyed it
My old believing self would 100% agree with Jacob! People should be taking the gospel more seriously. It still kind of bothers me that members seem so relaxed about stuff. Thanks for the conversation! It was valuable to listen to.
Thanks for watching!
Interesting how Jacob repeatedly states false doctrines creep into the Bible and into church teachings but doesn’t see that the same thing happens now.
I love these "devil's advocate" interviews, I think you both have thoroughly reviewed the subject, great job, both of you!
Worthy = Ready
Worthiness = Readiness
Ready to be baptized
Ready to take the Sacrament
Ready to attend the Temple
Ready to increase in Knowledge and Development
Great job pushing back on Jacob about the priesthood and the Levites! He dodged it by saying that Africans aren't mentioned. That's true, but God limited which races could hold the Priesthood, so there's scriptural basis to limit priesthood based on race. Additionally, if it was just cultural, then why did David O. McKay keep praying to the Lord and kept receiving a "no priesthood" answer?
One possibility is... it was cultural. Not everyone in the 12 was ready for it... let alone the majority of the church. Up until 1963, inter-ratial marriage was illegal in Utah.
Once the culture changed, the leaders and members were ready to accept.
@@MichaelWalmsleyJr100% possible. It could also be that had blacks been able to have the Priesthood in the early 1900s that the government would have torn the Church down. Who knows. But I don't think that we should assume the reasons why. I like this quote by Dallin H. Oaks:
"If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, 'Why did the Lord command this or why did he
command that,' you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the
pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to
commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. I decided a long time ago
that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it. … Don’t
make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation.
The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of
the Lord and that’s where safety lies."
I tend to disagree with Jacob on this topic. My takeaway from my study of the priesthood ban is that the ban was directed by God, but He did not give an outright reason for it. The church has rolled back many of the reasons that had been given for the ban, but not the ban itself. The idea of a ban in and of itself does not contradict the scriptures. The fact that multiple prophets prayed about it and said it would take a revelation to rescind it and that it wasn't the right time show to me that there was divine direction.
@@koko00713 I completely agree with you
More people are denying the church. It seems to me that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon tell us that judgement day is coming for the church and that half will survive.
If the church has gone from the narrative of “the restoration” to “an ongoing restoration” things can and will change.
I guess you did not understand what the prophet Joseph Smith wrote in 1842 , the Articles of Faith when he said “we believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
The biggest question here in my mind is: Do we 1. Accept Christ and thereby denounce the doctrines of the world and the traditions of men? Or 2. Accept the Church as the official representative of Christ's word on this Earth and do whatever the church teaches, even if they align with the traditions of men, putting off all prejudice and judgement in the name of grace, love, tolerance and acceptance? The choices framed this way are a choice between "heresy" or "bigotry" - I wonder if it's Heresy in the eyes of God vs. Bigotry in the eyes of man? Definitely a latter-days conundrum it seems, a separation of wheat and tares perhaps?
Jacob nails this!! Couldn’t have said it better. BTW Jacob..a great Jim Bennet impression near the end!!’
The whole point of sex is to create new life, first commandment, go forth and multiply and replenish the earth. It's not something we should do for pleasure if we're not going to be responsible for the new life that we could create. The gospel of Jesus Christ demands change from the natural man or woman to a saint. These people are so engrossed in what they are doing, that they don't believe they have the strength to overcome this weakness. Therefore they want to change the church rather than themselves.
In Philippians 4:13
13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
They need to ask for this strength to overcome their weakness. Then all will be well!
The whole purpose of sex within the hierarchy of evolved life is procreation. Animals as they get more complex start introducing perversions to that (hello dolphins and bonobos), until we poor humans inherit concealed ovulation, permanently high male testosterone levels and attendant complications. Societal stability has always been founded on some kind of sexual restraint and artifice. I believe in a God who is way ahead of all this and gave commandments that make sense in light of the numerous scientific discoveries we have been allowed to make so far.
I would push back on the idea that “the whole point of sex is to create new life”. For women going through menopause or a man who becomes sterile is there no point in sex? Is every time my wife and I are intimate with each other for any reason other than having kids pointless? You are definitely entitled to your opinion and if you feel that the whole point of sex in your life is to have kids, I say you do you. I feel like this perspective is analogous to saying the whole point of a song is to play one note. In my opinion the point of sex is so much more than just one note.
@@jbitter5776 Ok, where is the church trying to take us as men and women? To the Celestial Kingdom to be Gods and Goddesses whether you believe that or not that's what we are told. If we are faithful we will have all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, what were those blessings? That our seed will be as numerous as the stars of heaven or the sand upon the sea shore. For that to happen we need to be having children beyond this life as our Heavenly Father dose. So two men or two women cannot create life here and I believe neither in the eternities, I don't believe personally that God no longer needs His wife to create life, it's the reason why we are married for time and all eternity because it's not acceptable to God to have children outside of marriage. Because He wants us committed to each other so when children come along we raise them rather than kill them or walk away and leave one parent raising a child, not ideal as men and women have different talents that the child needs to help them develop. I was talking more so on a eternal basis as this was talking on gay marriages in the church as I remember. In the eternities with perfect bodies everyone married to someone of the opposite sex will be able to create life, obviously spirit bodies rather than flesh and blood. No point in creating worlds if you cannot populate them, so if you decide to remain gay is there any point going there? It's not that God has anything against someone with gay tendency but it maybe impossible for them to create life, and they need to know that so they can make a more informed choice. If you accept that and still want to be with someone of the same sex then fine no disappointment in the future. But let's be real about this, God can do miracles but I do believe that there are some things that are impossible for even Him, although I might be wrong.
Thanks for doing this interview. I think you did a really good job in helping to bring out the best in Jacob. I feel like I more fully understand where he is coming from, and pretty much agree with him on most things. Yes he is outspoken, but I like what he has to say. He certainly doesn't beat around the bush and there is no ambiguity in his views.
Yeah I tend to agree with that about Jacob. I think it's more his tone and combative personality which puts people off
No 'real' church can embrace sin of any kind or even approve of someone's sin.
James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” (do not commit homosexuality) said also, “Do not kill.” If you do not commit adultery but do kill (but do commit homosexuality), you have become a transgressor of the law.
If Jesus built his Church and the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matt 16), then why would it ever need to be 'restored'?
Any church that embraces sin or approves sin is the actual 'great' falling away in the latter days the LDS church speaks of so often.
Calling something a trial or a sacrifice isn’t an argument for whether something is true or not.
One other thing, our compassion towards those who struggle (well said by jacob) is not condoning sin and weakness. We show compassion and empathy and admit we are sinners too so that we dont unintentionally push people further into sin and weakness. How many faulty leadership styles (devoid of the spirit and acted more as hirelings than shepherds) made decisions that effectively discouraged those sinning so that they sinned all the more as they were burdened down by shame and hopelessness. So yes, love, compassion, empathy are necessary so as to provide and nurture an atmosphere where we can all maintain some dignity as we try to repent.
I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. God set the pattern with Adam and Eve and continued on with Noah and Lehi's groups. No gay marriage and no polygamy.
If you are looking for somewhere to worship and you are LGBT, or if you are someone who likes to worship without excluding a tenth of humanity, the Community of Christ is your answer. They want to be here longer than until our children take over, so they accept all members.
I guess the question is will the mainstream LDS church follow the path of Community of Christ? I for one hope so. The very conservative members will be alienated but I think it’s time for this change.
@@Zeett09that's ridiculous. Conservative means to "conserve" which includes values and principles and doctrine, and ultimately covenants and salvation and exaltation. If we abandon those things we are left with nothing.
@@crazyaboutcards You certainly changed your conservative principles in 1978 when you finally allowed black people to be married and sealed in your temples. I had conservative LDS friends that also disagreed with that change using your conservative argument. Funny how they were all white. My hunch is you are probably not part of the LGBT community arguing against this marginalized group.
If they're still around by then. One church every few hundred miles or so.
The gospel of Christ is pure but the church IS in apostasy. You just don’t care to see it.
If the revelation comes, who would we be to say we know more than God?
Until the revelation comes, who are we to say we know more than Paul? Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law."
Kwaku has already made the prophecy. Now we only have to wait for Nelson to proclaim it. 😂
Jacob talks about certain differences, being significant enough, puts people in 'different churches' around the 46:00 mark...isn't that the same argument non-members use to explain why "Mormons aren't Christians"? Should we not therefore allow someone that disagrees with LDS dogma to consider themselves members?
This really isn't the same comparison though. There isn't one Christian church that dictates doctrine, so the standard is meaningless because they all contradict each other on some level. But the COJCOLDS is one church and can therefore set definitions for what constitutes a member. Same with the Catholic church or really any other unique church.
@@joshuaadams3090 Creedal Christians almost all agree on that point, though. Those that don’t are in the minority, but this disagreement isn’t even material as there are members of TCOJCOLS who disagree with other members too (be they in the minority or majority).
@ElectroDoom I see what you're saying, but the COJCOLDS also doesn't claim to be part of their "church". It admits that they are distinct but still with a shared belief in Christ. The problem is those who say they are believing members of the COJCOLDS, yet don't believe in its tenants. That is fine, but they shouldn't continue to identify those values with the church that don't actually align.
@@joshuaadams3090 oh, I think I see what you mean…if I understand you correctly, I completely agree - it’s one thing to identify as X while acknowledging you have differing opinions/beliefs on certain doctrines, but when you share those ‘differing ideas’ as the actual teachings of X, it’s not entirely honest.
@ElectroDoom Yes, exactly!
Exmormon but all I gotta say is I much prefer interacting with off (and on) the internet the type of LDS people that are like Murph instead of Thoughtful Faith. It boils down to how both talk about the people they disagree with and view the humans on the other side of the disagreement.
(but uh, if we definitely look up multiple definitions of bigot, Jacob Hansen meets the criteria. I've thoroughly explored his content, social media, and private internet group and there's more than mountains of evidence to back up calling him a bigot.)
On a side note, one way we can judge the "fruits" of a person is by examining the followings people cultivate on social media. Jacob's is quite hateful and vitriolic and the juxtaposition of Murph's comment sections speaks for itself in regards to who is a better "tree."
Jacob what would I have to do to qualify for a phone call with you ?
Go on his website and email him
Jacob- as Cardon’s alibi, as you were manning boat w/ Cardon & his dad in it, the day Cardon’s 65 yr young mom died suddenly & unexpectedly taking a nap- was there anything fishy going on that day 8/4/23? Cardon thinks he’s smarter than all others. His family owns Unipest pest control & has access to lots of toxic poison!! Not surprising, same Poison caused Cardon’s leukemia, as he still sprays toxins daily. Mom was in good health. Something smells here.
Email him, he’s always down for debates so just email him bro
Jacob's mental gymnastics are Olympic-level
I’ve got an idea. Go and email Jacob and call for a debate on this topic. Are you down?
@@mickski548 I only do 1-handed stick pulling/rod holding contests
Jacob ain’t wrong
Punctuation.
He gives me Jodi Hildebrandt vibes 😂😂😂
His channel is a bit culty a lot of people on the defensive.
I want to see him do a response or debunking of the videos were a guy talks about his vision into hell.
When he was a kid.
Saw things and didn’t find out until later on that he saw Joseph Smith and his followers.
And worshiping a demon or such.
Or has anyone made a response to that?
And where can I go to get questions answered?
@@kylethedalekhow can you debunk someone who claims they seen Joseph smith in hell?? What’s a stupid comment😂😂
Ward Radio did. The dude had a drug and alcohol OD-induced hallucination, what he claimed to see didn't actually make sense and was full of impossible stuff, like seeing Joseph Smith in the Red Rocks of Utah when Joseph Smith never went to Utah. He caimed he saw Joseph Smith's little daughter with her teddy bear when Teddy bears are from the 20th century, but the early 1800s, and Joseph Smith never had a daughter. Basically it's all transparent lies and provable nonsense from a drug addict who by his own admission was super drunk and high at the time.
The brethren have proclaimed men and women are the church’s form of marriage, but they are aware gay couples are married and participating in the church. They need to be consistent and clear if they speak for God. Otherwise, it makes no sense to allow this. They are showing favoritism to famous or more prestigious gay couples. I have to question their leadership. This is a huge red flag and it adds to many other contradictions in the teachings of the church over the years.
Read the gospel topics essays then you will know the church lied and deceived us in just about every thing there is in church history. Then read the CES letter because that’s the reason they put them up in the first place! They knew they can’t hide it any longer
I can see the church moving towards accepting it as marriage or some other word but probably not the same as the procreative marriage top level. I can see it but I don't know if/when they would. They can't deny the benefit of stable relationships in the lives of LGBT wanna-be participants. It's almost like some of them are trying to say "shut up and take my money". I'm wary of that and find it hard to believe tbh. But it's already kinda happening too. It's a cruel joke on those who have CPTSD over the church that some pretty (token photo op/PR) couple in a rich progressive ward gets the crystal goblet treatment while others got the stone.
One more thought I have on this issue, if the church caves to gay marriage and present it as a revelation thst will totally undermine the 1978 revelation giving blacks the priesthood and show the church is just responding to social pressure and calling it revelation
At 11:10 God had already declared all things kosher in the days of Noah:
"3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (Genesis 9:3-4)
So God was not providing "additional light qnd knowledge" when presenting the unclean qnimals to Peter, but restoring to them a privilege they lost under the law of Moses.
Faith is getting fading for so many members trying to make changes.
God doesn't change his Doctrines .
Emotions don't disturb reality.
Here’s the thing, the entire argument that there can’t be gay temple sealings lies on the doctrinal premise that a male and female god are required to create new spirits. That’s a problematic premise because it’s not substantiated in the scriptures, in fact it contradicts it. The book of Abraham and Joseph Smith taught that we are coeternal with God. That He did not literally create us by some form of celestial intercourse with Heavenly Mother. Joseph Smith taught:
“I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.
…As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.
Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it.” (Joseph Simth, King Follet Sermon)
God did not create our spirits. We have always coexisted with Him. He spiritually adopted us and provided means to become like Him. That is a process that does not require a male and female God.
I don't think Joseph knew or was critically analyzing his own revelations or how those revelations used particular words. In his sermons he freely and interchangeably uses the terms intelligence and spirit as equivalent, but I don't think his revelations, particularly the Abraham 3, does the same. A distinction is made in Abraham 3 between the masses of intelligences gathered together those of their number which were noble and great which were spirits. This suggests that all spirits are intelligences, but not all intelligences are spirits. This is a particular place where I think Joseph simply got some things wrong, and these ideas were never fully developed or written into the D&C, we only get little glimpses. The term intelligence in D&C 93 is not used as a noun in all cases, but as an adjective, a quality that scales with the glory of different "intelligent" beings. The co-eternality of human consciousness with the consciousness of God is something he got right, but I think he misconstrued the meanings of the different words and assumed they were interchangeable because that's the way he had always used them. Furthermore, Joseph's philosophizing in the King Follet discourse and Sermon in the Grove never makes statements about sex or gender, but are completely pre-occupied with dissolving the paradigm of creatio ex-nihilo and the species difference between man and God.
This is a place where I disagree greatly with Blake Ostler. In order for Blake's synthesis to be correct, it would require a dismissal of all Apostolic teaching after Joseph Smith, which teachings seem to echo First Temple understandings of the divine council and kin-theology. Joseph had only just started to receive revelations about these matters, and had he continued, I think there would have been expansion. The Temple liturgy, and D&C 132 both point toward our current doctrine of divine parentage and a male and female eternality and divinity. Brigham also got things wrong, but he and later prophets were far more explicit about divine parentage and the gendered nature of the human soul.
In this sense, I think the harmonization proposed by B. H. Roberts, which is poo-pooed these days by Ostler and Givens, I think had better thinking behind it than it is given credit for. D&C 93 suggests that intelligence is the "substance" of spirits or so-called "spirit matter". Roberts opined that intelligences were clothed in spirit bodies by heavenly parentage. This might be partially true, but instead of some nebulous entity which then is captured into the womb of a Celestial Mother by means of Godly reproductive processes (as Roberts seemed to think) the material used for the assembly of a godling spirit is itself intelligence. Our earthly body is organized from gross materials, while our spirits are organized from more refined eternal materials.
That's certainly not the end of the conversation, but I think it is fundamentally wrong to think Joseph is either the first, last or most authoritative word on the subject.
@@TheYgds Whether or not there is a difference between “spirit” or “intelligence”, isn’t particularly relevant. Both Joseph and Abraham agree that spirits do not have a beginning (ie. they were never created). If they did have a beginning then they could have an end. The Lord Himself said:
“…if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.” Abraham 3:18
Joseph went so far as to say that we are co-equal with God, stating: “God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.”
Regarding eternal gender, Joseph nor the scriptures speak on this, but it isn’t relevant. The matter at hand is that our spirits are eternal, they weren’t created and thus cannot end. Is it possible that a male and female God are required to adopt spirits? Sure. But spirits are not created by them.
Interesting variation on Gnostic ideas: our spirits as sexless, and the millions of years of evolved sexual reproduction on earth as, what, the corruption of the Demiurge? I've heard this tune before and I won't dance to it.
@@TrebizondMusic-cm6fp Huh? I, nor Joseph, nor the Book of Abraham indicated that our spirits are sexless. Simply that they are eternal and thus without beginning.
@@bbbarham6264 I've encountered your argument before and I've seen where it leads, and if you're unaware of it, I'm disappointed with your neglect of thinking it through... unless you're trying to sneak it in. Your reasoning feeds right into the notion that sex has nothing to do with spiritual existence. That is in obvious opposition to the Family Proclamation, though you try to defend it by canonized scripture and the King Follet Discourse (do you consider that fair game to elevate to canonical status since the Proclamation "hasn't been canonized"?). If you can't find justification for spirits being sexless in the sources you're focusing on, can you find justification there for spirits being sexed? In a binary?
Let's think this through:
If sexual union between exalted beings is not needed to beget, adopt, or in any other way advance spirits, then is there any other meaning or reason for it? You say no. Then what use is it to even believe in an eternal sexual nature of our spirits? If we accept that a homosexual union can just as legitimately enter and endure through exaltation as a heterosexual one, then why should we regard the biological reality of sex as anything other than a necessary evil? Why not do all we can with our technology to circumvent and liberate ourselves from it? And what about non-binary people? Isn't the assertion of that gender identity within a context of LDS theology essentially a declaration of a sexless spirit?
There are schisms within this apostate faith: some people might assert an eternal gender identity that includes non-binary as an option and that quite frequently is paired with a mismatched physical body. More logical in my mind, though, would be to assert that gender is a mortal construct, imposed socially by some variation of oppressive powers, or claimed individually as an act of liberation. Not only that, but sex itself is... like I said, a feature of a physical universe that is corrupt and imprisoning. This is not a new idea at all: that's why I called it Gnostic. People have believed in this kind of idea for thousands of years.
And this is where I see your argument leading. As a repeat of an ancient heresy it has a certain appeal. But If you really don't see it (if you're not trying to sneak it in), then your argument is as shallow, rigid, and unimaginative as any fundamentalism, and your appeals to "the scriptures" are flimsy and don't affect me as a supporter of a Church led by continuing revelation.
The leaders at the time they lifted the priesthood ban were pressured by activists and a small handful of apostles pressuring from within. The leaders of today may well follow suit and allow temple marriage for gays. As for BY, he fully believed that black people were designed to be slaves. Joseph did not feel that way and gave the priesthood to worthy black men. He even sold Emma's favorite horse to get money to pay for the freedom of a slave.
Pretty simple. The church just changes the doctrine and says it was only ever a policy. They don’t give any explanation beyond this and the members grow to call it revelation. In time, most members don’t even remember that things like the proclamation on the family ever existed. When a studious member discovers it and wants to discuss it with family, friends and church leaders they tell him he’s in danger of apostasy, stop inviting him to activities, and refuse to discuss the topic. It has happened many times in the past.
Jacob uses a lot of "what if's" to justify his bigotry. @jacob, what if Mormonism is all made up and you indeed are supporting bigotry? What if.
Didnt the church disgard the we will become gods worlds without end polygamy doctrine? WTF is Jacob talking about he is advocating for a church that no longer exists except for in his head.
What the church tells the world in public is not the same that the church tells those who are all in! The church is very dishonest and the gospel topics essays tell it all!
Haha. Just got done commenting the same thing. It is currently stated on the churches website that we will not become God's.
He’s holding onto a church that is long gone. I’m 41 and the church was everything. But I finally had to come to terms with the fact that the church hasn’t kept a single “doctrine” consistent since the supposed restoration.
@@jamesbayless5842 do you have a link/source to this on the church's website?
Where do they say that on the website? This is news to me.
The Church is not on trial here. The people of the world are. They are either with Him or against Him.
Change my mind: The Church Handbook is more important in Mormonism than scripture.
You win the ‘Dumbest Comment of the Day’ award. Congratulations!
It’s been said that unmarried ppl in this life will have a chance to marry in the next.
So they could seal gays for time only & then say in the next they have to marry a woman or man. I admit this is odd, but there’s been way weirder things said before.
I never heard of single (never married) people being sealed as husband and wife after they were dead. Who taught that?
The Bible is clear. There's no marriage in heaven. Only on earth.
I like the imagery of a dance. But what if your dance partner isnt attractive? Does that matter?
Sorry, just stepped out of my time machine and missed some context. When Jacob said, "“There’s a lot of people in this church who are…trying to give people false hope in change, and those people need to be stopped," was he referring to the LGBTQ issue or the priesthood ban?
But Joseph Smith ordained black men to the priesthood, and then changed after he passed. Show me where Joseph sealed homosexual relationships in the temple?
first of all even when the ban was put in place it was told it would have an end and there were always exceptions to the rule from the beginning. Name me the dispensation past or present where Homosexual behavior was condoned by any prophet? In fact is has been condemned in everyone of them. Many members keep expecting the lord to agree with them not the other way around as ET Benson would say. We need to make certain we are not falling into the trap Paul warned about where we the members will not endure sound doctrine but will heap to ourselves teachers with itching ears or are we like the nephite Samuel spoke against in Helaman 13:26-27 who will reject true prophets because the testify against wickedness but if one comes and says there is no iniquity or you can do as you want walking in pride (again see ET Benson Beware of pride-oh how ironic that the LGBTQ movement marches under this self professed banner title) of your eyes and those no consequences you will accept that one.
@@WyoCutlass71 Why did it change when Joseph passed? And then change back again? If Brigham Young was wrong, why did generations of church leaders perpetuate and rationalize (from the pulpit) this doctrine? Be careful with absolutes. Be careful with assumptions. In a church membership that claims the doctrine of continuous revelation but strongly prefers to believe that through revelation we already have all the answers, we would do well to head President Nelson's admonition: "If you think the Church has been fully restored, you are just seeing the beginning. There is much more to come. Wait till next year, and then the next year. Eat your vitamin pills. Get some rest. It’s going to be exciting.”
@@gregbriggs4540 When was the ban put in place? What was the start date?
the official ban start date is unknown . Most seem to attribute it to the 1850's address of Brigham young to the legislature although even that is up to the debate. It is also interesting to note Brigham even in this address states the ban would have an eventual end and he NEVER claimed a doctrinal revelation on the matter even though he did feel it was a inspired policy. which is also interesting is policies are not doctrine they are more social procedures such as in the churches Covid policies during the pandemic. There are those who try to establish it back to Joseph Smiths time but that seems to be unsubstantiated given Josephs recognition of the ordination of Elijah Able and others. Also his bid for president platform contained and abolishment of slavery. I believe George Q Cannon claims joseph taught a ban doctrine but his memory is in question due to other instances recognized with his mental health at the time and it is also 20 years after the martyrdom. The church leaders for the next century seem to be divided also on whether this was a doctrine or a policy from Brigham to David O Mckay and beyond you find them also on both sides of the issue .They all agreed though that the lord should provide a revelation on the matter despite this there were continuous exceptions to the rule ban that had nothing to do with race. Black Aborigines' and New Zealanders could be ordained going back into the 1800S as the church expanded Black Phillipino converts were being ordained in the early 1930S(radical for its time) Elijah Ables descendants also were given the priesthood as well. Meanwhile the rest of the American religious and secular regards to the matter were just as or even more divided on the issue reminds me of the first century Christians when the gentiles came in to the church and the apostles were trying to work out how much of Jewish custom and law was to apply or not such as circumcision's or certain ceremonial policies adherent to the Judaism all the first Christians were converts from@529
And when I say it's possible I mean that it by the members demanding per say like you say activism's is rampant in the church
Thanks to the Mormon Church and Prop 8, the word marriage is now associated with gay marriage FOREVER.
Gay marriage is just evidence that Satan counterfeits everything good. He won that little victory but ultimately he can never win the war. He's recruiting ever larger armies but it's still futile. It can never be holiness which is required for exaltation.
Jacob protest far too much.
It seems like Jacob is big on shutting other people up. There is no false hope, only hope. (thats from Yellowjackets)
Being a former LDS member now Christian , the LDS church have not interpreted Jesus correctly. They often quote Jesus out of context and put themselves into the texts. They are guilty of mixing grace and the law of Moses together.
Oh so happy that you are now “Christian”…
We as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints are Christian…
I believe you’ve decided to ignore that Truth.
Come on it is so old and lame to say we are not Christians!! What are the quotes you are referring to?? Ask your pastor what happens to people who died without a knowledge of Jesus Christ and see if that resonates with you!
@@Jace28142
Or maybe that when one’s faith is based on the Jesus of the Bible text it’s clear Mormonism never knew this Jesus. And it’s clear for a former LDS member to see the deception of the LDS church . No the LDS church is not Christian. Sure they practice stolen valor with the name of Jesus in there titles.
@@RogerKartchner
Spend time in knowing Jesus from the biblical text. And you will come to see the true messiah .
@@nickex.3187 I am truly sad for you…no reply is needed.
The doctrine will change. There will be a revelation sometime between 2030 and 2040.I'm not taking a position on what's true or good by making this statement. I just want to put it in writing so that when it happens I can say I told you so. 🙂
In the past we were taught it was a Choice. We know now that its NOT A CHOICE its complicated. (look it up) No gay has ever changed. So it comes down to ethics and doing the right thing. This is what changes everything. Now it is OK to be Gay you just can't act! So we have to ask ourselves do they deserve rights like you and I? what is the right thing to do?
Fantastic Convo!
Thanks for watching
Jacob finally gets it! (at the beginning)
1. Can nonprofits discriminate based on gender?
[ NONPROFIT ] does not and shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion (creed), gender, gender expression, age, national origin (ancestry), disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or military status, in any of its activities or operations.
Is Heavenly Father "afraid" of the USA government?
The fact is that the Brethren have NOT been clear. The doctrine vs policy issue is exactly why people get confused. People do understand the greater issues. If prophets have demonstrably been incorrect in the past, there is a great chance they are demonstrably incorrect on this. Therefore, your hard stance is conveyed as bigotry.
37:27 here jacob is happy to sacrifice other peoples sexuality.
34:53 Jacob here defending electro shock therapy.... human torture! Because God has bigger plans for us in the afterlife.... so strange that people describe him as bigoted or hateful... 34:53
The church came out last year and said that we won’t become gods, after teaching that we will for as long as I can remember. So
using that as a reason to follow church teachings means nothing.
That is in reference to us getting our own planets, not becoming God's like our heavenly parents
First, your user name is hilarious. But you really should go read the article from the church about our divine potential, we definitely still teach and believe that we will become like God. The youth quote it every Sunday.
@@mormonismwiththemurph There’s some pull-back on the “becoming Gods” doctrine as well. But yes, getting your own planet was taken off the table last year.
Jacob, you were inspired in this interview. One thing i might add is that Christ let his will (yes, Christ had his own way of thinking) be swallowed up in Gods will. Christ understands every human weakness, struggle, internal battle, sin, etc because the atonement allowed him to experience the depths of each individual stretching in a way that not only effected the psyche, the mental, physical, emotional, but also how it effected each spirit and the spiritual. Our weeping, painful battles he gets. And he was willing to give away every desire and craving so that he could accept Gods will. Make no mistake, he gets and understands the fornicator, adulterer, liar, our ugly sins including pride and our lgbtq brethren and sisters. In Alma 12:33 to 34 we learn that the savior has power to claim us if we repent and harden not our heart. That sometimes sounds like an event but its a process. Clinging to ones will is a form, possibly central to hardening and digging in and refusing to bend. But the process of repentance involves bending, twisting, and reshaping of our desires, appetites, and passions. In that process we are allowing christ to change us, reshape us so that we learn to let our wills be swallowed up in Gods will as well that we might be one in Christ as Christ is with God. Christs mercy can claim us, "he" can claim us, before the father as one for which the law of justice has no power because we met the condition of entering in and continuing in a process that extends well into the next life where our covenants allow christ to mentor, tutor, and transform us as we let our will melt, our hardening and digging in, and cleaving to individual will give way to christs will until we are perfect (complete).
It’s going to happen just like the priesthood change
Jacob is about to have a Come to Jesus moment.
I don't see it. What makes you believe that this is the case?
@@scottvance74 because just like with polygamy and the priesthood ban the church is Slow Rolling its way towards acceptance of gay marriage. Maybe never in the temple, but I see them changing the temple rituals regarding marriage sealings... such that it only is a special ordinance given to only the most devoted members of The Cult
I was taught black people were less righteous in the pre mortal life, Lamanites were Native Americans, homosexuality was a choice, we would one day be gods, Joseph translated the Book of Mormon with the plates there and not with a rock, Joseph told people about the first vision when he was young, we should not intermarry with other races, and I was never told how Joseph had so many wives before ever telling Emma. So many things have changed in the narrative just in the last 10 years it seems. I don’t understand how they can justify so many differences in what I was taught and what is taught now. I’m 51 years old. It’s very confusing.
And the temple is unrelated to Freemasonry. 😂
Hey don’t you know it’s your fault because you didn’t follow the prophet and did your “own study”?
@@Surelyserious1who did you learn all this from? Parents, teachers…
I’ve been a member my entire life and what you are saying you were taught and what I was taught are way different,
If you believe a prophet can't lead the church astray, it can't change. When it does change, more will realize they are members sitting on a board of directors and not prophets, seers and revelators.
Theres been policy changes, and a lack of revelation actually. How long will our prophets and leaders still not make a decision either way. Why are some wards in the US having gay couple serve, but refuse to allow it overseas? Choose. I dont have an issue if they are gay, i have issue that our prophets dont draw a line. Dan McClellan's (lds scholar) channel seems to explain the scriptures, but our church doesn't. I get the basic explanation and why a man and a woman are the ideal, but the church still isn't drawing a line in its US wards. God hasnt ungayed me yet, and thats cruel, even if i wanted a regular marriage, i dont have that attraction., its devastating.
They allowed Polygamy for 50 years, and racism for 3x that long.
I haven't heard anyone speak or address the large elephant in the room.
If the criminal and State authorities for violation of due process and equal protection of gay rights
If the LDS Church doesn't adequately accommodate gays the Gov remedy can be even to disencorporate the church.
And government oppression is why the Jews were looking for a political Messiah. This is nothing new. Tale as old as time.
38:18 here jacob calls being gay an affliction.
Go Jacob! You are the man!
Be wolves not sheep. Identity must expand!
35:00 in and this has been a severe disappointment in the amount of “devil’s advocate,” but this is all I can handle for now.
You guys are not addressing the tough questions and the representation of the theological basis for change has been poorly represented.
But this notion of sacrificing everything…BS. Jacob has said so, himself, that if he were gay he would not be able to live a life of solitude. And how about Jacob’s other pursuits? This MMA thing? How in the hell does that build the kingdom?
It’s just so obvious that he fits and doesn’t have to sacrifice but is just so eager to recklessly impose a higher sacrifice onto others. Isaac was not killed upon the alter, and Mary chose the better part. Loyalty and sacrifice have scriptural bounds.
Did you watch the rest of the interview. After the 45 min mark I make historical or scriptural arguments in favour for the change
@@mormonismwiththemurph hey, Murph. I did just finish up and dropped in another comment. Again, props to you for engaging, but I think the hurley missed the sliotar, if you catch my drift.
In fairness to you, you stated your theological agreement with Jacob, which acknowledgement of bias is much appreciated, but I have wonder if you sufficiently understand the opposing view to represent it properly.
pat each other on the what?
With half or more of the 12 Apostles being liberal Democrats, it won’t take much for it to happen.
32:15 but you lie here, Jacob. It's not consecrating everything you have to the building up of the kingdom of God. It's consecrating everything to the corporation of the church to do with as they please.
Elder D. Todd Christofferson saved the sheep for this ?
Big request could you do a response or debunking of the videos were a guy talks about his vision into hell.
When he was a kid.
Saw things and didn’t find out until later on that he saw Joseph Smith and his followers.
And worshiping a demon or such.
Or has anyone made a response to that?
And where can I go to get questions answered?
Could you link the video I've not seen it
@@mormonismwiththemurph th-cam.com/video/y7692l2W77M/w-d-xo.htmlsi=2co6QOFoJeG-2wuC
@@mormonismwiththemurph if you search “Joseph Smith in hell” you will see a few other video with that guy.
I don't understand why folks like Jacob keep calling this a "crisis" or "confusion". I see no confusion. As it sits marriage is between a man and a woman. Some have hopes in some way that temple ordinances could allow non hetero couples to be sealed, and enjoy the blessings of eternity. Them having hope that there is a way for that is NOT an inherent denial of what we believe already. I bristle so much at that characterization.
I feel like those who have LGBT friends and loved ones want hope there is a middle way. That isn't denying the faith, or denying doctrine (necessarily). It's hoping there is room in a way we don't now see. If anyone isn''t willing to accept a "no" in eternity, that's a problem. Hoping that there's more we don't know (and this is what I feel the case is for a Jim Bennet type of person) is NOT being in a different church.
I hate this false dichotomy.
I think it is a stupid path that Pres.Nelson is so against saying the word Mormon. It makes no sense whatsoever.
He uses the word Mormon all the time. But we really shouldn't be known by the name of a book. But rather by it's central message. Muslims aren't called Korans. Jew's aren't called Torah's.
But a victory for Satan if someone uses it as a name for the church? That’s so dramatic and such a weird thing to say especially since it has been acceptable to every other prophet. So many things are way more important. I would love it if the church showed the world how much good they can do in the name of Jesus. They are so powerful and they could help so many with their wealth. I get upset knowing how much I have paid to them and so little of it is actually being used for charity.
@@txcinyou must not pay attention to All that the Church gives throughout the world. When any disaster takes place The Church is one of the first to respond with help.
It ended polygamy and gave blacks the Priesthood. Follow the money, this isn't their Hill Cumorah. Jacob will be sad, but he'll get over it.
I love my children and I am straight, but there are people that do not want children and that is their ideal. So I find this argument that gay marriage isn’t ideal because of wanting children does not make sense.
I don't find Jacob's "evidence" against gay marriage overly compelling. Nor do I find his explanations of all the changes in doctrine... or was that "policy" (?!?!?!?) particularly convincing.
Absolutely NEVER, because God Himself gave us the very specific definition of marriage. Anything that does not conform to his definition is NOT marriage.
Absolutely NEVER? What about continuing revelation that corrects absolutes like this: “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” - Brigham Young
Why should-n't they,adulterous marriages. are allowed. Why not have that conversation.
Topics I would like to hear you both to discuss.the church teaches temple marriage is sacred between a husband and wife,why do the church allow men to marry a 2nd wife,why do they need to marry a 2nd wife,i dont get the need or want for that.the women in the church don't get a say in this.also the church teaches all about families and families are forever.why does ther need to be 3 kingdoms,everyone is not guaranteed to be in the same kingdom as their families.i was always taught if you don't get sealed to your family in the temple you won't be in the same kingdom.if God is all about families why does ther need to be 3 kingdoms and why wud families be split up.
We need to be ALL sealed as 1 family from father Adam to the last generation. Families are the simplest way to gather the unbroken chain. The millennium will be the time to finish all the temple work that needs to be done.
We actually can only guess what actual "marriage" will be like in the next life. But I do believe it requires the balance of a divine male and a divine female.
Yeah extra bang for the hetero community bang for your buck
The three kingdoms changed for alvin And progression through the kingdoms
This was exceptionally poor and excruciating to listen to, it truly has a zero value and is 100% hypocritical. Marriage is temporal through all human history. Then Joseph Smith Jr one days says that all changed and Jacob agrees with both. Then Jacob's Prophets say polygamy is a requirement, and Jacob is good with that. Then the Prophet says polygamy is bad and Jacob is okay with that but if the next Prophet says gay marriage is good Jacob says that can't be correct because the Prophets can't change marriage.... yeah.
If the Church performed same-sex sealings, would it keep the requirement of a couple's sexual abstinence before the sealing, and sexual fidelity afterwards? Does anyone really think that would satisfy the activists?
I personally think it would keep the law of chastity and no sex before marriage. If it were to make the change I think they'd just say marriage is redefined to include gay marriage. But again I think our discussion illustrated doctrinally speaking why this would be a difficult doctrinal change to make
@@mormonismwiththemurph It would be difficult to put it mildly. If it were to happen, I also would expect the Church to try to keep the Law of Chastity in place, just with this one modification. That would be acting as if male homosexuality in particular is of essentially the same character as heterosexuality, just with a change in orientation. Some activists might try to put forth this picture to try to capture our sympathies: the poor persecuted homosexuals in the Church who just want to be able to chastely court and then faithfully marry like the rest of us, except they just happen to wish to do so with a partner of the same sex. Even a casual observation of the behavior of those who leave the Church because of their homosexuality shows that to be absurd. Read even a couple of books on the science of human sexuality and you can see even more clearly that it's absurd.
If the Church made that change and tried to still keep the Law of Chastity, the activists would immediately start agitating for the abolition of the Law of Chastity.
The Church's defense of marriage is made more difficult because marriage was already redefined within secular society to be mostly about feelings and emotional intimacy and self-actualization and so on. Once that happened, and the bases of regulating sexuality and providing for family and economics were done away with, in that context there is no logical reason why it should not be freely available to any consenting parties.
The Romantic-sentimental idea of marriage, and the subsequent layers of consumerist attitude, have already infected the Church culture to an alarming degree in the First World. Sex therapists within the Church have already been chafing against the Law of Chastity.
The last thing a world-wide church built on a serious commitment to the restored universal Gospel needs is to cave in to the petulance of spoiled creatures of post-industrial conceits.
I feel like you could replace the anti-LGBTQ words being spouted here by Jacob with anti-black racist words, and we would be where the "doctrine" and majority of the membership was pre 1978.
@@guymcdude5634 Then you should stop going by your feelings and think.
@@TrebizondMusic-cm6fp I THINK that bigotry based on god given race is just as evil as bigotry based on God given sexuality. What do you THINK?
Could the church allow spousal abuse? Of course not what a stupid question. Same thing!
God saw man and saw it was not good so he created woman and saw it was good. The 2 become one flesh.
Jacob has all my respect.
Jacob is a tool
LDS leaders have already accepted and approved baptism for LGBTQ members. That's reality. Jacob is talking about something other than the current church, he's talking about the church in the past, which has changed.
Jacob is a "small tent" Mormon. But leaders want a big tent church. Jacob is opposed to the leaders of the church
Jacob is doing the Lord’s work.
Jacob- as Cardon’s alibi, as you were manning boat w/ Cardon & his dad in it, the day Cardon’s 65 yr young mom died suddenly & unexpectedly taking a nap- was there anything fishy going on that day 8/4/23? Cardon thinks he’s smarter than all others. His family owns Unipest pest control & has access to lots of toxic poison!! Not surprising, same Poison caused Cardon’s leukemia, as he still sprays toxins daily. Mom was in good health. Something smells here.
NEVER
How does anyone justify the belief of a literal skin color change that happened as a result of sin? Marvin Perkins has made the Hebrew idiom of skin of blackness very clear. These are notes mostly from his video:
Idioms are not for idiots. 😂
Idioms do not make sense from one language or culture to another. Scripture list compiled from video “ Blacks in the Scriptures” by Marvin Perkins
Mat 22:36-40. All doctrine fits into loving God and neighbor. D&C 1:24-28 all people including church leaders make mistakes. The Lord is OK with it. D&C 35:23. The Holy Ghost proves prophet’s words. Race theory invented by Johann Friedrick Blumenbach 1775. Later tried to recall his publication.People are people. All shades of brown. Black and white mixed makes gray.
Idioms: phrases that do not mean what the words literally say:
That smells fishy,There is a dog buried here (Swedish),He is a hard nut to crack,Break a leg, Give it a shot, It’s raining cats and dogs.
Curse: separation from God and the Spirit.
NOT skin color changes. Moses 5:36,38-39 Cain cursed from God’s presence. D&C 29:41
Black and white are idioms. Darkness or gloominess, dejection= black. Not skin color
Righteousness, spiritual purity, happiness = white. All people are shades of brown, not shades of gray. Jeremiah 8:21 black means gloomy Jeremiah 14:2 black means gloomy,Joel 2:6 Nahum 2:10 black means frustration Job 30:30 skin is black. Sad because of trials Lamentations 5:10 skin is black like an oven. Gloomy because of starvation. 2Samuel 13:19. Tamar put ashes on her head to show her mourning. She made herself black with ashes. Gloomy
2 Nephi 5:21 full of 10 idioms. Can you see them? We are so used to idioms in our language, we can’t even see them.
1Samuel 16:7 the lord looks on the heart. How could He change appearances His children, and then claim He is only looking on the heart? He does not change skin color as a result of sin. Laman and Lemuel did NOT change skin color. Jacob 3:8 skin is part of the idiom like Job 3:30. 3 Nephi 2:15 skin is part of the idiom. Gloominess was removed and gladness and joy prevailed. Just like lamentations 5:10
Alma 3:4-6 . Why did they have to distinguish themselves after the manner of the Lamanite? A: because they had the same skin color. Most likely a tattoo was the distinction. People mark themselves with their tattoos. ALMA 55:8-9. A search had to be done. It was not obvious by skin color to distinguish Nephites from Lamanites. Then, Laman had to tell them that he was a Lamanite. And those with him were not obviously seen as Nephites. Lamanites could not tell skin color of Nephites.
Substitution trio of same meanings:
2 Nephi 26:33. Alma 1:30, Alma 11:44
These are idioms! These three phrases are interchangeable:1. Black or white. 2. in or out of the church, and, 3. wicked or righteous. These three interchangeable phrases explain the idiom!
Skin color is a great blessing given by God to help regulate sun exposure for health in sunny places (dark brown) and to regulate more vitamin D3 production in less sunny places by (lightest brown)
Lehi’s people were dark when they left Jerusalem, as natives from Middle East, and descendants of Joseph and the Egyptian princess Asenath. Possibly even darker than other Hebrews. How many generations of Joseph’s male descendants married beautiful Egyptian princesses? How did this affect the gene pool of the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim?
D&C 4:5 qualifications for priesthood
D&C 36:4-5 all to receive priesthood
D&C 63:57
D&C 121:21-23, 24 persecutors to not hold priesthood but will be forgiven if they repent.
There were African Americans who held the priesthood during most if not all of the priesthood ban timeline.
We were taught black people were not as valiant. All black people. Point blank period. To try to fit this into an idiom narrative now is ridiculous.
@@txcin that was false doctrine. Sad but it was taught. However, I suggest reading the verses brother Perkins referenced and remember that the false doctrine has been disavowed but was made up hundreds of years before the restoration. Moses was a Hebrew and knew the idiom. Europeans did not. God lets us make our mistakes, even His church. Even you, even me. I forgive those who conflated that Protestant doctrine with restored truth. I simply want people to stop teaching it. God never changed any skin color due to sin.
Please do not position Jacob as defending or speaking for our church. I’m sure he believes he’s a defender of the faith, but he’s like a modern day Pharisee with a social media presence who cherry picks quotes (both of church leaders and those with whom he disagrees) to build-then-demolish straw men and promote his brand of orthodoxy. In times past, I can imagine him arguing zealously to keep gentiles out of the church and in favor of the priesthood ban. Jesus was a bridge builder. Jacob is a wall builder.
Completely disagree. He is an incredible defender of doctrine and the church.
Jacob is exactly right.
Why is this being debated? What a bunch of nonsense!
No, that eould be a contradiction!!!