smac97

No. I would encourage the to choose to believe and keep the commandments.

Theoretically, in a de minimis sort of way, I am open to that possibility. I have seen zero indication that it will ever happen, though. I need to be open to further light and knowledge. Something of that magnitude will be given to us through revelation to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. But meanwhile, I cannot rely on a hugely speculative and highly unlikely hypothetical about what might happen in the future as a basis for disobeying the commandments given to us now. I haven't seen such a statement. We'll see. Meanwhile, however, we follow p

I'm curious as to how "chastity" is defined here. Who sets the parameters for what is "chaste" and what is not? For example, what about "open marriages?" Is "consensual" adultery (i.e. the wife is okay with the husband stepping out on her) within the parameters of "chastity?" I remember this story about former Utah Jazz player Andrei Kirilenko and his wife: Do you think a Latter-day Saint could adopt this sort of reasoning? Do you think the Law of Chastity is whatever the individual wants it to be? Yes. The same could be said for heterosexuals as well. Tha

I could get on board maybe, if the former prophets in the church didn't get it wrong so much! For @smac97as well. So . . . infallibility? That's your metric? I believe the prophets and apostles have been, cumulatively, overwhelmingly correct in their prophetic counsel. As for their errors, Mormon 9:31 comes to mind: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we

I would encourage them to think of "their nature" as being, at its core, children of God. I would encourage them to study the Plan of Salvation, including the point and purpose of this probationary state. I would encourage them to think of sexual thoughts as being, in and of themelves, natural and good, but they must be constrained within the parameters set by the Lord. I would encourage them to study the Restored Gospel and exercise faith. We are not alone. We have a loving Father in Heaven. He has a plan for us. We are living in tumultuous times, but there are voices we

And I don't trust a lot of the philosophies of men and social trends. I understand your position about the scriptures, which are open to interpretation and distortion. Hence the value of having living prophets and apostles, and also personal revelation, and also our reasoning and intellect. These resources can help us differentiate truth from error, to refine and improve our understanding and perspective. Without these, we are at risk of - as Paul put it - being "children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine..." (Ephesians 4:14.) Thanks, -Smac

And again, there is the bottom line that makes this so hard. There is no way that the current teachings of the church or the scriptures as they are currently interpreted therein allow for homosexual SEX to be holy, under any circumstance. This is my sentiment as well. The same goes for other violations of the Law of Chastity. A man estranged and separated from his wife may well have strong feelings for another woman, but those feelings cannot form a basis for circumventing the constraints of the Law of Chastity. Similarly, a young man may have strong feelings for his girlfriend

I am sorry for the mistreatment you have endured. Truly. Thanks, -Smac

I am? Probably not. Hence the value of discussion. Reasoning. Argument. Evidence. Absolutely. This is where we are failing to connect the discussion. Or we just disagree. I don't know you. I didn't know you are "LGBTQ+" until just now. I don't know anything about you. I've not gone off any rails. Well... There are people in the Church who think that the legalization has had an effect on the Law of Chastity. I disagree with that. And I'm not sure what you mean by "fighting against it so adamantly."

Well said. Quite so. It's not a popularity contest, either. It's a set of revealed truths, some of which are easily digestible, whereas others are more difficult to accept. Kinda feels like you are. Well, you're quite wrong. I have given a lot of actual consideration to the words I have said. Nope. Not that either. I actually waited a few days before posting. And I have been formulating and refining my perspective on these issues for many years. So my comments are nothing like an "immediate reaction." I laid out my thoughts here. There are times

Well, not really. You are attempting to dictate to me the parameters of how I answer. That's not the way this board, or even everyday conversation, works. Have done. Kinda seems like it. Not that there's much wrong with that. I was an interrogator in the Army. My MOS was "97 Echo." My first name is "Spencer," my last name is "Macdonald." S + Mac + 97 = Smac97! And here we are, having a discussion. Neither does implicitly accusing me of dishonesty, of not providing "real" answers. It is. Thanks, -Smac

And I suppose that your request for a "real answer" from me could lead me to infer that you are calling me dishonest. That my responses have not been "real." Well? Done. Thanks, -Smac

So if someone were to create a caricature, a stereotype, regarding "how members of the church have historically treated LGBTQ+ people," you would find that problematic? "Cruel" seems to denote evil motives. Well, yes. There is a Latin maxim, used in the law, that I have come to appreciate: "Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo" (essentially, "Your motive gives the name to your act"). I think the motive and the act are important. Thanks, -Smac

What do those look like? Please provide examples. The Church's website has quite a bit of stuff. I didn't ask for the church website. You asked for examples of "support and assurances" from the "faith community" of Latter-day Saint kids. I provided a free and readily-accessible resource for such support and assurances. So your question was superfluous, then? You want particulars from me? Why? You are correct. Such actions would not be compatible with the plan of salvation I

To whom are you responding and what premises are you referring to? Scrac or Slac that lawyer cobber Are you referencing me here? I accept the concept of evolution in broad parameters. I find your statement above to largely coincide with my own. Thanks, -Smac