I’ve gone to my bishop and stake Pres about this bothering me so much. My stake pres just attended a meeting with Elder Anderson, Elder Cook and Elder Cuvelier. On Jan 27th 2024. He was going to ask them my concerns about the softened approach to LGBTQ and Trans ideology when another stake President asked essentially his same question which told him this is on other Stake Preadients minds. Elder Anderson said the church has not and will not alter doctrines or eternal principles such as the law of chastity. Marriage is between a man and a woman etc… it was, at the moment a pacifier to me. But still leaves me scratching my head why they allow a primary worker to read a trans book to children, or rainbow support to go on within the walls of the church. You can bet if this EVER comes to our ward I won’t mix words and the law of Chastity will be taught without apology or being scared to hurt feelings!
"they" don't. The guidelines for teaching and the source materials to be used are clear, but members take it upon themselves to teach outside the guidelines all the time. This needs to be corrected at the local level and in the case cited was the responsibility of the bishop who failed.
The church is not speaking with one voice. A church speaking with one voice would not have hired Aaron Sherinian, would not allow contradictory actions concerning married gay couples, would not allow trans persons giving speeches at BYU. Jacob's analysis of the church is 100% true, but his approach to ask your priesthood leader will only perpetuate this confusion, as different leaders will give different answers. I bet Uchtorf and Oaks will give different answers to the same question.
I grew up in the LDS church in the 60's and 70's and it was always "When will the Priesthood ban change? Rebecca apparently had a different experience ( she's younger than me so I don't know how). The lifting of the ban was announced while I was serving a mission in 1978. Such rejoicing! But never was there a doctrine that it would "never" change.
I was in high school when the priesthood ban was lifted. I remember distinctly asking my parents, church leaders and family members why blacks did not have the priesthood, before the ban was lifted. The answer I always received was that it would someday be lifted, but we didn’t know when. It was a joyful day when it was lifted! A few people left the church over it, but I don’t remember it shaking the core of the church membership. Most members embraced and rejoiced the change. It was a relief to me personally and it helped me develop a stronger testimony of our core doctrine that Christ directs our church.
@@JeffreySmith-if6ey how about Joseph Smith sleeping with other members of Church wife’s. Did they teach or mention this in your congregation back in the 70s? .. just curious?
This was a courageous conversation and it really helps when one is confused to hear other opinions. Thank you for coming together to discuss and thank you Steve for creating a safe place to do so❤
Preaching hate is not courageous. The only courageous element is Jacob exposing that he knows nothing about his cult’s history and exposing his sickening homophobia. In 1978, he would have complained about blacks being access to the priesthood, temple and Mormon heaven.
I was so excited to see this pop up in my recommendations! I LOVE this so much and love seeing intelligent people being ADULTS about this. Thank you for the example and thank you for very good thoughts and strong stances that were taken.
Excellent response to that hypothetical there at the end... Could you make a video to highlight the difference between your response and that of brother Hansen? "Sustaining Leaders"...how does that look? What does that mean? Is it important? Is it true that if you decline a calling, that you are not sustaining your leaders? Please make a video about this.
As a convert to the church in the early 70's I never once heard blacks will never have the priesthood . I did hear it will happen when the Lord deems it the time. Find it interesting that the church had the revelation for the priesthood at the same time as many countries exspecially in Africa made it legal for blacks to hold religious leadership positions on all kinds of churches. Before that For blacks to hold the priesthood would have been illegal in those countries.
Jacob and Greg think they can attack the First Presidency like this??? They better prepare to face a Disciplinary Council, i mean "Court of Priesthood Love".
@@sgee-vc1hz Do you really feel that they were attacking the leadership? I don’t. I think they are toeing the line while speaking honestly with conviction and passion about the concerns they have for the church. If anything the leadership should feel ashamed about their own lack of bold courageous leadership. As a believing member up to the day I left I was an unapologetic all in believer like Greg and Jacob. I literally believed that I could move mountains with my faith if need be and God willed it. I can resonate very much with their passionate plea.
@@madmanmanxI don’t think so. The point is not to call Jacob a racist, but to show the parallel across history. Have you heard Jacob’s thoughts on the matter? His position is that previous prophets were in error, because the scriptures don’t explicitly call for a priesthood ban on black Africans. Never mind the fact that neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon describes the priesthood with anywhere near the level of detail necessary to lay the foundation for an additive concept such as a ban. It’s ludicrous. You can use the same logic to say the three hour block was an error because it’s not called for in the scriptures. I’m younger than the civil rights movement but I’ve spent a lot of time in the South. There were a lot of otherwise good people who got swept up in racism. The parallel fits. In his loyalty Jacob easily might have swallowed the teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B Lee and reveled in their retrenchment. Many members did, because their testimony needed to be right from the beginning.
I disagree with Jacob's interpretation on the priesthood ban. I cannot say that I know for sure that the prophets were wrong in holding the priesthood ban. There has been precedent in the scriptures for limitations on who can hold the priesthood. What I do not see anywhere is any precedent for changes in marriage being between a man and a woman. Homoseaxuality has existed since the times of the book of Genesys, there has been more than enough time for God to reveal a change to his prophets. And we not the first society to be pro LGB so we can't say that "God has not revealed it yet because we as a society would not have accepted it in the past".
What about intersex people who are biologically both male and female? The statement that there are only biological men and women seems to ignore these people. 🤔
Jacob saying he loves lgbtq folks with that smug smile just really got me feeling gross. Dude claims to love his “friend” who he himself disciplined for the church is mind boggling. It’s the two faced part of that really gets me. Greg seems kind and sincere.
@@madmanmanxyo Cardon. Of course you can. I guess it goes back to me thinking these folks are born this way. And expecting someone to not have a loving relationship for their life is cruel. You guys claiming you love them and embrace them and in the next breath denounce their committed relationships just seems so disingenuous. The tides are turning my friend and it’s hilarious to watch you scramble to hang on to your old rhetoric is comical. I’m here for it. I hope the church comes around and fully embraces same sex marriage. I doubt you’d see much change in the day to day and everyone can just move on.
@TwoTreesVisuals what if it is true what the doctrines of the church teach? What if in eternity marriage can only be between a man and a woman? Would it not be more cruel for someone to be taught that it is ok to be in a loving relationship as a spouse and then have that relationship be ripped for a whole eternity? Or what if it is true that same sex attraction is just a consequence of the fall and once we are resurrect then we don't have these feelings anymore, we would feel lied to if the church of God was teaching us that we could have eternal same sex marriages. What you see as cruel, could actually be kindness when looked from a different time scope. Could you say you know for sure that after the resurrection when we all have perfect bodies there will be any LGBTQ+? You don't know that for sure.
THIS. A group of thoughtful, diverse people having a respectful conversation. Leaving me with Empathy and Understanding. Hope to respectfully share in the Future. Thank You
What is the limit of Prophetic error from Jacob’s perspective? He says the priesthood ban was a false doctrine and yet the First Presidency in 1949 in an official statement said it was a commandment from God. If they can be mistaken on what doctrine is and what doctrine isn’t then what can’t they be mistaken on?
He did not say it was false doctrine. He said it was a false application of a policy based on cultural influence, not based on any scripture (which is the doctrine). People even prophets make errors. that is why we have the process of canonization that includes revelation, unanimous affirmation, and acceptance by a vote of common consent.
@@DavidRoskelley-s5j He did say it was false doctrine: th-cam.com/users/livej_NZ8r3VVRg?si=uloXTD4H9FW7HHL7 @ 1:25:00 If the first presidency can’t even get right what doctrine is and what it isn’t then why trust them? The first presidency in 1949 said it was a commandment from God. According to Jacob the first presidency made a major error on one of their most important jobs.
He did say it was false doctrine: Source: ward radio TH-cam channel video: “Um We have some questions” @ 1:25:00 If the first presidency can’t even get right what doctrine is and what it isn’t then why trust them? The first presidency in 1949 said it was a commandment from God. According to Jacob the first presidency made a significant error on one of their most important jobs.
@@dukeofsahib4967 Well in that video, you are correct, he did, I had not saw that, but the point is still the same. By the way a false doctrine is no doctrine at all and that is what this was, it was not revelation, nor based in scripture. the 1949 statement was also of their understanding at that time, they did not claim new revelation or present the statement as revelation. Obviously the various administration through the years held similar views and believe it was commanded of God, but there is no such canonized revelation nor is it consistent with scripture (the word of God : the Doctrine)
@@DavidRoskelley-s5j So you're basically saying the 1949 first presidency mistook a false doctrine (The priesthood ban) as a commandment from God? If you lived in 1949 and said that about the first presidency how do you think that would've been received? How do we know the current first presidency isn't mistaken on other things? What is the limit of error?
Members of the church left the church when polygamy was removed as doctrine. Members of the church left when Black men could receive the priesthood. In both these instances the the doctrine changed and so did the policies of the church.
There was reason for polygamy and reason for black man and priesthood and both of those where individual policies at specific period of time Chastity is one of the core Gospel principles that will never change
I grew up, like many members, with a black and white, literal view of church doctrine. Then I find out some doctrine is policy. The world is a big, varied place with many different colors. I believe God loves us the same and we are here to learn to love like God. We are not right and they are not wrong.
I'm holding out it will. He's cracking. In the end, his dedication to his own eyes will win out. He's flying too close to the sun with his habit of being so informed all the time.
It’s fundamentally hypocritical because he denounces those who currently aren’t in line with the prophet. What do you want to bet Oaks will “clarify” the confusion and Jacob will think that somehow solves things?
I remember thinking in the 1980's that maybe the whole priesthood ban was an error, but I would never have thought about talking this way in public, because it would not have been tolerated by the leaders of the church. There was zero tolerance for this, and I believe into the 1990's (maybe into the 2000's) if you made a public statement that the ban was not scriptural and after all was just an error by the brethren, that would definitely have landed you into a church court.
That's not quite accurate. There's a radical difference to wondering about something or expressing an opinion, and I know of many who did at the time. The thing that gets you in trouble is publicly calling out the Church and the Gospel as wrong and seek out converts to that idea. That's were those folks fighting against the ERA went too far. It's not about discussion of topics to discuss issues, but the intent and how it's done.
I don't think the Church can afford to keep ex-ing members over their beliefs. If they continued on that trajectory there'd be no one left except the "neither hot nor colds".
@@littleredhen3218 The Church doesn't ex members for their beliefs, unless they specifically refuse to believe in core doctrines or publicly go about attacking the Church. If the Church just changed it's doctrine to make people contented, then what's the point? It may as well not exist. In any case, talking about ex-ing them is not accurate. All an excommunication is is a dissolution of the covenants a person has entered into. No one is kicked out of Church, and the hope is the person excommunicated will continue to participate to the extent possible and realign themselves with Christ to allow them to enter into those covenants again.
47:30 Greg Matsen: “neither of these (polygamy or priesthood ban) take away from the plan of salvation” Umm….EXCUSE ME????? Ask the black families that were prevented from receiving their exaltation ordinances and were prevented from being sealed with their families for eternity while they watched their white neighbors do so. Ask those black members who were told by Brigham young that he “would allow them to be a servant to him” in the celestial kingdom. Ask those husbands of the wives who were told by Joseph Smith that the only path to the highest degree of glory was to be married to Joseph Smith, at least in two instances while the husband had been sent away by Joseph on a mission. Ask the teenage girls who were pressured into marrying a 35+ year old man as it was the only way “for their families to be exalted to the highest degree of glory”. Ask all of those people if this had anything to do with the plan of salvation. Greg, come on, your statement was ridiculous.
There is a clear passage for Greg to switch over to the Mormon fundamentalists once the LDS Church accepts gay marriage. He's almost there doctrinally anyways.
@@charlesmendeley9823 Atleast Greg’s got options available. Jacob will make a fantastic leader of his own breakoff Mormon group if the church accepts gay marriage.
@@Allthoseopposed Well he is as least as arrogant as Joseph Smith. But he cannot construct a valid prophet line which ends with him. I would rather assume the Q15 would somehow split into a conservative and a liberal faction.
Awesome, respectful, and peaceful conversations. So nice to hear different points of view and understanding about marriage, and LGBTQ in a Christ-like civilized way.
I'm really starting to hate that word "Christ-like" because it tends to mean "nice" instead of truthful. I would much prefer the "Christ-like" whip He made for the money changers, and the "Christ-like" way He spoke to the Pharisees.
Greg skimmed over blacks and the priesthood and polygamy as if they are easily explainable to TBMs. Very comforting to TBMs but if you dig deeper you see they're anything but easy to put aside.
Jacob is 100% correct about the hypocrisy and mixed messaging the church is sending. He’s just on the wrong side of the issue. Jacob (and all the members) are experiencing exactly what the membership experienced on race and the priesthood during the 1950’s and 1960’s. If social media existed back then, I’m certain we would be able to pull up videos reflecting the exact same feelings as the church slowly culturally changed, then finally the pressure built up enough in the membership that the “prophet” finally had a “revelation” that the change needed to be made in 1978. Make no mistake, gay temple marriage will be doctrine in the next 30 years. I was saying it 5 years ago and people thought I was insane. I say it today, just 5 years later, and many more people believe it’s a possibility. This is a pattern. Doctrine in the church changes over time to reflect culture, not the other way around. Why? Because this church isn’t led by a prophet of God, just a man doing the best he can. My question for Jacob is: When the church inevitably caves to the majority membership and allows gay marriage, will you leave the church? If so, you may as well deconstruct the entire thing now while you’re still middle aged. It’s more and more painful to deconstruct your religion the more years you’ve spent dedicating your life and money to it. Moreover, Jacob, once you do deconstruct your religion, you will discard your bigoted self-righteous worldview in the process, you discover the true meaning of empathy, and you will feel a lot of regret for the filthy public hatred you’ve displayed toward LGBTQ+ in your past.
Right, but when, and was it correct in the first place? You might wasn’t to read Matt Harris’s and Greg Prince’s work documenting the history of the change (they were entrusted by the McKay and Kimball families, respectively, to compile their father’s biography from personal journals). Don’t let platitudes trick you into thinking the race ban is not a valid parallel to what we’re seeing today.
Agreed - but it was clearly taught - in writing - that that change would not come until the Millenium - until all others had a chance to receive the gospel first.
@@charlesmendeley9823Christ himself sets up The Millennium after he returns to the Mount of Olives: that will happen when the Jews build their 3rd Temple!
@@charlesmendeley9823it implies that he's trying to take the church mainstream Christian and the name Mormon along with theMoroni statues are a little embarrassing. They replaced angel Moroni icons with cross icons in all of the map apps. They gave the church the new bathtub Jesus logo, which is very Catholic-esque, they declared the moniker Mormon a victory for Satan. Rusty is tired of being ridiculed and the lowest regarded "church" -- even lower than Wicca and satanism.
My understanding growing up in the church was that there would eventually be a positive change for blacks to hold the priesthood. It was just a matter of when. The civil rights movements during the 60s helped pave and open the way, so the church could finally implement it. So that was not set doctrine at the time.
I heard a talk today given by President Benson. One thing that stood out in that talk was when he mentioned the Samuel effect. When the people wanted a king and God warned them what having a king would do to their society. They demanded one anyway so God allowd it and their society fell apart under king rule. God may allow this and the consequences will be tragic
What do you think about ending polygamy as living doctrine, or starting giving the Priesthood to black people? Do you think it brought tragic consequences too? We could compare your thoughts to the noes from racists or polygamists back those times. The Doctrine changed after Law changed. It is the way the Church works. If people knew more about Church history they would know this.
If the book that established a doctrine said doctrine can't change, if it then changes then that book or established doctrine is on its way out. Or might I say, if people change the book or doctrine they are on their way out.
@@jader.sphair That's not really accurate. Polygamy is still doctrine - it was part of the new and everlasting covenant, it's just not authorized to practice on earth anymore. It's not much different than the Law of Consecration. We don't practice the United Order, and instead practice tithing. The doctrine didn't change. How we are authorized to practice it did. The same is with the priesthood ban. When it was given, BY said it would change one day. It's not much different than the various guidelines for priesthood practice throughout the Old Testament. The Priesthood is the doctrine. How we practice it isn't.
@@RichardChappell1you can’t bring up “BY said it would change” as an excuse for it changing. When Brigham said it would one day change, he also said exactly when that day would be: at the end of the millennium after every white man who has ever or will ever live has been given/offered the priesthood. Only after that will the forest black man be given the priesthood.
1. Hansen probably doesn’t realize it but he just conceded the point that the LDS church isn’t guided by direct revelation through prohets. 2. He admitted he is at least thinking about the possibility of leaving the LDS church at some future point .
It was a hypothetical situation that he believes 100% will not happen. It was his way of expressing how firmly he believes the doctrine. Quit taking things out of context.
Thank you Rebecca for putting this together. As a medical professional and understand the dynamics of the physical body that were unknown in the times of Jesus. If the definition of marriage changed and that truly is possible and that would occur in the face of real facts the LDS church has not changed. Sadly holding hard to a definition ignoring more valid information would come with a cost. Yet the world will continue and churches will shrink and expand. My POV is to stand where I can and be loving as possible to inspire and to still work for peace after 50 plus years. Thank you Stephen for your loving ways and how your love of” The Restoration” compells you.
Steve - I think you have the best channel on the internet for real conversations. This is such a real conversation with great questions and discussions. Really appreciate your ongoing efforts to create a forum for respectful discussion. These are complex issues and you always seem to extend grace to your guests without judgement. Thank you!
Fantastic dialogue. I appreciate the respectful conversation. I love the podcast format where people can have long form conversations about complex issues. Thank you for organizing this
Wow, I never seen so much respect between those with very different opinions! From this I learned that we all have to be willing to loosen our grips a smidge on what our personal opinions are. As all of our opinions will change to some degree throughout our lives. The peace is well worth it and with really nothing to lose. All 4 of you were great examples of this.
I loved this video, Thank you Steven! One of the biggest parts I didn't like in Jacobs video was when it sounded like he was using the phrase "man dressed like a woman" more like a slur. After the 3rd time using the phrase, I was like 'mkay Jacob I heard you the first time.' 🙄 But through this video I was able to see him in a different light. Thanks again Steven for providing a platform where they could be heard completely. It seemed that Jacob was able to let out some steam in this video. I left the church because I knew it wasn't a great place for me mentally, as a gay person. And from my perspective a persons mental health is far more important than doctrine. Take care of yourselves guys!
Jacob can simultaneously be thoughtful and disgustingly prejudiced. I hope someday he has the humility to wonder if maybe he’s been horribly wrong. And Rebecca, you’re lovely, as always.
@@brooklynparkse yes I suppose because I see many people in the "church" with Jacob's ill-informed views, including the brethren. But I'm confident the "doctrines" will change with time. The one constant in the church is change.
@@PaulLambert_816what doctrines have changed that would give you that impression? Polygamy was stopped as a practice but still exists with respect to the sealing ordinances. Policies change all the time. But, the doctrine of sealing with respect to exaltation is what is being considered here. Is there any precedence in all of recorded time that would make this possible like we had on polygamy and race in the Priesthood? Hope that clarifies why the messaging coming from Church is giving false hope to some since the core doctrines just don’t change. Both sides of this issue probably should just chill and understand in todays crazy media and culture this stuff is just creating division which is a source we should avoid.
Stephen- I appreciate your bringing all these views together and being civil and intelligent I wish more people online where like you I’ve been impressed with your videos- had no idea you were gay Keep up the good work
@@vl6779 Honestly, the human mind can come up with any rationale to make things work. The book of Abraham is a smoking gun, and people still look at it and find a way to make it work. Religion is most of the time a lot more about social context than anything else. I keep reminding myself that it is irrational to really truly question your beliefs when life is working pretty well for you (and it works far less when your family and friends reject you!)
@@JoandArc5005 Here is mine, Whenever, I see the word “faith” and “believe” I substitute those words for the word “to Trust” It works great for me because I’m not asking myself to have idols that required for me to give them my “faith” or “believe” I don’t have to believe in a particular church because a church is no a deity to me, and if it doesn’t contribute to that trust is useless to me.
Great podcast! Love seeing this group talk about the issues with respect. Of course, we all love Steven Pynakker...the man the myth the legend. Bucket list...... meet Steve
I am amazed that Jacob can fully acknowledge that the priesthood and temple ban was error and yet not see the efforts of Brigham Young to make it come from god and not see all the other errors that are also done in the name of god.
@@cindymacferran331Mormon gods R all lower case : only made of fine material! The God Most High YHWH of Abraham is transcendent and NOT limited to living on a planet near Kolob.. The Mormon Godhead + Heavenly polygamous mother wives pumping out Spirit babies 24/7 is a total counterfeit of Christianity.
@@cindymacferran331 after leaving Mormonism I no longer know God or Jesus. I have hope that they exist. But what talking about Mormonism and God it is hard because I left the Mormon church because I could not see the Christian God being the author of the confusion that is Mormonism. I think and maybe even feel that there is a creator but I do not associate Him with religion. Mormonism and rigid yet changing doctrine make me question a God that would be so malleable. I vary with G and g as my hope ebbs and flows. But, the Mormon god is a creation of JS and subsequent men who form god rather than God informing or leading them.
I was worried this was going to a big argument, but was impressed with the civil conversation. Having said that, it's funny that Jacob refers to others as "activists" but he appears to think he is not an activist.
LDS Church history is full of confusion and contradiction and evolving doctrines. LGBT issues are no exception. Funny how Jacob says he will leave if things change. What about all the changes that have happened over the past 200 years?? We have hope faith that change will come because of the changes that have happened in yhe past.
Steven, I really appreciate your efforts in building bridges and having dialogue. I disagree with Greg that the Priesthood ban against doesn’t go against the plan of salvation or doctrine of exaltation. It is important to acknowledge that the same ban on the priesthood kept black families from receiving temple blessings and blessings of exaltation. I pray that the church will become more inclusive toward our LGBT+ brothers and sisters. I have no doubt that is the way Jesus would lead the church today. The restoration is ongoing!
I posted a similar comment on Jacob's page, but it's relevant here as well. It is important for members of the LDS church to look outside of the LDS church and pay attention to the history of LGBTQ+ advocacy and affirmation in other Christian denominations. Since the 1940s, formal organizations that advocated for lesbian and gay Christians have existed. That means conversations about greater inclusion for gay and lesbian Christians was happening well before that time. Over time, prominent Christian denominations began to split over issues of gay and lesbian ordination, status within the church, marriage, etc. Some of these schisms began as far back as the 1970s, but they are ongoing. And UMC is the most recent example. For anyone wanting a deep understanding of the long history of Christianity and homosexuality, it's important to read John Boswell's work on the subject, and Heather White's Reforming Sodom is a great book for anyone wanting to understand the rise of gay rights in the modern church. Mormonism is an insular religion. A belief that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the "one true church" can cause a person to neglect the broader Christian world, and, in doing so, they don't have a full picture of the events that are shaping the Christian church. Mormonism isn't immune to the events occurring in Christianity around LGBTQ+ issues. Mormons who are gay or lesbian or trans aren't just going to go away. Decades of harmful policies and deadly rhetoric haven't stopped them from longing for a change. They're going to continue seeking a place at the table in Mormonism just like Christians have done in the Episcopalian Church and the United Church of Christ, and the Presbyterian Church, and the Lutheran Church and the Mennonite faith and the United Methodist Church. The question for the leaders of the Mormon church is how long will they continue to keep the door to full inclusion closed to gay, lesbian, and trans members. The centralized leadership structure of the LDS church makes substantial change slower and harder, but just because the Church is not governed in a democratic way doesn't mean change isn't possible. There will be a major schism in the LDS church over the issue of LGBTQ+ affirmation and inclusion, the leaders just need to figure out which side of that schism they want the to be on. These aren't easy decisions for them to make, so prepare for ongoing confusion until the LDS church receives the greater light and knowledge that many denominations have already received.
I think you misunderstand how the Church works. The Church already has a side in that schism. The issue is whether people will continue to follow that or move too far away. It's not that Churches are changing - that was by design. It's part of the "long march through the institutions" as coined by Dutschke, and then pushed by Gramsci into the cultural institutions. There has been a very purposeful cultural march. During the 70s, we went through a number of battles on that front - some legitimate and others less so. We had the civil rights movement, the ERA and the Gay revolution. The gay revolution during the 70s was very much an outgrowth of the hippie free love era. But they lost the culture battle then to the moral majority. It was in the 80s that things started to change - underground. The Critical Race Theory popped up in the law schools, and then throughout the university. Crenshaw came up with the idea of intersectionality to get other grievance communities to work together. In the meanwhile, GLAD had a national convention where they hired a Madison Avenue firm to look at how to get access to the mainstream - and came up with the idea of redefining marriage. First through Civil Unions, and then the moment there was any support, they jumped to marriage. And they became part of the intersectionality. It has followed the path that Gramsci wrote about. What has hurt the Church is that we have a culture of seeking education, and unwittingly have sent our children to the universities unprepared for the indoctrination they would receive.
You should have more Catholics on to discuss Catholic doctrines and teachings, especislly side by side with lds members. Let both explain their faiths more in depth because mormons use similar catholic words but are describing very different things so it would be very interesting to see that conversation.
Great conversation, clarity and spirit! If Christ and His teachings and will are in the center things will work out and divisiveness and confusion will resolve. Thanks Steven!
44:00 Jacob can’t handle this because of cognitive dissonance. I understand it sucks and I don’t blame you but it is what it is. The exact same thing happened with polygamy. It was taught from the pulpit by men who speak for God that it wouldn’t change and it did!! Sorry brother!
Jacob's response would be that the prophets who taught that polygamy would never go away were wrong because of Jacob 2. You can't compare that to gay marriage because there is no scriptural precedent the brethren are violating right now with how they treat LGBTQ folks.
@@jacobmayberry3566there doesn’t need to be positive confirmation in the scriptures for every application of gospel truth. You can make the exact same argument about the three hour block, financial practices, youth programs, and thousands of other details. The scriptural case against queer people is not ironclad whatsoever. Yes, the message is there, as are several other things like slavery and women not being permitted to speak in church, and somehow we’ve worked out theology around those passages, and I like to think we’re better off for it.
@@jacobmayberry3566 Makes you wonder why people have to twist these issues. God never spoke on the subject, man did, and yet they are sure god did. Slavery is in the bible and they are sure it was wrong. Polygamy is in the bible by men not god and they are sure it is right and it is wrong. It seems irrelevant what the bible says because the man gets to categorize it.
@@aBrewster29 "The scriptural case against queer people is not ironclad whatsoever." The scriptural case for it isn't iron clad either. Whereas for polygamy in LDS theology, there is clear scriptural precedent that it is only permitted at certain times under God's direction. Those scriptures were available to the same leaders who said it would never go away. It's a lot easier to connect the dots than it is for gay marriage and anyone who doesn't acknowledge this is selling something.
@@jacobmayberry3566 clearly stated, affirmative support for religious practice is not a requirement. The vast majority of what we believe and do in the church is a good-faith interpretation of ambiguous scripture. For example, our sacramental prayer is stated in scripture, but the baptismal verbiage is not. The will of the people isn’t meant to supplant the will of God, but to inform a collective process of seeking revelation that is impaired through human fallibility. Again, Pres Nelson has impressed the need to study in seeking spiritual confirmation, saying “good information leads to good inspiration.” That foundation seems to be missing on LGBTQ topics. Members have no avenue to share good fruit observations and scriptural insights with the brethren, while commentary from the brethren reflect a lack of understanding and an abiding fear of a slippery slope toward “anything goes” as opposed to teaching correct principles and letting individual members govern themselves in those gray areas.
I Love Greg. But his answer saying he would stay in the church if it allowed same sex marriage is a manifestation of how strong of a hold the church has on us as members. It also shows how much members will prioritize the Church over everything including truth, light and yes even Christ. Some will choose to stay even knowing it is false. This is exactly why the people who leave the church are actually to be admired for their bravery. Not everyone is willing to follow the truth no matter where it takes them.
On the same note I can’t stand Jacob. Lol. But Kudos to him though for refusing to sustain the brethren when it comes to same sex marriage. I’ve gained more respect for you Jacob at least now we know you’re willing to take a stand against the church if it goes against something you know in your heart. Now we know your line in the sand. 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Jacob doesn't need the Church because he tells you he picks and chooses his beliefs not the Church beliefs. Since the Church teachings come from Prophets and Jacob is clear he is free to dismiss any or all of that at Jacobs discretion, then Jacob's discretion is all there is. All he speaks is from Jacob, not the Church.
From the perspective that Jesus is the groom and his people are the bride, it is faithfulness and love that define that "marriage". It is the same definition for marriage we should all abide by between two human beings.
I wished the following scenario was discussed: A Transgender convert is baptized (say male to female). This new convert is now on the records as a Female. If this female, who proves Temple worthy over time, finds another temple worthy male member as a companion and they want to get married in the Temple... how would Greg and Jacob respond to that scenario?
I don't know about Jacob and Greg (their thoughts aren't doctrine), but the prophet and apostles are clear. Someone with gender dysphoria may have their preferred name updated on church records. Not gender. Some people may lie and not let whomever baptized know about the true gender, and some individuals may mistakenly accept the trans gender on church records, but that's incorrect. If someone who has physically transitioned to a different gender, that only affects their physical body. As stated often by the brethren, gender is eternal. Man turned woman physically is still a man, and they would not be sealed in the temple to a man.
The problem is two fold: 1. There is a progressive activist faction in the church that does not agree with the church's stance on homosexuality. 2. The church is a corporation (it is in the official name-"the corporation of the church of Jesus christ of latter-day saints") and as such the corporate arm is trying to be politically correct with their press releases and not offend anyone in regards to core fundamental church teachings that marriage is between a man and a woman and that any sex outside of marriage as defined by God is a sin- including homosexual relations. The obvious conundrum arrives when the activist look at what the corporate arm is actually doing vs what has been said. It is clearly trending towards acceptance of LGBT issues via recent YW & Relief Society events that have showcased LGBT activists and church owned Deseret Book promoting LGBT books and beliefs. It also does itself no favors when one stake president says one thing about LGBT and another says something completely different. Activists see this as the church is changing and the more public outcry that comes the greater the probability the church changes its stance, mistakenly thinking that public opinion is what caused the manifesto on polygamy and Black's and the priesthood change. Where is today's Boyd K Packer to say things like it is?? It seems as if the church is trying to please the orthodox members and the fringe activists at the same time. You can't please everyone..
What _doctrine_ besides The Family Proclamation explicitly states that gay marriage is against the law of chastity? Anything about it in the Bible could be written off as mistranslation and it’s never mentioned in the BOM or D&C as far as I’m aware. The church could just say that The Family Proclamation was a _policy_ and not a _doctrine_.
You made it very clear from the beginning that you would be exploring pretty much anything and everything to do with the restoration so if people don't like who you invite then they can turn it off or do like I do and just don't watch the ones I am not interested in or have bad feelings for. Like my feelings toward Romney that I told you about but I didn't tell you to get rid of the book with his face on it. That isn't my place to decide and that is what we all need to accept. Watch it or don't. Most of them I do watch.
Jacob is right. The brethren have seen confusion. 1st, I hope he inventories that as a fruit you should know them by. 2nd watch how these bold leaders (/s) will say nothing in conference, but bad Chicken for the Soup for the soul stories. There is no balm of Gilead for this problem.
The mixed messages are there because the 15 are not leaders. There is no evidence they are imbued with the HG. They move exactly like the board of a corporation except with less transparency. They will proclaim nothing except the most basic things.
Conservative saints feeling neglected? How could they? Don't they hear the brethren say how much they love us and pray about us continually? /s. But on the real, my faithful, more fundy friends are struggling with the shifting tides of the Church.
Lol, Jacob is describing information control 'unless your in the internet space, you're just focused on things at the ward level and not aware of a lot of these things'
Please explain the changes that the LDS leaders made in 2018 to the women having to covenant to obey their husbands? That change was in response to the “Ordain Women” pressure the church received prior to that. And that was very much a change to the doctrines of the church.
@@gemelindacjp7976 my source is my own personal experience of watching the Ordain Women movement, when I was a TBM and going to the temple twice a week, and then watching the Church make that change right after getting pressure from them (Ordain Women). I don’t need to provide sources. I lived through it.
Jacob does not believe in prophets at all. They just currently side with his beliefs against gays. Also, the Church has been anything but clear on the issue because it has not spoken with a unified message from the top. Oaks is responsible for 95% of the retrenchment.
Very interesting conversation. Jacob, do you realize that @9:14 you clearly justified every splinter group that has ever existed which left over changes in doctrine? And, every member that has ever left the church over changes in doctrine? Doctrine, which according to Elder Oaks and others, which never changes, has indeed changed repeatedly since the early days of the church. However it is passed off as "theories" or with polygamy, "the government made me do it". Actually with polygamy, while the church stopped practicing it, the belief is still enshrined in D&C 132 (if you read it honestly) which calls it the law of Abraham or re-frames it as the New and Everlasting covenant. Doctrines such as Adam God and Polygamy, taught over the pulpit in general conference for many years, repeated by other apostles and prophets and taught as an absolute requirement for exaltation - and then they were relegated to "theories" by "modern day prophets" and are unknown to many TBM's. My point is this, many members are awakening to the fact that we ARE in the midst of a doctrinal change. The baptism of trans women - which any who have been in positions of authority (EQPres, HPGroup leaders, Bishop, Stake Pres) would know that it had to be cleared up to the first presidency) - is the harbinger. (if you disagree about reaching the first presidency, I suspect we will be able to tell by who gets excommunicated over such a baptism, just as those pre-President Kimball revelation who gave blacks the priesthood and were excommunicated for it). We all are aware of the proclamation on the family and its clear doctrinal messages. When you contradict doctrine, what is the message? As in the past, this too shall become something members in the future look back on as an oddity, if they are even aware of it then, just as many are still unaware of the early practice of polygamy, the doctrines of Adam-God and Blood Atonement. Then, when questioned (and in answer to the question that one of you asked "what is it to be a Latter Day Saint") their response will be "we look to the modern day prophet - we don't look back - because his words are more important than any past prophet or scripture". That is reality and our history as LDS.
What do LDS believe? It is and always has been nebulous. This is nothing new. The guy on the bottom left needs to learn the phrase, “this is what I believe” rather than being so overly confident that he contains all the facts in his head and we shall all agree, bow our heads and say yes. He is also a master at projection. He seems to project his own malice on to his enemies.
@@jmut714the typical CYA ing of new Revelations about old historical and doctrinal cover ups by the LDS. It's hard to have beliefs from the Bible that aren't changed by the LDS church.
This is how predjuce works. When the blacks got the priesthood my loving very active mormon dad said if he ever got a black bishop he would leave the church. Why did he say that. He served his mission in the early 40s in south florida and was told NOT to teach the blacks the gospel. The church justified prejudice back then. Of course he never got a black bishop in his life time because he lived in a very white mormon community. 😂 I did let him know just before he died that when he met Jesus He would be jewish not a white european man and he smiled. 😂 Maybe I should have reminded him that Jesus also was single and had NEVER married while He was on this earth but Im sure the church has sealed Him to Mary Magdalene. 😂
Jacob Hansen said that Jesus Christ stated in a revelation that "homosexuality is sinful". Show me that revelation because I have never seen it, and if the church has it and is hiding it, the church should bring it forth and show it to the world. Not some obscure legal brief. Not some reinterpretation of ancient scripture of dubious meaning: something new and fresh as today's manna. This is why the church claims to have "living prophets" and the world needs them more, now than ever. This is their chance to reclaim the moral high ground. While you are at it, show me the revelation from Jesus Christ, where He has alternate definitions of what Chastity means. What applies to men and women should also apply to men and men, or women and women. If the church has no such revelations, and they can't even tell us, given their vaunted wisdom, keys, and exclusive connection to God, what causes same-sex attraction, they need to cast their prejudices aside, overlook their traditions, and approach the Lord in humble prayer, as a little child, seeking the wisdom they obviously lack. Peter was dead set on denying the Gospel to the Gentiles, until God intervened, and he saw with his own eyes the Holy Ghost fall upon Cornelius and his entire household. If these men would humble themselves and look, they would see that I have seen: gay men receiving visions, visitations, and ascensions to heaven to be with the Lord-- every experience had by Joseph Smith and the prophets of old. Vision upon vision, revelations, not a few, and Christ, Himself, sealing upon their heads the blessings of eternal life and eternal union. No, these are not the activists you speak about. These are humble, sincere, righteous, faithful, penitent, obedient, covenant-keeping men. So far, there have been no revelations in the church on this subject: either ancient, or at the time of Joseph Smith, down to the present day. They suppose they already know the truth and won't bother to ask. How did Jeffrey R. Holland and others spend their time grieving and pondering about this issue? How much time was actually spent in prayer and seeking the mind and will of the Lord? A man without questions is a man without revelation.
As long as we continue to defend polygamy and resist what the Book of Mormon teaches us about it-that polygamy is an abomination, always - we hamstring ourselves and totally block our ability to receive further light and knowledge, either for or against same-sex unions. The Book of Mormon is the new covenant and is in complete harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the law of the Lord given to the Saints at the establishment of the church. Holding up the brethren as the word of God is the inverse of what we should be doing. We need to hold them up _to_ the word of God and sustain them in declaring that doctrine. The Lord gave instructions (in D&C 107) for removing the leadership of the church for a reason: the brethren can lead the church astray. So we need to direct our trust, obedience, and loyalty correctly.
Your church as been led astray by Joseph Smith: no amount of CYA ing can change that fact. The New Covenant is the New Testament: NOT counterfeit books of a false prophet like the ones Jeremiah dealt with in his day.
@@davidjanbaz7728 We are learning from the Joseph Smith Papers that the teachings which are astray from Christ’s New Testament church were not taught by Joseph, but were in fact revisions of his original teachings. Because the historical records have been tampered with significantly, I think it makes sense to judge Joseph by the works that actually came from his hands. I see no false doctrine in the Book of Mormon.
As far as "rules as written" in LDS doctrine, I think there is a lot of space available for the trans community. If gender is an eternal principle that started with our premortal spirits, what is to say a female spirit could not be sent into a male body as part of its probation? Of course that leaves open the question of how to deal with that hypothetical situation. There would need to be "further light and knowledge" revealed by the Spirit.
@@kobidoggy7575 humans are born blind, deaf, physically disfigured, and mentally handicapped all the time. Why would God do that? It's all part of the mortal probation. An autistic child does not mean an autistic spirit. A pre mortal spirit could have chosen to be born autistic as part of their probation. Likewise a male body doesn't have to mean a male spirit. They could have chosen to be born as wrong the sex, or to just have gender dysphoria. Either the spirit chose, or God chose for them that these things would be their crosses to bear. I am only saying there is enough of a knowledge gap, even with the proclamation on the family, for us to be able to say we are not 100% sure what is going on. I am not saying that transitioning is the answer.
What I don't understand is why Jacob and Greg don't realize just how insignificant Mormonism really is. It literally comprises less than 2/10 of 1% of humanity. And out of that number, 70% of those members are currently inactive or have quit altogether. All of Jacob's seven siblings have quit the church as well . That does not speak very highly of the religion, its Doctrine, or its reach in society.
This is why the prophet said we would need the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost to survive these coming days. There will seem to be two diametric voices of “the church” because it is supposed to begin within His house and we have to be able to discern with the Spirit of Truth.
When your prophets contradict what the Holy Spirit gave to the writers of the New Testament: then they become just like the false prophets that Jeremiah dealt with in his day.
They from their founder have continually distorted the Biblical writers teachings and Authentic historical Christianity Givin through the Actual Apostles of Jesus the Christ.
The law of chastity is only officially taught in the temple, but the temple ordinances have changed over the years, so what’s stopping church leaders, in theory, from changing the law of chastity?
This is a puzzling statement. What makes you think that the only official teachings on chastity are in the temple? Are not teachings in General Conference and printed in Church publications official and authoritative? And if not, since when?
@@ryannilsson7955 a 10 minute study of the Journal of Discourses (general conference addresses of their day) contrasted with what the church teaches today proves that what is spoken in general conference in any decade is subject to the tides of the times, and will not be taken seriously in future decades if the church decides to teach doctrine differently. The “most” authoritative standard of the law of chastity originates from the temple. It’s because of what was in the temple that the LoC became a topic in general conference in the first place.
@@ThomasFackrell maybe the Journal of Discourses aren’t taken seriously by YOU, but they are by me and many others. I think most of what people find disagreeable in those works are the result of lazy interpretation. It sounds like the foundation you have for the Church is very sandy, indeed. Apparently, there is nothing standing in the way of the Church becoming absolutely anything other than what it was founded to be, if the current societal trends demand it. I don’t see any limiting factor to your reasoning that wouldn’t allow for the Church to change itself to the point where it stands in entire opposition to its foundations.
@@ryannilsson7955 you take it seriously that polygamy is the only way to the celestial kingdom? Or is President Nelson wrong for preaching otherwise (contrary to John Taylor)? Or is Bruce R. McConkie wrong for teaching that Adam is not God (contrary to Brigham Young)? If you take JoD seriously, then do you not take the current leaders seriously?
Great to see this being addressed! Thanks, Steven! For some reason, I never knew you are gay. I have had LGBTQ+ friends since I was young. Bruce Jenner was my Golf partner when I was a freshman at Graceland University.(then College)
I hope these issues will help people see the leaders of the LDS church is not who they claim to be. Polygamy involves atleast two women because the wife is giving the husband a women as in the occult.
@@CwicShow I said occult not cult, there is a difference. In addition Abraham and his wife grew up in an occult society, and Abraham was called out of it. His wife had less faith then he did, and yes she enacted an occult teaching in giving another women to Abraham. Never did YHWH Elohim sancition it. On top of that YHWH Elohim said to get ride of the second women. If it was of YHWH Elohim this would be an example of Him turning to the left and the right. This is also goes back to the garden how the women fell and caused sin to go upon Adam.
The church is being super manipulative/smart (whichever way you see it) by playing both sides and getting people to defend them on both sides of the issue instead of holding them accountable. I’m grateful that you’re all shining a light on the hypocrisy and division that comes as a result.
50:30 - If you're going to blame the curse of Ham doctrine on the Protostents, then you have to give the Protestants credit for helping to write the Book of Moses, because that doctrine/teaching is woven into the text delivered to Joseph, likely through his seer stone.
Wow! That polygamy discussion was REALLY gross. Greg, "Each polygamist marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman." 😂😂😂 Okay, I feel better now. 😂😂😂 That's some professional hair-splitting right there.
There has never been a time when the LDS church did not send mixed messages. However, we live in a time where there is a huge divide among progressives and conservatives. So it seems like these messages are more than they previously were. Just my opinion, change my mind. : )
@@lindamartinez7006 In my day, it was women should not work outside the home, but the general women’s leadership were career women, not stay at home mothers. There are hundreds more really good examples.
@@davewilson4094 who cares . You can work outside the home depends on circumstances . Any one with small children and babies have rocks in their head to go looking for someone else to take care of them . I m not recalling any women leaders who worked out side The home. Name some .
Name the women leadership that worked outside the home with babies and children . I’ll wait . That’s crazy to leave your babies and little kids with someone. Else . Crazy . It depends on circumstances
Jacob would have left the church in 1890 and 1987. It’s very fascinating to hear the perspective of members with beliefs like those who left in 1890 and 87 live and in real time. I don’t blame him though. The leaders of the church propagated this worldview that the church can’t change, even with the evidence of substantial past changes. Thanks for sharing!
yeah like the bom changing nearly 6000 times. this cult is and always has been a stain , and a cancer to America especially. the leaders of this teal estate agency that dabbles in cult activities should be ashamed. but their bank accounts keep getting larger and larger each day . wake up if you are a josephs myth follower seek The True Christ while you can. Hell is enlarging, joseph is there . do you really want to follow him?
OMG some of my favorite people here!!! I love you all! Thank you for being ADULTS about this!!!!
So refreshing! You all were so respectful to eachother. I admire you all.
Steve and Rebecca are always respectful, Jacob Hansen is known for his intolerant meltdowns.
Great dialogue! Very respectful. Jacob and Greg fantastically defended the doctrine with clarity, love and courage.
But disrespectful to LGBT people
I’ve gone to my bishop and stake Pres about this bothering me so much. My stake pres just attended a meeting with Elder Anderson, Elder Cook and Elder Cuvelier. On Jan 27th 2024. He was going to ask them my concerns about the softened approach to LGBTQ and Trans ideology when another stake President asked essentially his same question which told him this is on other Stake Preadients minds. Elder Anderson said the church has not and will not alter doctrines or eternal principles such as the law of chastity. Marriage is between a man and a woman etc… it was, at the moment a pacifier to me. But still leaves me scratching my head why they allow a primary worker to read a trans book to children, or rainbow support to go on within the walls of the church. You can bet if this EVER comes to our ward I won’t mix words and the law of Chastity will be taught without apology or being scared to hurt feelings!
👍
Maybe because the brethren aren't sitting in every sunday school or primary class in the US.
"they" don't. The guidelines for teaching and the source materials to be used are clear, but members take it upon themselves to teach outside the guidelines all the time. This needs to be corrected at the local level and in the case cited was the responsibility of the bishop who failed.
The church is not speaking with one voice. A church speaking with one voice would not have hired Aaron Sherinian, would not allow contradictory actions concerning married gay couples, would not allow trans persons giving speeches at BYU. Jacob's analysis of the church is 100% true, but his approach to ask your priesthood leader will only perpetuate this confusion, as different leaders will give different answers. I bet Uchtorf and Oaks will give different answers to the same question.
It’s “mince words”.
I grew up in the LDS church in the 60's and 70's and it was always "When will the Priesthood ban change? Rebecca apparently had a different experience ( she's younger than me so I don't know how). The lifting of the ban was announced while I was serving a mission in 1978. Such rejoicing! But never was there a doctrine that it would "never" change.
Who cares what the people said back then, the words that came out of the mouth of the prophets and apostles is what counts!
That is true. I always grew up being taught that the time would come when all worthy men would receive the priesthood
I was in high school when the priesthood ban was lifted. I remember distinctly asking my parents, church leaders and family members why blacks did not have the priesthood, before the ban was lifted. The answer I always received was that it would someday be lifted, but we didn’t know when. It was a joyful day when it was lifted! A few people left the church over it, but I don’t remember it shaking the core of the church membership. Most members embraced and rejoiced the change. It was a relief to me personally and it helped me develop a stronger testimony of our core doctrine that Christ directs our church.
@@JeffreySmith-if6ey how about Joseph Smith sleeping with other members of Church wife’s. Did they teach or mention this in your congregation back in the 70s? .. just curious?
@@sunsolstarSounds like it's God's words that are ever-changing then. 😂
This was a courageous conversation and it really helps when one is confused to hear other opinions. Thank you for coming together to discuss and thank you Steve for creating a safe place to do so❤
Preaching hate is not courageous. The only courageous element is Jacob exposing that he knows nothing about his cult’s history and exposing his sickening homophobia. In 1978, he would have complained about blacks being access to the priesthood, temple and Mormon heaven.
It’s cool how Steven has created a trusted place for both TBM’s and exmos to come talk. What an accomplishment.
Thanks Steve and Rebecca! Great conversation!
I think all 4 of you did an excellent job with a tough, very tough subject. Thanks
@@FleeingBabylon-Now Appreciate it.
I was so excited to see this pop up in my recommendations! I LOVE this so much and love seeing intelligent people being ADULTS about this.
Thank you for the example and thank you for very good thoughts and strong stances that were taken.
If Nelson is approving transgender baptisms he is a fallen prophet.
Excellent response to that hypothetical there at the end...
Could you make a video to highlight the difference between your response and that of brother Hansen?
"Sustaining Leaders"...how does that look? What does that mean? Is it important?
Is it true that if you decline a calling, that you are not sustaining your leaders?
Please make a video about this.
Thank you for your clarifications, Jacob and Greg!! That was very informative and helpful.
As a convert to the church in the early 70's I never once heard blacks will never have the priesthood . I did hear it will happen when the Lord deems it the time. Find it interesting that the church had the revelation for the priesthood at the same time as many countries exspecially in Africa made it legal for blacks to hold religious leadership
positions on all kinds of churches.
Before that For blacks to hold the priesthood would have been illegal in those countries.
I love seeing all of you on here together!! It makes me so happy!!!
I’m so so happy to see this group of people! I’ve been thinking a lot about what both Jacob and Greg are going through with all of this.
Very inspiring and hopeful listening to adults argue without anger or name calling.
So glad we're having this conversation. Thanks to all from South Africa 🇿🇦💓
Jacob and Greg think they can attack the First Presidency like this??? They better prepare to face a Disciplinary Council, i mean "Court of Priesthood Love".
@@harryfve5 So refreshing right?!
@@sgee-vc1hz Do you really feel that they were attacking the leadership? I don’t. I think they are toeing the line while speaking honestly with conviction and passion about the concerns they have for the church.
If anything the leadership should feel ashamed about their own lack of bold courageous leadership.
As a believing member up to the day I left I was an unapologetic all in believer like Greg and Jacob. I literally believed that I could move mountains with my faith if need be and God willed it. I can resonate very much with their passionate plea.
So much kindness and love in this pod. Well done all of you. this was the hope I needed in my day today.
I 100% believe a Jacob would have heen this incensed with the removal of the priesthood ban on black people.
That’s just cruel and garbage.
@@madmanmanxand accurate.
@@madmanmanxI don’t think so. The point is not to call Jacob a racist, but to show the parallel across history. Have you heard Jacob’s thoughts on the matter? His position is that previous prophets were in error, because the scriptures don’t explicitly call for a priesthood ban on black Africans. Never mind the fact that neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon describes the priesthood with anywhere near the level of detail necessary to lay the foundation for an additive concept such as a ban.
It’s ludicrous. You can use the same logic to say the three hour block was an error because it’s not called for in the scriptures.
I’m younger than the civil rights movement but I’ve spent a lot of time in the South. There were a lot of otherwise good people who got swept up in racism. The parallel fits.
In his loyalty Jacob easily might have swallowed the teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B Lee and reveled in their retrenchment. Many members did, because their testimony needed to be right from the beginning.
I disagree with Jacob's interpretation on the priesthood ban. I cannot say that I know for sure that the prophets were wrong in holding the priesthood ban. There has been precedent in the scriptures for limitations on who can hold the priesthood. What I do not see anywhere is any precedent for changes in marriage being between a man and a woman. Homoseaxuality has existed since the times of the book of Genesys, there has been more than enough time for God to reveal a change to his prophets. And we not the first society to be pro LGB so we can't say that "God has not revealed it yet because we as a society would not have accepted it in the past".
@@madmanmanx The ban or pointing out Jacob's communication?
What about intersex people who are biologically both male and female? The statement that there are only biological men and women seems to ignore these people. 🤔
Jacob saying he loves lgbtq folks with that smug smile just really got me feeling gross. Dude claims to love his “friend” who he himself disciplined for the church is mind boggling. It’s the two faced part of that really gets me. Greg seems kind and sincere.
Can you discipline those you love or not?
@@madmanmanxwho is Jacob to mete out judgment?
@@madmanmanxyo Cardon. Of course you can. I guess it goes back to me thinking these folks are born this way. And expecting someone to not have a loving relationship for their life is cruel. You guys claiming you love them and embrace them and in the next breath denounce their committed relationships just seems so disingenuous. The tides are turning my friend and it’s hilarious to watch you scramble to hang on to your old rhetoric is comical. I’m here for it. I hope the church comes around and fully embraces same sex marriage. I doubt you’d see much change in the day to day and everyone can just move on.
@TwoTreesVisuals what if it is true what the doctrines of the church teach? What if in eternity marriage can only be between a man and a woman? Would it not be more cruel for someone to be taught that it is ok to be in a loving relationship as a spouse and then have that relationship be ripped for a whole eternity? Or what if it is true that same sex attraction is just a consequence of the fall and once we are resurrect then we don't have these feelings anymore, we would feel lied to if the church of God was teaching us that we could have eternal same sex marriages. What you see as cruel, could actually be kindness when looked from a different time scope.
Could you say you know for sure that after the resurrection when we all have perfect bodies there will be any LGBTQ+? You don't know that for sure.
@BrendonKing People make judgments all the time. Anyone can, what matters is if that judgment is right or wrong.
Very well done.! Loved the respectful dialogue!
Thanks for the great example of a healthy way to have this conversation.
Agree!
THIS. A group of thoughtful, diverse people having a respectful conversation. Leaving me with Empathy and Understanding.
Hope to respectfully share in the Future.
Thank You
I am happy to watch this conversation
What is the limit of Prophetic error from Jacob’s perspective? He says the priesthood ban was a false doctrine and yet the First Presidency in 1949 in an official statement said it was a commandment from God. If they can be mistaken on what doctrine is and what doctrine isn’t then what can’t they be mistaken on?
He did not say it was false doctrine. He said it was a false application of a policy based on cultural influence, not based on any scripture (which is the doctrine). People even prophets make errors. that is why we have the process of canonization that includes revelation, unanimous affirmation, and acceptance by a vote of common consent.
@@DavidRoskelley-s5j He did say it was false doctrine:
th-cam.com/users/livej_NZ8r3VVRg?si=uloXTD4H9FW7HHL7
@ 1:25:00
If the first presidency can’t even get right what doctrine is and what it isn’t then why trust them? The first presidency in 1949 said it was a commandment from God. According to Jacob the first presidency made a major error on one of their most important jobs.
He did say it was false doctrine:
Source: ward radio TH-cam channel video: “Um We have some questions”
@ 1:25:00
If the first presidency can’t even get right what doctrine is and what it isn’t then why trust them? The first presidency in 1949 said it was a commandment from God. According to Jacob the first presidency made a significant error on one of their most important jobs.
@@dukeofsahib4967 Well in that video, you are correct, he did, I had not saw that, but the point is still the same. By the way a false doctrine is no doctrine at all and that is what this was, it was not revelation, nor based in scripture.
the 1949 statement was also of their understanding at that time, they did not claim new revelation or present the statement as revelation. Obviously the various administration through the years held similar views and believe it was commanded of God, but there is no such canonized revelation nor is it consistent with scripture (the word of God : the Doctrine)
@@DavidRoskelley-s5j So you're basically saying the 1949 first presidency mistook a false doctrine (The priesthood ban) as a commandment from God? If you lived in 1949 and said that about the first presidency how do you think that would've been received? How do we know the current first presidency isn't mistaken on other things? What is the limit of error?
Members of the church left the church when polygamy was removed as doctrine. Members of the church left when Black men could receive the priesthood. In both these instances the the doctrine changed and so did the policies of the church.
There was reason for polygamy and reason for black man and priesthood and both of those where individual policies at specific period of time
Chastity is one of the core Gospel principles that will never change
I grew up, like many members, with a black and white, literal view of church doctrine. Then I find out some doctrine is policy. The world is a big, varied place with many different colors. I believe God loves us the same and we are here to learn to love like God. We are not right and they are not wrong.
The fact that Jacob couldn't sustain the brethren if the doctrine changes seems his shelf will eventually break.
I believe it will
I'm holding out it will. He's cracking. In the end, his dedication to his own eyes will win out. He's flying too close to the sun with his habit of being so informed all the time.
It’s fundamentally hypocritical because he denounces those who currently aren’t in line with the prophet.
What do you want to bet Oaks will “clarify” the confusion and Jacob will think that somehow solves things?
What is a trans ? A man that wants to be a woman and then dresses like a woman ? I looked this up and it says they can’t get surgery to change . 😊
He is smarter than the brethren, that’s what gets us all in trouble.
I remember thinking in the 1980's that maybe the whole priesthood ban was an error, but I would never have thought about talking this way in public, because it would not have been tolerated by the leaders of the church. There was zero tolerance for this, and I believe into the 1990's (maybe into the 2000's) if you made a public statement that the ban was not scriptural and after all was just an error by the brethren, that would definitely have landed you into a church court.
Shows that the church leaders are open for change. We should be able to discuss any matter respectfully, just like we witnessed in this podcast.
Indeed. The doctrine is still true, but the policy in how it is handled has rightfully changed.
That's not quite accurate. There's a radical difference to wondering about something or expressing an opinion, and I know of many who did at the time. The thing that gets you in trouble is publicly calling out the Church and the Gospel as wrong and seek out converts to that idea. That's were those folks fighting against the ERA went too far.
It's not about discussion of topics to discuss issues, but the intent and how it's done.
I don't think the Church can afford to keep ex-ing members over their beliefs. If they continued on that trajectory there'd be no one left except the "neither hot nor colds".
@@littleredhen3218 The Church doesn't ex members for their beliefs, unless they specifically refuse to believe in core doctrines or publicly go about attacking the Church. If the Church just changed it's doctrine to make people contented, then what's the point? It may as well not exist.
In any case, talking about ex-ing them is not accurate. All an excommunication is is a dissolution of the covenants a person has entered into. No one is kicked out of Church, and the hope is the person excommunicated will continue to participate to the extent possible and realign themselves with Christ to allow them to enter into those covenants again.
Great conversation! Thank you. 💜
47:30 Greg Matsen: “neither of these (polygamy or priesthood ban) take away from the plan of salvation”
Umm….EXCUSE ME????? Ask the black families that were prevented from receiving their exaltation ordinances and were prevented from being sealed with their families for eternity while they watched their white neighbors do so. Ask those black members who were told by Brigham young that he “would allow them to be a servant to him” in the celestial kingdom. Ask those husbands of the wives who were told by Joseph Smith that the only path to the highest degree of glory was to be married to Joseph Smith, at least in two instances while the husband had been sent away by Joseph on a mission. Ask the teenage girls who were pressured into marrying a 35+ year old man as it was the only way “for their families to be exalted to the highest degree of glory”.
Ask all of those people if this had anything to do with the plan of salvation. Greg, come on, your statement was ridiculous.
Rebekah trying to keep a cool face during Greg's discussion of how plural marriage works was priceless!
Seriously I feel so bad for the wife of any man who believes in polygamy.
The normal is one man one wife . It is only used for a reason . To keep the gospel here .
There is a clear passage for Greg to switch over to the Mormon fundamentalists once the LDS Church accepts gay marriage. He's almost there doctrinally anyways.
@@charlesmendeley9823 Atleast Greg’s got options available. Jacob will make a fantastic leader of his own breakoff Mormon group if the church accepts gay marriage.
@@Allthoseopposed Well he is as least as arrogant as Joseph Smith. But he cannot construct a valid prophet line which ends with him. I would rather assume the Q15 would somehow split into a conservative and a liberal faction.
There is absolutely NO WAY the church didn’t know about the new PR guy…they aren’t that dumb.
Awesome, respectful, and peaceful conversations. So nice to hear different points of view and understanding about marriage, and LGBTQ in a Christ-like civilized way.
I'm really starting to hate that word "Christ-like" because it tends to mean "nice" instead of truthful. I would much prefer the "Christ-like" whip He made for the money changers, and the "Christ-like" way He spoke to the Pharisees.
Thank you for asking and listening and sharing your thoughts with such respect.
Greg skimmed over blacks and the priesthood and polygamy as if they are easily explainable to TBMs. Very comforting to TBMs but if you dig deeper you see they're anything but easy to put aside.
Jacob is 100% correct about the hypocrisy and mixed messaging the church is sending. He’s just on the wrong side of the issue.
Jacob (and all the members) are experiencing exactly what the membership experienced on race and the priesthood during the 1950’s and 1960’s. If social media existed back then, I’m certain we would be able to pull up videos reflecting the exact same feelings as the church slowly culturally changed, then finally the pressure built up enough in the membership that the “prophet” finally had a “revelation” that the change needed to be made in 1978.
Make no mistake, gay temple marriage will be doctrine in the next 30 years. I was saying it 5 years ago and people thought I was insane. I say it today, just 5 years later, and many more people believe it’s a possibility. This is a pattern. Doctrine in the church changes over time to reflect culture, not the other way around. Why? Because this church isn’t led by a prophet of God, just a man doing the best he can.
My question for Jacob is: When the church inevitably caves to the majority membership and allows gay marriage, will you leave the church? If so, you may as well deconstruct the entire thing now while you’re still middle aged. It’s more and more painful to deconstruct your religion the more years you’ve spent dedicating your life and money to it.
Moreover, Jacob, once you do deconstruct your religion, you will discard your bigoted self-righteous worldview in the process, you discover the true meaning of empathy, and you will feel a lot of regret for the filthy public hatred you’ve displayed toward LGBTQ+ in your past.
I have been a member of the Church for over 50 years and was always taught that the Priesthood question WOULD change.
Right, but when, and was it correct in the first place? You might wasn’t to read Matt Harris’s and Greg Prince’s work documenting the history of the change (they were entrusted by the McKay and Kimball families, respectively, to compile their father’s biography from personal journals).
Don’t let platitudes trick you into thinking the race ban is not a valid parallel to what we’re seeing today.
Agreed - but it was clearly taught - in writing - that that change would not come until the Millenium - until all others had a chance to receive the gospel first.
@@davidtorbenson4686Maybe the millennium is here. Nelson only plans new temples without Moroni statues. What does that imply?
@@charlesmendeley9823Christ himself sets up The Millennium after he returns to the Mount of Olives: that will happen when the Jews build their 3rd Temple!
@@charlesmendeley9823it implies that he's trying to take the church mainstream Christian and the name Mormon along with theMoroni statues are a little embarrassing. They replaced angel Moroni icons with cross icons in all of the map apps. They gave the church the new bathtub Jesus logo, which is very Catholic-esque, they declared the moniker Mormon a victory for Satan. Rusty is tired of being ridiculed and the lowest regarded "church" -- even lower than Wicca and satanism.
My understanding growing up in the church was that there would eventually be a positive change for blacks to hold the priesthood. It was just a matter of when. The civil rights movements during the 60s helped pave and open the way, so the church could finally implement it. So that was not set doctrine at the time.
I heard a talk today given by President Benson. One thing that stood out in that talk was when he mentioned the Samuel effect. When the people wanted a king and God warned them what having a king would do to their society. They demanded one anyway so God allowd it and their society fell apart under king rule. God may allow this and the consequences will be tragic
What do you think about ending polygamy as living doctrine, or starting giving the Priesthood to black people? Do you think it brought tragic consequences too? We could compare your thoughts to the noes from racists or polygamists back those times. The Doctrine changed after Law changed. It is the way the Church works. If people knew more about Church history they would know this.
If the book that established a doctrine said doctrine can't change, if it then changes then that book or established doctrine is on its way out. Or might I say, if people change the book or doctrine they are on their way out.
@@jader.sphair That's not really accurate. Polygamy is still doctrine - it was part of the new and everlasting covenant, it's just not authorized to practice on earth anymore. It's not much different than the Law of Consecration. We don't practice the United Order, and instead practice tithing. The doctrine didn't change. How we are authorized to practice it did.
The same is with the priesthood ban. When it was given, BY said it would change one day. It's not much different than the various guidelines for priesthood practice throughout the Old Testament. The Priesthood is the doctrine. How we practice it isn't.
@@RichardChappell1you can’t bring up “BY said it would change” as an excuse for it changing. When Brigham said it would one day change, he also said exactly when that day would be: at the end of the millennium after every white man who has ever or will ever live has been given/offered the priesthood. Only after that will the forest black man be given the priesthood.
How can they cling so hard to the law of Chastity and then still consider Joseph Smith a prophet after what happened in the barn with Fanny Alger.
This has been one of the best interviews! I appreciate all of you thank you so much!
1. Hansen probably doesn’t realize it but he just conceded the point that the LDS church isn’t guided by direct revelation through prohets. 2. He admitted he is at least thinking about the possibility of leaving the LDS church at some future point .
Hopefully he'll be honest with himself and allow himself to think logically, rationally and critically.
It was a hypothetical situation that he believes 100% will not happen. It was his way of expressing how firmly he believes the doctrine. Quit taking things out of context.
I appreciate this conversation, thanks for having it, it helps me to sort out what is going on better and settle my own thoughts.
Thank you Rebecca for putting this together.
As a medical professional and understand the dynamics of the physical body that were unknown in the times of Jesus. If the definition of marriage changed and that truly is possible and that would occur in the face of real facts the LDS church has not changed. Sadly holding hard to a definition ignoring more valid information would come with a cost. Yet the world will continue and churches will shrink and expand. My POV is to stand where I can and be loving as possible to inspire and to still work for peace after 50 plus years. Thank you Stephen for your loving ways and how your love of” The Restoration” compells you.
This statement has embedded in it that YHWH Elohim doesn't know everything.
Steve - I think you have the best channel on the internet for real conversations. This is such a real conversation with great questions and discussions. Really appreciate your ongoing efforts to create a forum for respectful discussion. These are complex issues and you always seem to extend grace to your guests without judgement. Thank you!
Wow! Thanks for the kind words
Fantastic dialogue. I appreciate the respectful conversation. I love the podcast format where people can have long form conversations about complex issues. Thank you for organizing this
Wow, I never seen so much respect between those with very different opinions!
From this I learned that we all have to be willing to loosen our grips a smidge on what our personal opinions are.
As all of our opinions will change to some degree throughout our lives.
The peace is well worth it and with really nothing to lose.
All 4 of you were great examples of this.
I loved this video, Thank you Steven! One of the biggest parts I didn't like in Jacobs video was when it sounded like he was using the phrase "man dressed like a woman" more like a slur. After the 3rd time using the phrase, I was like 'mkay Jacob I heard you the first time.' 🙄
But through this video I was able to see him in a different light. Thanks again Steven for providing a platform where they could be heard completely. It seemed that Jacob was able to let out some steam in this video.
I left the church because I knew it wasn't a great place for me mentally, as a gay person. And from my perspective a persons mental health is far more important than doctrine. Take care of yourselves guys!
Pleasantly surprised watching this, I almost didn’t watch. I can honestly say I’m glad I did .
STEVE YOU ARE AN OUTSTANDING HOST & AN EVEN BETTER HUMAN BEING. GOD IS PROUD OF YOU!
This is sad to watch. The Mormon church will end up changing and will have to come up with a justification for the change.
I think you are correct and the fun part is going to be listening to the spin from the top down. 😂
Lol so fun to have my head spinning when they start the apologetic about priesthood ban and polygamy..... this is the same thing!!!!!
Jacob can simultaneously be thoughtful and disgustingly prejudiced. I hope someday he has the humility to wonder if maybe he’s been horribly wrong. And Rebecca, you’re lovely, as always.
It's not that the church is confused by accepting trans individuals, it's that Jacob is ill-informed about gender.
@@PaulLambert_816can’t it be both?
@@brooklynparkse yes I suppose because I see many people in the "church" with Jacob's ill-informed views, including the brethren. But I'm confident the "doctrines" will change with time. The one constant in the church is change.
@@PaulLambert_816what is the confusion he has?
@@PaulLambert_816what doctrines have changed that would give you that impression? Polygamy was stopped as a practice but still exists with respect to the sealing ordinances. Policies change all the time. But, the doctrine of sealing with respect to exaltation is what is being considered here. Is there any precedence in all of recorded time that would make this possible like we had on polygamy and race in the Priesthood? Hope that clarifies why the messaging coming from Church is giving false hope to some since the core doctrines just don’t change. Both sides of this issue probably should just chill and understand in todays crazy media and culture this stuff is just creating division which is a source we should avoid.
Stephen- I appreciate your bringing all these views together and being civil and intelligent
I wish more people online where like you
I’ve been impressed with your videos- had no idea you were gay
Keep up the good work
Polygamy is between "'a' man and 'a' woman"?
WHAT?
Yeah, Jesus thought that if you divorced you committed adultery if you marry again but somehow he is ok with polygamy. 😒
@@vl6779 Honestly, the human mind can come up with any rationale to make things work. The book of Abraham is a smoking gun, and people still look at it and find a way to make it work. Religion is most of the time a lot more about social context than anything else. I keep reminding myself that it is irrational to really truly question your beliefs when life is working pretty well for you (and it works far less when your family and friends reject you!)
@@JoandArc5005 Here is mine, Whenever, I see the word “faith” and “believe” I substitute those words for the word “to Trust” It works great for me because I’m not asking myself to have idols that required for me to give them my “faith” or “believe”
I don’t have to believe in a particular church because a church is no a deity to me, and if it doesn’t contribute to that trust is useless to me.
Jacob is too ignorant to recognise that Russell Nelson is eternally married to TWO women.
No, polygamy isn't between "a" man and "a" woman. By definition, polygamy is one man with more than one woman.
Great podcast! Love seeing this group talk about the issues with respect. Of course, we all love Steven Pynakker...the man the myth the legend. Bucket list...... meet Steve
I am amazed that Jacob can fully acknowledge that the priesthood and temple ban was error and yet not see the efforts of Brigham Young to make it come from god and not see all the other errors that are also done in the name of god.
Yes amazing, since this issue is pretty much of the same cloth.
He is in a bit of a bubble but that is obvious. It gives him a sense of ? Security? Safety? Not sure.
Is the a reason you use a lower case “g”?
@@cindymacferran331Mormon gods R all lower case : only made of fine material!
The God Most High YHWH of Abraham is transcendent and NOT limited to living on a planet near Kolob..
The Mormon Godhead + Heavenly polygamous mother wives pumping out Spirit babies 24/7 is a total counterfeit of Christianity.
@@cindymacferran331 after leaving Mormonism I no longer know God or Jesus. I have hope that they exist. But what talking about Mormonism and God it is hard because I left the Mormon church because I could not see the Christian God being the author of the confusion that is Mormonism. I think and maybe even feel that there is a creator but I do not associate Him with religion. Mormonism and rigid yet changing doctrine make me question a God that would be so malleable.
I vary with G and g as my hope ebbs and flows.
But, the Mormon god is a creation of JS and subsequent men who form god rather than God informing or leading them.
I was worried this was going to a big argument, but was impressed with the civil conversation.
Having said that, it's funny that Jacob refers to others as "activists" but he appears to think he is not an activist.
LDS Church history is full of confusion and contradiction and evolving doctrines. LGBT issues are no exception.
Funny how Jacob says he will leave if things change. What about all the changes that have happened over the past 200 years??
We have hope faith that change will come because of the changes that have happened in yhe past.
Facts about gender can not change. All other changes are about behavior. There are only two genders.
Steven, I really appreciate your efforts in building bridges and having dialogue. I disagree with Greg that the Priesthood ban against doesn’t go against the plan of salvation or doctrine of exaltation. It is important to acknowledge that the same ban on the priesthood kept black families from receiving temple blessings and blessings of exaltation. I pray that the church will become more inclusive toward our LGBT+ brothers and sisters. I have no doubt that is the way Jesus would lead the church today. The restoration is ongoing!
What a great conversation! 🎉.
I posted a similar comment on Jacob's page, but it's relevant here as well. It is important for members of the LDS church to look outside of the LDS church and pay attention to the history of LGBTQ+ advocacy and affirmation in other Christian denominations.
Since the 1940s, formal organizations that advocated for lesbian and gay Christians have existed. That means conversations about greater inclusion for gay and lesbian Christians was happening well before that time. Over time, prominent Christian denominations began to split over issues of gay and lesbian ordination, status within the church, marriage, etc. Some of these schisms began as far back as the 1970s, but they are ongoing. And UMC is the most recent example. For anyone wanting a deep understanding of the long history of Christianity and homosexuality, it's important to read John Boswell's work on the subject, and Heather White's Reforming Sodom is a great book for anyone wanting to understand the rise of gay rights in the modern church.
Mormonism is an insular religion. A belief that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the "one true church" can cause a person to neglect the broader Christian world, and, in doing so, they don't have a full picture of the events that are shaping the Christian church.
Mormonism isn't immune to the events occurring in Christianity around LGBTQ+ issues. Mormons who are gay or lesbian or trans aren't just going to go away. Decades of harmful policies and deadly rhetoric haven't stopped them from longing for a change. They're going to continue seeking a place at the table in Mormonism just like Christians have done in the Episcopalian Church and the United Church of Christ, and the Presbyterian Church, and the Lutheran Church and the Mennonite faith and the United Methodist Church. The question for the leaders of the Mormon church is how long will they continue to keep the door to full inclusion closed to gay, lesbian, and trans members.
The centralized leadership structure of the LDS church makes substantial change slower and harder, but just because the Church is not governed in a democratic way doesn't mean change isn't possible.
There will be a major schism in the LDS church over the issue of LGBTQ+ affirmation and inclusion, the leaders just need to figure out which side of that schism they want the to be on. These aren't easy decisions for them to make, so prepare for ongoing confusion until the LDS church receives the greater light and knowledge that many denominations have already received.
I think you misunderstand how the Church works. The Church already has a side in that schism. The issue is whether people will continue to follow that or move too far away.
It's not that Churches are changing - that was by design. It's part of the "long march through the institutions" as coined by Dutschke, and then pushed by Gramsci into the cultural institutions. There has been a very purposeful cultural march. During the 70s, we went through a number of battles on that front - some legitimate and others less so. We had the civil rights movement, the ERA and the Gay revolution. The gay revolution during the 70s was very much an outgrowth of the hippie free love era. But they lost the culture battle then to the moral majority. It was in the 80s that things started to change - underground. The Critical Race Theory popped up in the law schools, and then throughout the university.
Crenshaw came up with the idea of intersectionality to get other grievance communities to work together. In the meanwhile, GLAD had a national convention where they hired a Madison Avenue firm to look at how to get access to the mainstream - and came up with the idea of redefining marriage. First through Civil Unions, and then the moment there was any support, they jumped to marriage. And they became part of the intersectionality. It has followed the path that Gramsci wrote about. What has hurt the Church is that we have a culture of seeking education, and unwittingly have sent our children to the universities unprepared for the indoctrination they would receive.
You should have more Catholics on to discuss Catholic doctrines and teachings, especislly side by side with lds members. Let both explain their faiths more in depth because mormons use similar catholic words but are describing very different things so it would be very interesting to see that conversation.
Great conversation, clarity and spirit! If Christ and His teachings and will are in the center things will work out and divisiveness and confusion will resolve. Thanks Steven!
44:00 Jacob can’t handle this because of cognitive dissonance. I understand it sucks and I don’t blame you but it is what it is. The exact same thing happened with polygamy. It was taught from the pulpit by men who speak for God that it wouldn’t change and it did!! Sorry brother!
Jacob's response would be that the prophets who taught that polygamy would never go away were wrong because of Jacob 2. You can't compare that to gay marriage because there is no scriptural precedent the brethren are violating right now with how they treat LGBTQ folks.
@@jacobmayberry3566there doesn’t need to be positive confirmation in the scriptures for every application of gospel truth. You can make the exact same argument about the three hour block, financial practices, youth programs, and thousands of other details.
The scriptural case against queer people is not ironclad whatsoever. Yes, the message is there, as are several other things like slavery and women not being permitted to speak in church, and somehow we’ve worked out theology around those passages, and I like to think we’re better off for it.
@@jacobmayberry3566 Makes you wonder why people have to twist these issues. God never spoke on the subject, man did, and yet they are sure god did. Slavery is in the bible and they are sure it was wrong. Polygamy is in the bible by men not god and they are sure it is right and it is wrong. It seems irrelevant what the bible says because the man gets to categorize it.
@@aBrewster29 "The scriptural case against queer people is not ironclad whatsoever."
The scriptural case for it isn't iron clad either. Whereas for polygamy in LDS theology, there is clear scriptural precedent that it is only permitted at certain times under God's direction. Those scriptures were available to the same leaders who said it would never go away. It's a lot easier to connect the dots than it is for gay marriage and anyone who doesn't acknowledge this is selling something.
@@jacobmayberry3566 clearly stated, affirmative support for religious practice is not a requirement. The vast majority of what we believe and do in the church is a good-faith interpretation of ambiguous scripture. For example, our sacramental prayer is stated in scripture, but the baptismal verbiage is not.
The will of the people isn’t meant to supplant the will of God, but to inform a collective process of seeking revelation that is impaired through human fallibility. Again, Pres Nelson has impressed the need to study in seeking spiritual confirmation, saying “good information leads to good inspiration.”
That foundation seems to be missing on LGBTQ topics. Members have no avenue to share good fruit observations and scriptural insights with the brethren, while commentary from the brethren reflect a lack of understanding and an abiding fear of a slippery slope toward “anything goes” as opposed to teaching correct principles and letting individual members govern themselves in those gray areas.
I Love Greg.
But his answer saying he would stay in the church if it allowed same sex marriage is a manifestation of how strong of a hold the church has on us as members.
It also shows how much members will prioritize the Church over everything including truth, light and yes even Christ.
Some will choose to stay even knowing it is false.
This is exactly why the people who leave the church are actually to be admired for their bravery.
Not everyone is willing to follow the truth no matter where it takes them.
On the same note I can’t stand Jacob. Lol. But Kudos to him though for refusing to sustain the brethren when it comes to same sex marriage.
I’ve gained more respect for you Jacob at least now we know you’re willing to take a stand against the church if it goes against something you know in your heart.
Now we know your line in the sand. 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Jacob doesn't need the Church because he tells you he picks and chooses his beliefs not the Church beliefs. Since the Church teachings come from Prophets and Jacob is clear he is free to dismiss any or all of that at Jacobs discretion, then Jacob's discretion is all there is. All he speaks is from Jacob, not the Church.
From the perspective that Jesus is the groom and his people are the bride, it is faithfulness and love that define that "marriage". It is the same definition for marriage we should all abide by between two human beings.
I wished the following scenario was discussed: A Transgender convert is baptized (say male to female). This new convert is now on the records as a Female. If this female, who proves Temple worthy over time, finds another temple worthy male member as a companion and they want to get married in the Temple... how would Greg and Jacob respond to that scenario?
I don't know about Jacob and Greg (their thoughts aren't doctrine), but the prophet and apostles are clear. Someone with gender dysphoria may have their preferred name updated on church records. Not gender. Some people may lie and not let whomever baptized know about the true gender, and some individuals may mistakenly accept the trans gender on church records, but that's incorrect.
If someone who has physically transitioned to a different gender, that only affects their physical body. As stated often by the brethren, gender is eternal. Man turned woman physically is still a man, and they would not be sealed in the temple to a man.
Transgender people can be baptized but not go to the temple.
Wrong on so many levels.
The problem is two fold:
1. There is a progressive activist faction in the church that does not agree with the church's stance on homosexuality.
2. The church is a corporation (it is in the official name-"the corporation of the church of Jesus christ of latter-day saints") and as such the corporate arm is trying to be politically correct with their press releases and not offend anyone in regards to core fundamental church teachings that marriage is between a man and a woman and that any sex outside of marriage as defined by God is a sin- including homosexual relations.
The obvious conundrum arrives when the activist look at what the corporate arm is actually doing vs what has been said. It is clearly trending towards acceptance of LGBT issues via recent YW & Relief Society events that have showcased LGBT activists and church owned Deseret Book promoting LGBT books and beliefs. It also does itself no favors when one stake president says one thing about LGBT and another says something completely different.
Activists see this as the church is changing and the more public outcry that comes the greater the probability the church changes its stance, mistakenly thinking that public opinion is what caused the manifesto on polygamy and Black's and the priesthood change.
Where is today's Boyd K Packer to say things like it is??
It seems as if the church is trying to please the orthodox members and the fringe activists at the same time. You can't please everyone..
Awesome channel! I’m an ex-mo atheist, I found this discussion super interesting
What _doctrine_ besides The Family Proclamation explicitly states that gay marriage is against the law of chastity? Anything about it in the Bible could be written off as mistranslation and it’s never mentioned in the BOM or D&C as far as I’m aware. The church could just say that The Family Proclamation was a _policy_ and not a _doctrine_.
You made it very clear from the beginning that you would be exploring pretty much anything and everything to do with the restoration so if people don't like who you invite then they can turn it off or do like I do and just don't watch the ones I am not interested in or have bad feelings for. Like my feelings toward Romney that I told you about but I didn't tell you to get rid of the book with his face on it. That isn't my place to decide and that is what we all need to accept. Watch it or don't. Most of them I do watch.
This is awesome. Props to you all for coming together and discussing.
Jacob is right. The brethren have seen confusion. 1st, I hope he inventories that as a fruit you should know them by. 2nd watch how these bold leaders (/s) will say nothing in conference, but bad Chicken for the Soup for the soul stories. There is no balm of Gilead for this problem.
The mixed messages are there because the 15 are not leaders. There is no evidence they are imbued with the HG. They move exactly like the board of a corporation except with less transparency. They will proclaim nothing except the most basic things.
Greg's explanation of how he thinks the Church is moving feels accurate to me.
Dang. Jacob's take makes sense too; that the brethren want to see how supportive they can be without losing the doctrine.
Conservative saints feeling neglected? How could they? Don't they hear the brethren say how much they love us and pray about us continually? /s. But on the real, my faithful, more fundy friends are struggling with the shifting tides of the Church.
Lol, Jacob is describing information control 'unless your in the internet space, you're just focused on things at the ward level and not aware of a lot of these things'
I'm guessing this is precisely the reason why both Greg and Jacob have never been called to be Bishop
Thank you for a great discussion from differing perspectives. Very refreshing and informative
Please explain the changes that the LDS leaders made in 2018 to the women having to covenant to obey their husbands? That change was in response to the “Ordain Women” pressure the church received prior to that. And that was very much a change to the doctrines of the church.
Please provide sources for your assertion that the change in wording was due to outside pressure.
@@gemelindacjp7976 my source is my own personal experience of watching the Ordain Women movement, when I was a TBM and going to the temple twice a week, and then watching the Church make that change right after getting pressure from them (Ordain Women). I don’t need to provide sources. I lived through it.
@@kimgoeckeritz6320which doctrine was changed, exactly?
Like always the LORD decides the time for change and WHAT changes.
Yes Joseph was ordaining blacks to begin with.
Jacob does not believe in prophets at all. They just currently side with his beliefs against gays.
Also, the Church has been anything but clear on the issue because it has not spoken with a unified message from the top. Oaks is responsible for 95% of the retrenchment.
Very interesting conversation. Jacob, do you realize that @9:14 you clearly justified every splinter group that has ever existed which left over changes in doctrine? And, every member that has ever left the church over changes in doctrine? Doctrine, which according to Elder Oaks and others, which never changes, has indeed changed repeatedly since the early days of the church. However it is passed off as "theories" or with polygamy, "the government made me do it". Actually with polygamy, while the church stopped practicing it, the belief is still enshrined in D&C 132 (if you read it honestly) which calls it the law of Abraham or re-frames it as the New and Everlasting covenant. Doctrines such as Adam God and Polygamy, taught over the pulpit in general conference for many years, repeated by other apostles and prophets and taught as an absolute requirement for exaltation - and then they were relegated to "theories" by "modern day prophets" and are unknown to many TBM's.
My point is this, many members are awakening to the fact that we ARE in the midst of a doctrinal change. The baptism of trans women - which any who have been in positions of authority (EQPres, HPGroup leaders, Bishop, Stake Pres) would know that it had to be cleared up to the first presidency) - is the harbinger. (if you disagree about reaching the first presidency, I suspect we will be able to tell by who gets excommunicated over such a baptism, just as those pre-President Kimball revelation who gave blacks the priesthood and were excommunicated for it).
We all are aware of the proclamation on the family and its clear doctrinal messages. When you contradict doctrine, what is the message? As in the past, this too shall become something members in the future look back on as an oddity, if they are even aware of it then, just as many are still unaware of the early practice of polygamy, the doctrines of Adam-God and Blood Atonement. Then, when questioned (and in answer to the question that one of you asked "what is it to be a Latter Day Saint") their response will be "we look to the modern day prophet - we don't look back - because his words are more important than any past prophet or scripture". That is reality and our history as LDS.
Doctrine comes from the Bible not the quorum of the 12.
REBECCA YOU ROCK!
Glad this happening
What do LDS believe? It is and always has been nebulous. This is nothing new. The guy on the bottom left needs to learn the phrase, “this is what I believe” rather than being so overly confident that he contains all the facts in his head and we shall all agree, bow our heads and say yes. He is also a master at projection. He seems to project his own malice on to his enemies.
He's decided he knows what the "truth" is, even though that truth changes all the time in the church.
When someone believes then they speak of it as a universal truth.
@@jmut714the typical CYA ing of new Revelations about old historical and doctrinal cover ups by the LDS.
It's hard to have beliefs from the Bible that aren't changed by the LDS church.
This is how predjuce works. When the blacks got the priesthood my loving very active mormon dad said if he ever got a black bishop he would leave the church. Why did he say that. He served his mission in the early 40s in south florida and was told NOT to teach the blacks the gospel. The church justified prejudice back then. Of course he never got a black bishop in his life time because he lived in a very white mormon community. 😂 I did let him know just before he died that when he met Jesus He would be jewish not a white european man and he smiled. 😂 Maybe I should have reminded him that Jesus also was single and had NEVER married while He was on this earth but Im sure the church has sealed Him to Mary Magdalene. 😂
Clever screen name. Wonderful input.
Jacob Hansen said that Jesus Christ stated in a revelation that "homosexuality is sinful". Show me that revelation because I have never seen it, and if the church has it and is hiding it, the church should bring it forth and show it to the world. Not some obscure legal brief. Not some reinterpretation of ancient scripture of dubious meaning: something new and fresh as today's manna. This is why the church claims to have "living prophets" and the world needs them more, now than ever. This is their chance to reclaim the moral high ground.
While you are at it, show me the revelation from Jesus Christ, where He has alternate definitions of what Chastity means. What applies to men and women should also apply to men and men, or women and women.
If the church has no such revelations, and they can't even tell us, given their vaunted wisdom, keys, and exclusive connection to God, what causes same-sex attraction, they need to cast their prejudices aside, overlook their traditions, and approach the Lord in humble prayer, as a little child, seeking the wisdom they obviously lack. Peter was dead set on denying the Gospel to the Gentiles, until God intervened, and he saw with his own eyes the Holy Ghost fall upon Cornelius and his entire household.
If these men would humble themselves and look, they would see that I have seen: gay men receiving visions, visitations, and ascensions to heaven to be with the Lord-- every experience had by Joseph Smith and the prophets of old. Vision upon vision, revelations, not a few, and Christ, Himself, sealing upon their heads the blessings of eternal life and eternal union. No, these are not the activists you speak about. These are humble, sincere, righteous, faithful, penitent, obedient, covenant-keeping men.
So far, there have been no revelations in the church on this subject: either ancient, or at the time of Joseph Smith, down to the present day. They suppose they already know the truth and won't bother to ask. How did Jeffrey R. Holland and others spend their time grieving and pondering about this issue? How much time was actually spent in prayer and seeking the mind and will of the Lord? A man without questions is a man without revelation.
As long as we continue to defend polygamy and resist what the Book of Mormon teaches us about it-that polygamy is an abomination, always - we hamstring ourselves and totally block our ability to receive further light and knowledge, either for or against same-sex unions. The Book of Mormon is the new covenant and is in complete harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the law of the Lord given to the Saints at the establishment of the church. Holding up the brethren as the word of God is the inverse of what we should be doing. We need to hold them up _to_ the word of God and sustain them in declaring that doctrine. The Lord gave instructions (in D&C 107) for removing the leadership of the church for a reason: the brethren can lead the church astray. So we need to direct our trust, obedience, and loyalty correctly.
Your church as been led astray by Joseph Smith: no amount of CYA ing can change that fact.
The New Covenant is the New Testament: NOT counterfeit books of a false prophet like the ones Jeremiah dealt with in his day.
@@davidjanbaz7728 We are learning from the Joseph Smith Papers that the teachings which are astray from Christ’s New Testament church were not taught by Joseph, but were in fact revisions of his original teachings. Because the historical records have been tampered with significantly, I think it makes sense to judge Joseph by the works that actually came from his hands. I see no false doctrine in the Book of Mormon.
Are you a Snufferite? That's what he and his loyal followers teach.
@@orisonorchards4251 I’m not. Sounds like, at least on polygamy as it relates to the Book of Mormon, we have come to a similar conclusion.
What a fantastic panel! Nice! 😊
As far as "rules as written" in LDS doctrine, I think there is a lot of space available for the trans community. If gender is an eternal principle that started with our premortal spirits, what is to say a female spirit could not be sent into a male body as part of its probation? Of course that leaves open the question of how to deal with that hypothetical situation. There would need to be "further light and knowledge" revealed by the Spirit.
If God is the same yesterday today and forever he never change why will he do something like that? I think that is your own knowledge.
@@kobidoggy7575Does God not give us trials?
@@jmut714kimball taught that to even insinuate that God would err in that manner was blasphemous.
@@BrendonKing And was he speaking as a man or a prophet at the time?
@@kobidoggy7575 humans are born blind, deaf, physically disfigured, and mentally handicapped all the time. Why would God do that? It's all part of the mortal probation. An autistic child does not mean an autistic spirit. A pre mortal spirit could have chosen to be born autistic as part of their probation. Likewise a male body doesn't have to mean a male spirit. They could have chosen to be born as wrong the sex, or to just have gender dysphoria. Either the spirit chose, or God chose for them that these things would be their crosses to bear. I am only saying there is enough of a knowledge gap, even with the proclamation on the family, for us to be able to say we are not 100% sure what is going on. I am not saying that transitioning is the answer.
What I don't understand is why Jacob and Greg don't realize just how insignificant Mormonism really is. It literally comprises less than 2/10 of 1% of humanity. And out of that number, 70% of those members are currently inactive or have quit altogether. All of Jacob's seven siblings have quit the church as well . That does not speak very highly of the religion, its Doctrine, or its reach in society.
Great conversation.
Really good panel. Thank you!
Greg we are taught to believe it needs to be unanimous but we learned recently that some apostles don’t even need to be aware of certain decisions.
Really how do you know that ? 😊
?
What are you talking about? Don't just throw out a vague assertion without explanation and sources.
@@gemelindacjp7976 read the other comments. The example is there.
This is why the prophet said we would need the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost to survive these coming days.
There will seem to be two diametric voices of “the church” because it is supposed to begin within His house and we have to be able to discern with the Spirit of Truth.
When your prophets contradict what the Holy Spirit gave to the writers of the New Testament: then they become just like the false prophets that Jeremiah dealt with in his day.
@@davidjanbaz7728 are you thinking of something in particular that one said?
Need the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost because the church the 15 men will be something not true ?
The LDS Church New Testament study manuals skip dozens of critical and clarifying chapters. They’ve ceded clarity at least.
I agree with this.
They from their founder have continually distorted the Biblical writers teachings and Authentic historical Christianity Givin through the Actual Apostles of Jesus the Christ.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Can you give an example?
The law of chastity is only officially taught in the temple, but the temple ordinances have changed over the years, so what’s stopping church leaders, in theory, from changing the law of chastity?
This is a puzzling statement. What makes you think that the only official teachings on chastity are in the temple? Are not teachings in General Conference and printed in Church publications official and authoritative? And if not, since when?
@@ryannilsson7955 a 10 minute study of the Journal of Discourses (general conference addresses of their day) contrasted with what the church teaches today proves that what is spoken in general conference in any decade is subject to the tides of the times, and will not be taken seriously in future decades if the church decides to teach doctrine differently. The “most” authoritative standard of the law of chastity originates from the temple. It’s because of what was in the temple that the LoC became a topic in general conference in the first place.
@@ThomasFackrell maybe the Journal of Discourses aren’t taken seriously by YOU, but they are by me and many others. I think most of what people find disagreeable in those works are the result of lazy interpretation.
It sounds like the foundation you have for the Church is very sandy, indeed. Apparently, there is nothing standing in the way of the Church becoming absolutely anything other than what it was founded to be, if the current societal trends demand it. I don’t see any limiting factor to your reasoning that wouldn’t allow for the Church to change itself to the point where it stands in entire opposition to its foundations.
@@ryannilsson7955 you take it seriously that polygamy is the only way to the celestial kingdom? Or is President Nelson wrong for preaching otherwise (contrary to John Taylor)? Or is Bruce R. McConkie wrong for teaching that Adam is not God (contrary to Brigham Young)? If you take JoD seriously, then do you not take the current leaders seriously?
@@ryannilsson7955 I only apply to the church the standards it has set the precedent for by its own actions. I’m not saying I agree with it.
Great to see this being addressed! Thanks, Steven! For some reason, I never knew you are gay. I have had LGBTQ+ friends since I was young. Bruce Jenner was my Golf partner when I was a freshman at Graceland University.(then College)
You're welcome. I always appreciate your feedback!
I love to see the open dialogue.
I hope these issues will help people see the leaders of the LDS church is not who they claim to be.
Polygamy involves atleast two women because the wife is giving the husband a women as in the occult.
Was Abraham in a cult?
@@CwicShow I said occult not cult, there is a difference. In addition Abraham and his wife grew up in an occult society, and Abraham was called out of it. His wife had less faith then he did, and yes she enacted an occult teaching in giving another women to Abraham. Never did YHWH Elohim sancition it. On top of that YHWH Elohim said to get ride of the second women. If it was of YHWH Elohim this would be an example of Him turning to the left and the right. This is also goes back to the garden how the women fell and caused sin to go upon Adam.
I never would have guessed two middle aged white dudes would be world class gymnasts
The church is being super manipulative/smart (whichever way you see it) by playing both sides and getting people to defend them on both sides of the issue instead of holding them accountable. I’m grateful that you’re all shining a light on the hypocrisy and division that comes as a result.
50:30 - If you're going to blame the curse of Ham doctrine on the Protostents, then you have to give the Protestants credit for helping to write the Book of Moses, because that doctrine/teaching is woven into the text delivered to Joseph, likely through his seer stone.
Wow! That polygamy discussion was REALLY gross. Greg, "Each polygamist marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman." 😂😂😂 Okay, I feel better now. 😂😂😂 That's some professional hair-splitting right there.
I'm not trying to make you feel better or be an apologist. The issue was about changing doctrine.
This was a brilliant conversation❤
There has never been a time when the LDS church did not send mixed messages. However, we live in a time where there is a huge divide among progressives and conservatives. So it seems like these messages are more than they previously were. Just my opinion, change my mind. : )
Give a really good example of a mixed message
@@lindamartinez7006 In my day, it was women should not work outside the home, but the general women’s leadership were career women, not stay at home mothers. There are hundreds more really good examples.
@@davewilson4094 who cares . You can work outside the home depends on circumstances . Any one with small children and babies have rocks in their head to go looking for someone else to take care of them . I m not recalling any women leaders who worked out side The home. Name some .
Name the women leadership that worked outside the home with babies and children . I’ll wait . That’s crazy to leave your babies and little kids with someone. Else . Crazy . It depends on circumstances
@@lindamartinez7006 I am not your personal research assistant.
Wonderful discussion! ❤
Jacob would have left the church in 1890 and 1987. It’s very fascinating to hear the perspective of members with beliefs like those who left in 1890 and 87 live and in real time. I don’t blame him though. The leaders of the church propagated this worldview that the church can’t change, even with the evidence of substantial past changes. Thanks for sharing!
He also would have left in 1978
yeah like the bom changing nearly 6000 times. this cult is and always has been a stain , and a cancer to America especially. the leaders of this teal estate agency that dabbles in cult activities should be ashamed. but their bank accounts keep getting larger and larger each day . wake up if you are a josephs myth follower seek The True Christ while you can. Hell is enlarging, joseph is there . do you really want to follow him?
GAH do not assume someone else's motives based of you obvious bigotry @@SheBecameVisible513
@@SheBecameVisible513 thank you:) typo there