TylerCrazyFace

Husband, father, disciple of Christ, unabashed radical member of God's restored church through Joseph Smith, newly committed peacemaker.

[TylerCrazyFace @TylerCrazyFace]

@j_divis I imagine the best naps will be had between managing my own Mormon planet and making spirit babies to fill it with my 100+ wives.

[EmmaRayne🪔🇺🇸 @Bless_ThisMess7]

Sometimes the Lord teaches us eternal principles through ordinary moments.
This morning was one of those moments.
Yesterday, my husband and I reminded our 10-year-old son several times to do his laundry so he would have clothes to wear to church. He chose not to.
This morning, those consequences became reality.
For a moment, I considered staying home with him. Then a thought came to my mind:
Why should both of us miss the opportunity to renew our covenants and be spiritually strengthened because of one person's choices?
So we came to church.
He sat with me in the foyer, wearing the only clothes he had available. He wasn't turned away. No one told him he didn't belong. He was still welcomed. He was still able to partake of the sacrament.
As I watched him, I realized this little experience was a parable.
When someone we love struggles with addiction—or any life-altering challenge—we often want to rescue them from every consequence. We may even allow their choices to dictate our own lives. But the Savior teaches us a better way.
We can love without enabling.
We can support without sacrificing our own spiritual well-being.
We can set healthy boundaries while still leaving the door wide open for grace.
My son's consequence wasn't that he couldn't come to church. His consequence was coming exactly as he was. And isn't that how the Savior invites all of us to come?
We don't have to wait until our lives are perfectly put together before approaching Him.
Likewise, we don't have to allow someone else's choices to keep us from worshipping, renewing our covenants, or finding peace in Christ.
Today reminded me that loving someone doesn't always mean removing consequences. Sometimes love means allowing those consequences while standing beside them, reminding them they are always welcome to come unto Christ.
"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." — Matthew 11:28
❤️ Sometimes the greatest act of love is refusing to enable while never withdrawing our love.

[TylerCrazyFace @TylerCrazyFace]

@EricCMeadows Good luck explaining this to a big gov't boot-licking commie progressive shill like @LDS_Dems. Homie literally can't fathom it from anyone else's perspective but his own. He's incapable of entertaining another's perspective. He blocked me a while ago for differing opinions 😂

[TylerCrazyFace @TylerCrazyFace]

@JackMoCoalition

[TylerCrazyFace @TylerCrazyFace]

@ThoughtfulSaint

[TylerCrazyFace @TylerCrazyFace]

@CatholicArena

[TylerCrazyFace @TylerCrazyFace]

@merrynick13 Yeah, probably. Go for it!

[TylerCrazyFace @TylerCrazyFace]

@FaithApex @ThoughtfulSaint

[TylerCrazyFace @TylerCrazyFace]

@MamaCAllen 100% more civilized than raw fish

[TylerCrazyFace @TylerCrazyFace]

@edlars53 @JS9511606021086 Tradition is no reason to continue worshipping a trinitarian idol. Free your mind of the creedal dogmas formed in the midst of the great apostasy.

[TylerCrazyFace @TylerCrazyFace]

@edlars53 @JS9511606021086 Definitely not the Bible 😂

[TylerCrazyFace @TylerCrazyFace]

@edlars53 @JS9511606021086 How long have you been trapped in the trinity delusion?

[TylerCrazyFace @TylerCrazyFace]

@LargeInStature_ Let them rage. Says more about them than you. I won't see this one, but I'm certainly not gonna bash you for it. Those dudes are a bit too silly.

[TylerCrazyFace @TylerCrazyFace]

@edlars53 @JS9511606021086

[Troy Sariah @BlackBlessedLDS]

The thoughts of a few previous LDS leaders on the Priesthood/Temple Ban
—————————————————

President Wilford Woodruff: Black people were “neutral” in the pre-existence.

President Lorenzo Snow: in 1909 states that he didn’t know if the curse-of-Ham was by revelation or if Brigham Young “was giving his own personal views of what had been told to him by the Prophet Joseph Smith.”

President Joseph F. Smith: Stated “there is no written revelation [to] show why the negroes are ineligible to hold the priesthood.”

President Joseph F. Smith: In 1912 he and his counselors confessed they didn’t know if any “revelation, ancient or modern [that the] negroes [were] neutral in heaven.”

Apostle Oson F. Whitney: Stated even if Ham’s curse was of black skin there would still remain “the unsolved problem of the punishment of a whole race for an offense committed by one of its ancestors.”

Apostle Melvin J. Ballard: When talking about the ban stated “it is alleged…”

President Joseph Fielding Smith: 1907 didn’t believe the ban was by revelation and was purely tradition. Then by 1924 changed his mind, even though he still cited no revelation or scripture to justify it.

Heber J. Grant: “No one knew how soon the spirit might move on the brethren to give the Negro full privledge in the Church.”

President David O. McKay: Favored allowing mixed-race LDS of African ancestry to be ordained to the priesthood and sealed in the temple. His son said he was “much more liberal” on race and the priesthood. He even overrode local leaders on occasion to allow access to the priesthood or the temple for those mixed with African ancestry. He believed “the ban was a policy and a practice, not revealed doctrine enshrined in scripture.”

Apostle George F. Widstoe: “We know that the old idea that Negroes were neutral in heaven is not supported by anything in the scriptures or the utterances of modern prophets.”

J. Reuben Clark: When discussing interracial marriage, “it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to church doctrine.” And when the First Presidency received a letter pushing against this policy, he responded “[The doctrine] is either true or not true. Our testimony is that they are true.”
————————————————

The diverse lists of opinions go on. Even though it was actively in practice, the leaders of The Church never fully agreed - in private - on the source, origin, reason, or defining it as a doctrine vs a policy.

However, they all seemed to agree that it would be lifted one day and that revelation was needed to change it after having been in place for so long.

[TylerCrazyFace @TylerCrazyFace]

@sister_slay Well, you did literally say those things, tho... 😉🤣

Keep doing your thing. I'm all here for it lol

[TylerCrazyFace @TylerCrazyFace]

@realDrTT @TribeRuffner @grapplerecon This comment earned you a follow. Glad to be in the service of God with you!

[TylerCrazyFace @TylerCrazyFace]

@kariwarburton #1, for sure! I've got more blessings from being a full tithe payer than I can tell you in short form 👌

[plasma ۞ @plasmarob]

Saul fell because he wanted to go to war so bad he offered sacrifices in impatient fear/derangement. Samuel showed this disobedience in a trial against evil was an affront to God.

Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the ark and did not desecrate it! Saul disobeyed God's command to kill Agag, probably for power politics reasons.

The lesson is that you need to treat war and killing your enemies with extreme obedience to God. Spare none God commands you to kill, but spare fighting your enemy until then. Often God prefers to fight our battles for us, and if we reject Him, He's just going to let us die for our sin of wanting "just" blood.

It is in your best interest to be attuned to the Holy Ghost so you do not make this mistake and die needlessly in a fight you failed to resist.

[TylerCrazyFace @TylerCrazyFace]

@LargeInStature_ I can agree with you in general, AND think you have horrible taste in movies simultaneously 😂😉