Sharon Eubank was recently released from her calling as councilor in the General Relief Society Presidency. During her time in that influential position, Eubank taught and promoted ideas contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ such as the United Nations Agenda 2030 as well as promoting those with sexual perversions as worthy role models for sisters in the Church.
This anonymous video was removed from YouTube, however we felt it was important to preserve so that members could judge her fruits and teachings against the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.
25 thoughts on “Sharon Eubank Violating Church Standards?”
Maybe she is or isn’t a lesbian–I don’t really care. (Are we supposed to care?) I just looked up and read a recent talk from her to see if she was preaching anything out of line. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/10/32eubank?lang=eng I felt nothing but the spirit when reading this talk. Certainly, I’m not fond of her political affiliations, and I despise agenda 2030, but church leaders leading our own humanitarian efforts will and do work through many of global organizations that come into power. I’m not going to find her or any of them guilty simply by association. That is a dangerous path. Can you point to anything more specific where she has taught or promoted a gay lifestyle to others or specifically promoted anything other than humanitarian efforts from the UN and other international bodies? If she is, that is certainly more concerning to me than whether she is dealing with a same sex attraction trial.
The video answers your question. And we should care. There are worthiness interviews and sustaining’s for a reason. Someone with influence among the saints should be living and promoting those values.
She seemed to promote queerness at the BYU women’s conference when she brought up a “queer” young women’s President and praised her.
She should have been released long ago and had a disciplinary counsel. Promoting the gay life style in Jesus Christ’s Church and it is His church is an abomination.
Researching and questioning church leaders who have a great influence on members of the church is not dangerous. Giving a pass to leaders of the church who have crossed the line and openly support evil IS dangerous.
I have no love for agenda 2030, democrats, or lgbtq infiltrators that seek to change organizations from within through subversion. But we should also guard a persons reputation as if it were our own and not make insinuations we can’t backup. So in that spirit, I have a couple questions about the video.
Why did it seem like they went out of their way to cut off most of the urls in question? The two ladies are about the same age, overweight, and not very physically attractive. We may simply be dealing with a couple of spinster sisters/friends. Or…. closet lesbians that are subverting the church. We just don’t know. The website that says they are “believed” to be married, seems more like an algorithm stating an assumption based on the parity of their lives. Such an algo help identify Common law or other unofficial marriages for searching and connection making purposes. That website didn’t have anything official to back that claim up. And the websites url was not shown that I noticed.
I also hate the way Eubanks praised the popes smarmy way of dodging around fetal cell lines used to make depopulation injections. And I don’t like her role in putting up that avowed lesbian yw leader either. These charges and issues have been around for a while. Much longer than her release. Waiting till she is released to share these things on a larger platform doesn’t in and of itself indicate she was released because of these allegations.
Look if she is a wolf in sheeps clothing, which may be the case, it should be known. But we should have some solid proof rather than just some associations.
Unfortunately the saints have blown it in big ways and as such we are in captivity. Literally. The saints have allowed gadiantons to take the judgement seats in all lands including this one. That changes the dynamic quite a bit as far as how the church interacts with Caesar. While the church provides us the ordinances and makes correct principles available for those that want to learn them, they aren’t here to override our agency. They aren’t here to deliver us from the political realities that exist because of the corruption in our own hearts.
If they came out in open rebellion to these corrupt governments they would be shut down in basically every nation, imprisoned and demonized to the point of being unable to do the work. The church is not here to fight our political battles for us anymore than Christ came to deliver the zealots and Jews from the Roman oppression they so badly wanted him to save them from.
Christ dealt with that the way the church heads deal with it now. He said to render unto Caesar what was his and to God what was his. Then he set the example by having Peter grab a gold coin out of a fish and pay his tribute as well as Peters so they could go about their Fathers business. Yet everyone in that crowd that heard him could have taken two totally different meanings from that statement.
The spiritually weak worshippers of the state would have heard Christ give legitimacy and show submission to Caesar’s oppressive and soul destroying system of crushing its subjects. They would have seen the move as saying that Caesar was owed these things. But is that what the Christ actually meant? No. I don’t think so.
Anyone, that had studied the gospel at most any length, would have come into that exchange knowing this one truth which totally changes the assumptions. EVERYTHING BELONGS TO GOD. Everything. Literally everything. It isn’t hard to find that in scripture.
So why then did Christ answer as he did? Because no matter how many times the Israelites were delivered from an oppressor that didn’t change their hearts and they put themselves right back into captivity in no time. They were choosing captivity while crying freedom. This includes the zealots. Christ wasn’t here for bandaid solutions that couldn’t last. He was here to change hearts, to make these people into fountains of living water as well through his atonement and example so that they could change their hearts and then they could change the world.
They had the government they deserved. They had the government their choices had brought them. So to change that government, Christ came to show them how to change their choices and make and keep covenants. That’s where we are today. Christ spoke so that people would hear things based on where they were at. Those that knew the gospel imho would have been taught there that while nothing was truly Caesar’s, because they owed everything to God, they should submit to this injustice the way the Christ did so that they could maintain the ability to be about their Fathers business. They should long-suffer with it for a time while they learned to take on and keep covenants, be endowed with power, and change the hearts of the people inwardly so that they could then change things outwardly.
Now this perspective isn’t taught openly. I am wholly responsible for saying it out loud. But if you go back and read conference talks that review the story I think you will find that they also speak at both levels. Joseph himself explained that the church should not be taking on gadiantons, head on anymore as an institution, the way he had previously been. He charged the leaders to show restraint, leave judgement to the Lord, and continue in the weightier matters.
Now once we have been changed, individually by the gospel, THEN we are to stick our necks out to protect and build up the church and the kingdom of God. Even if it means we take a bullet to do it. Even if we too must be offered and abandoned by the church as a lamb to the slaughter. Even if it costs us everything. This is how this works.
Those that keep being annoyed or even angry that the church doesn’t do this for them and protect them and stand up for what’s right on their behalf don’t understand the gospel as well as they think. Daniel stood against an unjust law in open defiance because he had no flock To protect in captivity. He stuck his neck out in civil disobedience and was willing to accept the full consequences himself of the lions den. But Alma under amulon(might have name wrong) in captivity had a flock to protect and when the same penalty was enacted to stop praying aloud or die, he complied and set that example for the saints and they prayed in their hearts instead.
Did the Lord consider that cowardice and shameful or betraying him? No he blessed them for that long suffering by delivering them from captivity in a bloodless escape.
This is why living prophets are so important. We don’t know the hearts of the saints at any given time and what the Lord wants to test in them. Sometimes he wants us to stand individually and die for him. And sometimes he wants us to swallow our pride and take it especially when we have a group to preserve. Most men get this. They would gladly be willing to rush off to protect liberty in an army alone. But once they have woman and children they change that tune rapidly looking to preserve that stewardship and deliver it safely to the Lord. And patriarchal structures are the ones that last much longer than any government or any church. That’s what God is actually trying to build.
So when it comes to the church trying to find some way to appoint democrats on a tight leash and other groups that provide political cover so they can keep gathering Israel, I get it.
But I blame us, the saints, for even putting them in that position. We are as a whole generally slothful and slow to do what is asked. So windows of “expediency” are missed and sacrifices need to be made. It sucks. It really does. But this life has Never been about what is fair to us or not.
No one deserved to be treated with fairness and justice as much as our Lord, and look what he endured. Total injustice. Total unfairness. But through that he achieved total righteousness. Therefore are we better than he? No. Heck no. We should be willing and fully expect to be treated the same or worse than him as follow his example. We should be willing to lose everything. And that’s exactly as it should be. Exaltation costs nothing less than EVERYTHING.
I hope Eubanks and those that think like her, see the light and make it through this test, clean every whit. But I won’t accept their wickedness either when it is proven to be true. Innuendo we should guarded against. But wolves should be out of the flock ASAP. Totally.
To end I leave you with Joseph’s words on dealing with the enemies and gadiantons of our day and how he charged the church on the day of his martyrdom to proceed from then on. Then let us be charitable with the church president and twelve as they obey the dispensation head.
Josephs last sermon or statement
“Our lives have already become jeopardized by revealing the wicked and bloodthirsty purposes of our enemies; and for the future we must cease to do so. All we have said about them is truth, but it is not always wise to relate all the truth. Even Jesus, the Son of God had to refrain from doing so, and had to restrain His feelings many times for the safety of Himself and His followers, and had to conceal the righteous purposes of His heart in relation to many things pertaining to His Father’s kingdom. When still a boy He had all the intelligence necessary to enable Him to rule and govern the kingdom of the Jews, and could reason with the wisest and most profound doctors of law and divinity, and make their theories and practice to appear like folly compared with the wisdom He possessed; but He was a boy only, and lacked physical strength even to defend His own person, and was subject to cold, to hunger and to death. So it is with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; we have the revelation of Jesus, and the knowledge within us is sufficient to organize a righteous government upon the earth, and to give universal peace to all mankind, if they would receive it, but we lack the physical strength, as did our Savior when a child, to defend our principles, and we have of necessity to be afflicted, persecuted and smitten, and to bear it patiently until Jacob is of age, then he will take care of himself.” Joseph Smith – TPJS
Historian’s Office, martyrdom account; handwriting of Jonathan Grimshaw, Leo Hawkins, and Thomas Bullock; page 52 of 76 pages plus several inserted pages; CHL.
For more information on the History Drafts, see Introduction to History Drafts, 1844–1856.
Thank you for your wise, thoughtful response. It is one of the best things I’ve read concerning the current state of us a church. I don’t remember reading the quote from Joseph on the day of his martyrdom before. This wisdom is what so many in the church need to understand. Do you mind if I share your response with those who might need to hear it?
Wow, I cannot love this response enough!!! You were thorough and accurate on every point!
THANK YOU for taking the time you did to present your opinions so eloquently. I wholeheartedly agree with you, and I hope others will consider what you explained here so well.
This post is so disappointing. You are on the road to apostasy as well as the foundation that feeds you everything you put on this website. By your standards you would reject Jesus Christ who chose to eat with and befriend a prostitute. He chose his 12 apostles from all different walks of life and political backgrounds. If Jesus himself can love sinners, and choose his apostles/representatives from among varied groups of people with opposing political views, then so can the leaders of his church. You claim to be remaining faithful to the prophet Joseph Smith, but you don’t even see that you are doing the exact same things that the anti mormons and those in the mobs were doing to Joseph Smith and the leaders who worked with him back when he was alive. You are grasping at straws and trying to dig up dirt on the leaders of the church in an attempt to smear them. And you are doing it while claiming to be “faithful saints”. I don’t believe Joseph Smith is looking down and cheering you on. I believe if anything, he’s looking down with disgust and disappointment at what you guys are doing in his name. This website is becoming more and more like just another product of Denver Snuffer, and all those other offshoot groups who claimed to be remaining true to the original church. I would not be surprised if in the near future, you find yourselves and all those other people who closely follow the foundation that you are associated with, experiencing the same fate as Julie Rowe, Denver Snuffer, etc… It’s so disappointing.
I was kinda wondering the same thing as what you expressed about being openly critical of leaders, etc on this site.
On the other hand, the Savior dined with sinners but didn’t choose openly-sinning sinners to be His leaders, i.e., He didn’t go to the gay bath house and pick the apostles.
Also I would have to disagree with the wisdom of a general presidency member praising a person who has some sin or weakness in the context of that sin. For example, if the leader in question has excelled and is serving in a particularly valiant manner, by all means bring her up there and tell everyone what a good job she is doing and share how she is getting the great results. I see ABSOLUTELY no purpose to bring up her sin or weakness as well other than to virtue signal and pander to those who would gladly see us all burned together with our scriptures.
Imagine how embarassing it would be to be publicly honored in terms of my sins and abominations instead of the job I did. Who cares if this YW president has same sex attraction? I’m sure she probably doesn’t want to think about it or be praised publicly just because of how she likes to have sex. But a lot of leaders feel the need to pander to people in the large and spacious building who promote that lifestyle.
I too, have never heard Sister Eubanks say anything that I thought was wrong. I think that incident with the “queer” YW president might fall under the “faux pas” category more than under the “heresy” category – more along the lines of the hot water Bradley Wilcox got in than actually apostate actions. Just my two cents.
I feel like this is the article on your website that crossed the line into open rebellion against the church and its leaders. Before, you made veiled criticisms of the church and its leaders, but you have now crossed into publicly smearing the leaders of the church. I hope you will reconsider and recognize the shaky ground you are standing on and take this article down.
She’s not a leader.
So was John C. Bennett but no one in their right mind would consider calling him evil, “apostate” or “speaking evil” of church leaders.
Good point actually. Except the church leaders openly called John c Bennet those things. That certainly helped.
That’s crazy a freaking dyke lesbo with a wife was in the church leadership. I’m disturbed theres been no discipline of her. I think that speaks volumes.
And Oaks is the worst Gadiaton robber of them all……they love feel of stepping stone,
honors,and praise of men. watch:
Would Abinadi,Capt Moroni ,Helaman make deals???
D&C 82:22 And now, verily I say unto you, and this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you.
Luke 16:9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations
Matthew 7:6, KJV: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you
You are spot on, Dirk!!! So many of our church leaders are ecclesiastical ladder climbers for the “honor and praise of men”, which is narcissism. They have revealed it for years in all of their church talks. Easy to see if you look for it. We are just finishing the study of the Old Testament. I can’t see where God told any of the prophets to tolerate, accept and then embrace enemies and their abominations “just to get along” so “they won’t destroy us.” Just the opposite…he told the leaders of His church to annihilate them so they would not influence His followers to embrace those abominations!
This is ridiculous. That isn’t enough evidence. Furthermore, this hurts faithfulsaints more the Eubank.
And on her politics, what are they? I didnt see any in the bumc video, and her talks are fine.
“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.”
1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.
The question should be asked, why does Holland support her?