Thoughts On Making The Lds Church More Lgbt Friendly Without Changing "Doctrine"

[Cobalt-70]

Would you have us believe that those sealings were men to men as husband and husband, or as John D. Lee being sealed to Brigham Young as an adopted son as is widely reported?

No, and I never said that was the case. Like all sealings, they were for the purpose of kinship, to ensure familial relationships of choice between men. Like the kinship it formed between straight men, it would also be a mechanism to provide Celestial kinship between gay men, who would not be able to, alternatively, form marital kinship bonds with women.

[Cobalt-70]

But marriage is between a man and a woman. By definition.

Not everywhere, obviously. It depends on the jurisdiction, and the dictionary.

[Cobalt-70]

But if you engage in that behavior, you will not be able to get a Temple Recommend, Go on a Mission, or Serve in a Church Calling. You might, if it persists, find yourself under some degree of discipline.

Says who? The LDS Church has already said that being gay is not a sin. And show me a church policy that says that two men or two women may be subject to church discipline for forming chaste bonds of love with each other--even romantic love, like that between Louie B. Felt and May Anderson.

[Calm]

http://www.nhfelt.org/default.asp?pg=bio_felt_sarah_louisa_bouton

Aunt "Louie Ma" Was Not a Homosexual

Sometimes I wonder how history revisionists get their start. It appears to be so easy to twist facts into something that suits one's own biases. Since about 1996 there has been a concerted effort by a noisy few to claim Sarah Louisa Bouton Felt was romantically inclined toward May Anderson and her two sister wives. As a family member, I categorically deny "Louie Ma", my great grand aunt, was a homosexual. Homosexuality was then and still is a grave sin in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When Presidents Taylor, Woodruff, Snow, Smith and Grant sustained Sister Felt year after year as General Primary President of the Church, they did it without reservation. It's scurrilous to the extreme to speculate otherwise. To Mr. Connell O'Donovan and others we publish this open appeal to cease immediately the detestable practice of soiling our ancestor's good name and reputation on the Internet for your own questionable purposes.

Thoroughly disgusted with a few website editors, I fired off the following message on 4 April 2004.

Mr. Connell O’Donovan:

On your website http://home.earthlink.net/~ekerilaz/abom.html you have stated my great great aunt was a homosexual. You have concluded by her “masculinized” nickname that she must have preferred it (how do you know she preferred Louie?). She went by “Louie Ma” around the family. Does "Louie Ma" suggest a masculine or famine role? Do you not know that her husband Joseph Henry Felt nicknamed almost everybody and everything including all of his children? Aunt Louie was infertile, not a homosexual. Homosexuality was then and still is against the tenants of her espoused religion. She stated she believed in the practice of plural marriage, and that she wanted children. She loved children to the point of dedicating her entire life to them. To obtain them she added two "sister wives" to Joseph’s life and subsequently got what she wanted by her generosity. Louie B. Felt helped to raise several of Lizzie's children and grandchildren within one common household. Aunt Louie (Sarah Louisa Bouton Felt) does not deserve your attacks and unsubstantiated revision of history. I ask you please to discontinue her name on your website.

Jonathan Clark Felt, NH Felt Family Coordinator

(888) 207-1870

Mr. O'Donovan was not amused with my tone, and replied...

Absolutely not. There is a HUGE amount of evidence that she and May Anderson were sexual lovers for many years and nothing but your own belief to the contrary. I honor and respect them for their contributions they made to society and culture. These aren't "attacks" as you called them by any stretch of the imagination and I strongly resent that you have called my veneration for your aunt and her "lover" (her word not mine) an "attack". Now if you have a letter Louie wrote (or some similar first hand documentation) in which she explicitly states that she was not a Lesbian, then I will gladly publish that on my site as well...

Sincerely,

Connell O'Donovan, Founding Director, Gay and Lesbian Historical Society of Utah, Est. 1988

Mr. O'Donovan and others have deliberately distorted the truth for their own political purposes. His suggestion for Aunt Louie to have had enough prophetic insight to defend herself with a letter is in a word, ludicrous.

To Mr. D. Michael Quinn, Ms. Susan Staker Oman, and Mr. Connell O'Donovan we declare your scholarship in the matter of Louie B. Felt false, misleading and inadequate. There are other more logical conclusions about her "love" for other women that should be drawn, and we welcome any reputable historian without an agenda to re-examine Aunt Louie's life.

In conclusion, I contacted two great grandchildren of Aunt Lizzie to ask them about O'Donovan's allegations. 2 of 2 respondents were incredulous and both deny the likelihood of such a relationship in Louie Ma's household. One of them replied with the following kind note:

“Jonathan… Some years ago, I was contacted by a woman, whose name I do not remember, and she asked me about the relationship between Louie Ma and May Anderson; bringing up the possibility of a lesbian relationship. I seem to remember that she was writing a book and my impression was that she would address this issue in it!!! Dad [bud Keysor] was still quite lucid at the time, and he and I had a number of conversations about the questions posed by this woman…. He said he never noticed anything in conduct that would indicate an intimate relationship between Louie Ma and May Anderson! While living in Aunt Louie's home, dad was age 10-16/17. Of interest, when discussing this he told me that at those ages, he was not naive about lesbian relationships...You won’t stop this ugly effort with this or what ever else you may come across...they will run with what they want, scholarship and fact are not important to these people, only that they create a situation to meet their ends! Dad believed this and therefore did not see the need to make a written statement!” -- Robert Keysor, 6 April 2004

Edited July 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[CV75]

There is precedent in LDS history for same-sex sealings. In the 19th century, men were sealed to men as part of the "law of adoption." Given that men were sealed to men, men were sealed to multiple women, and women were sealed to multiple men, it seems that there is quite a bit more flexibility to the "sealing" concept than we currently recognize.

And this ocurrs today as children of either sex are sealed to both a mother and a father whether BIC, by "live" sealing" or by "proxy." The function of the relationship within the sealing is part of what is being sealed and ultimately ratified by the Holy Ghost. Chidlren are not sealed to parents in order to procreate or have recreational sex with them; males are not sealed to males for the purpose of homosexual intercourse.

[CV75]

There is a fundamental element of Mormonism, which is the idea taught in our temple ceremonies that "it is not good for man to be alone." On the one hand, the church has abandoned the idea that homosexuality is a sin, as long as the gay or lesbian member remains celibate. Yet, on the other hand, there is something fundamentally un-Mormon to consign these people to a life of loneliness and celibacy.

Also, if you think about it, the law or chastity as defined in the temple ceremony is compatible with sexual relations between two legally and lawfully wedded gay men or lesbian women. For example, an endowed man who legally married another man and then had sexual relations with him would not, technically, be breaking his temple covenant to live the "law of chastity."

1. The Church in very Mormon-esque fashion consigns many people to their lot, to work out an abumdant life of joy despite their loneliness and celibacy, with faith in Chirst and obedience to His commandments.

2.Of course there is no such thing as same-sex marriage, so it cannot be legal and lawful no matter what you call it.... same-sex intercourse is indeed a perversion of true marriage and a thourough breaking of that temple covenant.

[CV75]

The Doctrine of the Gospel is, fundamentally, a testimony that He lived again.

And His mortal life, which he raised into immortality, was given Him of a Man and a woman and in no other way.

[Storm Rider]

The concept of not judging our neighbor(s) is a universal teaching of Christianity; however, it appears to be just as much a fundamental weakness of the carnal man to judge others. I don't think it is appropriate to single a single type of sinner out from the fold; in fact, I think it would be detrimental to do so.

Learning that I am a sinner is the foundation upon which I learn not to judge others. Understanding that regardless of anything I may do or think, at the end of the day I remain a sinner. I don't grow into perfection in mortality. I was born into a sinner's life and I will die a sinner.

I we chose to set aside one specific subset of sinner as unique or in need of more compassion than everyone else, we automatically put that group below all the rest; we judge. My brother and sister who deal with SSA is no worse than every other brother and sister.

If we do anything, let us be better disciples of Christ. Let us understand exactly how sinful we each are regardless of all that we may do, we remain a sinner. Let us then learn to love one another as our Father loved us. Let us seek to be judged in the same manner that we judge others. May we each learn compassion, mercy, and charity. There is no need for a new class of sinner.

[Buzzard]

To all those who somehow, someway think that homosexual relations-not inclinations, but actual relations-are acceptable behavior under any circumstances, I would ask if camel is tasty, because you are eating one.

This is not about even church doctrine, this is about the Plan of Happiness, which existed long before the church, and will exist long after the church. In an eternal sense, and frankly even in this life, homosexual activity brings misery, not happiness, and God wants his children to be happy. Man is that he might have Joy, and Joy reuires obedience to God's commandments, and homosexuality is against God's commandments. Not just in Leviticus, but from the mouths of latter-day prophets of God.

Friends, there is no other way to spin this. Although I suspect that many will try to do so, long after this thread has been shut down by an exasperated mod.

[Verum]

First in foremost, more empathy and understanding of what LGBT individuals are dealing with is essential if the church is to be a more accepting/loving place. Also of importance is emphasizing the profound principle that the Apostle Paul taught which is that "charity never faileth" .Never. Some within the culture of the church believe that there is an exception to this rule when it comes to the LGBT individuals and community when they feel the need to express judgment as a means to "stand up for morality". The church and its gospel teachings stand as an invitation for all to come unto Christ. It is an invitation -- it can help all people, including LGBT people, find purpose, meaning, and healing in life. If the LGBT people reject that invitation, we are still required to have charity, which will not fail us, and God will ultimately judge the validity of their path, not us. I believe that invitation becomes distorted when the church, which is to ideally be politically neutral, begins campaigning against other people's democratic efforts to have the same rights and privilege as other marriages. I believe that the church's policy of putting an asterisk on someone church record with a history or admission of homosexual activity that can never be removed even if one repents also distort that invitation and contradicts the principle of repentance. I think making confession of certain behaviors (both heterosexual and homosexual) to church leaders more of an invitation for healing and counsel as opposed to a requirement or something came as the result of a "witch hunt" or investigation would strengthen that mission to invite others to come to Christ. More education and understanding of the biological yet complex nature of sexual orientation can help encourage empathy and help eradicate some of terms used to define homosexuality as just merely being "temptations" or "tendencies" just like any other temptation.

All of this can happen without changing any doctrine.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Verum

[USU78]

I see no need.

Focusing on the behavior is far more important than the temptation.

Yet I can't help remembering what my granddad, the old artillery colonel, used to say [he sat in on many courts marshal]: "If you say you are, you did."

[wenglund]

Sometimes "more friendly" can mean "more permissive." I am not sure if it is in this case.

However, the gospel/Church is equally "friendly" to one and all in terms of its mission of bringing us to Christ, as it should be. In a way, this is what is meant by God not being a respecter of persons. In this regard, there is no reason to be more or less "friendly" to individuals or groups.

Now, if the purpose of the gospel were to be more PC or socially accepting or to cater to the squeaky wheels of society, then that would be another things. In which case, the gospel/Church would mirror pop culture.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

And this ocurrs today as children of either sex are sealed to both a mother and a father whether BIC, by "live" sealing" or by "proxy." The function of the relationship within the sealing is part of what is being sealed and ultimately ratified by the Holy Ghost. Chidlren are not sealed to parents in order to procreate or have recreational sex with them; males are not sealed to males for the purpose of homosexual intercourse.

Nobody is sealed to anybody for the purpose of sex. Sealing is a means for creating Celestial kinship, not a sex license. To get a sex license, according to Mormon theology, you need only go to a justice of the peace (assuming you are straight) and get "legally and lawfully wedded." So if we brought back law of adoption sealings, they could be used to create kinship between two gay men that would survive into the eternities. Whether or not those men could or could not have sex in this life (or the next) and still remain in good standing in the church is a completely different question.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[CASteinman]

Not everywhere, obviously. It depends on the jurisdiction, and the dictionary.

Within the Gospel and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Which is what the discussion is about.

[CASteinman]

Says who?

General Authorities per the Handbook of Instructions.

[tyler90az]

The LGBT situation seems to be very similar to the Black Priesthood situation. Both instances appeared like a wise move to make. It is, however, the current membership that it would harm. Just think about what would have happened if blacks were giving the same authority as white men in the racist era. It would have made many white members leave the church, which was the majority of members. That is also the situation in this case, it would cause some to leave church and be a faith killer. That is why, despite it being for the best of the church in the long run, it will not happen right now.

[ERayR]

We could just open the doors to the temple without any requirements and let everybody in. We could even remodel and add viewer rooms so that those who didn't want to participate in watching the "weird" Mormon rituals. It would certainly make it more lgbt friendly. I will even predict that after a time the curiosity would wear off and almost nobody would attend. It would also remove the sacredness from the saving ordinances.

[Cobalt-70]

http://www.nhfelt.or...h_louisa_bouton

Whether or not Louie and May were lesbians--or just straight lovers--is beside the point. Nor is it really our business whether their romance had any physical component to it. They were never explicit on that point, so only they know whether or not they were physically intimate. But it doesn't matter. They had a true romance. Whether they were both gay or straight, or whether one of them was gay and the other straight, they were deeply in love with each other. They happily compared themselves to David and Jonathan, another couple who were probably straight (or bi, at the very least), yet were deeply in love. And it was not uncommon, even for straight women of Louie's and May's era, to have romantic relationships with each other.

The point is, it is possible for two men or two women to form deep, consuming love relationships with each other, and it does not really matter what their orientation is, or whether that relationship involves sex. Such a same-sex couple ought to be welcomed into LDS congregations, no questions asked. It isn't any of our business, sitting next to them on the pews, what kind of physical parameters are associated with their relationship. They are our brothers and sisters, and if anyone has a problem with welcoming such couples into our congregations, they are not reading the teachings of Jesus, or the Book of Mormon, closely enough.

[CV75]

Nobody is sealed to anybody for the purpose of sex. Sealing is a means for creating Celestial kinship, not a sex license. To get a sex license, according to Mormon theology, you need only go to a justice of the peace (assuming you are straight) and get "legally and lawfully wedded." So if we brought back law of adoption sealings, they could be used to create kinship between two gay men that would survive into the eternities. Whether or not those men could or could not have sex in this life (or the next) and still remain in good standing in the church is a completely different question.

Two gay men already potentially have that kinship and sealing as I mentioned before (gay child/siblings to gay parent). Everyone will/can be sealed eventually into the family of Adam, including homosexuals, so I'm not sure what has to be "brought back"--terminology and understanding aside. And yes, Adam and Eve were married (sealed) for the purpose of procreation (and there are other purposes of course), but not for homosexual relations.

Edited July 19, 2012 by CV75

[SamIam]

Let's emphasize that. The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven. All other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. Our Covenant bearing witness to our becoming Witnesses and Messengers of the Anointed One is sealed by the symbolic ordinance of Baptism. At the most basic level, it is the Mission of Christ and the Resurrection we are talking about.

At the most basic level of the Mission of Christ, we might be able to agree that the resurrection is what we are talking about. At this basic level of we have to look at the requirements required of mankind to achieve receipt of this most basic opportunity. Grace. All mankind, regardless of their behaviors may be considered for inclusion under the umbrella of the basic mission of Christ – they will be resurrected. There are a couple of caveats but for the moment, I don’t think they are germane to this discussion.

This is borne out in the scriptures; as 2 Nephi 27:32 says, we are not to be like "they that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught." Instead, we preach that "There is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ [the Anointed One], and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen." (2 Nephi 31:21)

Now you have begun to bring this concept under the above concept and I don’t think you can justify that as correct. There are kingdoms of God and there is the Kingdom of God. The issue is that those who make an offender and reprove and turn aside the just for a thing of naught is that they are excluded from access to the Kingdom of God. However, there is no exclusion from one of the other kingdoms of God. You can be an offender for a word, you can reprove at the gate and turn aside the just and still qualify for access to the telestial kingdom. However, you do not have access to the Kingdom of God or the celestial kingdom.

The reason for this is that the Way of Christ (the Anointed One whose name we all take upon ourselves when we are Anointed) is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity. He is the Messenger whose Word detailing the Plan of Salvation shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled -- whether by His own voice or by the voice of His servants, in whatever language it must be translated into, that underlying Message of Hope is the same.

Now it is apparent that you grasp these principles, so it is odd how you are mixing and matching as if they are the same state of existence. Immortality and eternal life are considered distinctly different stations. Resurrection makes one immortal. Christ’s triumph over death by his resurrection makes this available for all.

1 Corinthians 15:22

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Mosiah 3:11

11 For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.

12 But wo, wo unto him who knoweth that he rebelleth against God! For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Corinthians verse sustains the potential that all will benefit from Christ’s effort and the Mosiah verse illustrates there are degrees of benefit to be extended based on conditional factors. If one is ignorant of God and his commandments, this one is covered. However, something more is expected of those that know and willingly refuse to obey except through repentance and faith.

Now. As Brigham Young said, "every true philosopher, so far as he understands the principles of truth, has so much of the Gospel, and so far he is a Latter-day Saint, whether he knows it or not."

Excellent quote and its use requires that we observe its conditions “so far as he understands the principles of truth,” is the primary point of inclusion or exclusion for the quote’s intended meaning of being a saint or not.

Good-hearted people are part of the Church of the Lamb. It doesn't have to be us against the world, fighting against assimilationism if the world has a truth that we do not yet have.

There is no shame in learning from anyone; indeed, we are commanded in the D&C to seek out the best books and words of wisdom, and accept truth from wherever and whoever it may come from, lest we not come out true Mormons.

Good-hearted people that “understand (s) the principles of truth is the condition that you are avoiding.

Your effort here reminds me of this verse:

Matthew 23:24

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

END of PART ONE

[SamIam]

We should note, then, that it is very, very specific "philosophies of men" which we covenant not to accept and instead reason against (using our own human-made philosophy and counter-arguments, I might add; our Heavenly Parents are exalted Men and Women, so I think They're okay with us using the brains that were grown in Their image to reason amongst ourselves). The "philosophies of men" which we oppose are specifically the ideas that God is an omnipresent being without body, parts, or passions; that there is a physical Hell of literal fire where sinners burn forever; and that money can get us anything. These conclusions are, from our perspective, confused.

But that's it; any other philosophical tenets are up for grabs inasmuch as they contain truth. It's not a monolithic philosophy that's the problem; it's the simple fact that we fallible humans have made mistakes in our reasoning and sometimes become stuck in conceptual ruts. All that's needed is a little corrective from time to time, which can be provided by a better philosophy. No matter who has it.

You are painting a self portrait here. Your view of the philosophies of men is strained and contorted to fit within the image of a self portrayal of acceptability that is wholly lacking in compatibility with the gospel message as a whole. Why the only specific philosophies of men we should oppose are only those of a religious creed formulated a few hundred years ago and a few general misunderstandings of biblical interpretation is beyond reasonable expectation. By creating such a tight restrictive definition you open the door to every other false philosophy contrived to deceive men to be considered as acceptable. You are too bright for this to have been your intent so I will at this point give you the benefit of the doubt (which I will retract later) that I am simply not catching your intent. You try to broaden the view a touch the phrase “inasmuch as they contain truth” but that is incorrect as well. Intent drives the meanings. In the opening of your post you create a false paradigm for which to measure your conclusions:

The question, it seems to me, is "What are the accepted teachings and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?" In other words, what is the Doctrine that the Temple Recommend is attempting to adhere to? What qualifies one for a Temple Recommend? We have quite a few Doctrines which we have Covenanted to keep. We can't possibly list them all during a little interview; in that case, what is the core message of the Gospel which makes one Temple worthy?

There are the temple quesitons of affiliation at the least, others of sustaining God, the prophets and the leaders of the church which all come into question based on what you are positing in this post. Even if a person sitting there did not think they were in opposition to the doctrines of the church and answered the questions appropriately and said all the right things it is not enough. Is it right by the spirit of the gosple?

I have used this example before. It is one of many.

An example is Paul in this story from Acts:

Acts 16:16

16 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:

17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.

18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

One might think that telling the people that “these men are the servants of the most high God,” isn’t such a bad thing. The words ring true, don’t they? However, Paul is not deceived by the words. He knows the intent of Satan is to align the damsel’s divination talents with speaking truths, thus empowering her for greater deceptions still. Paul recognizes the lie of the truth she told and commands…I emphasize commands the demon to depart. Her truths were lies and now it is manifest to all who are present.

On your recommendation, Paul should have accepted this lady and not taken the action he did. Her words appear correct and true but actually they were a misrepresentation of truth and against the spirit of the gospel even though they seem to sound okay and that is to be comdemned.

The false doctrine that would disqualify one from Temple worthiness is that which Sherem preached to the people when he said that there would be no Anointed One, leading them away to believe that the doctrine of the coming of Christ was a foolish and a vain thing. As 2 Nephi 28:12 says, "because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up."

Straining still…what sorts of false doctrine, what degree of puffing up, what level of corruption might one have to encounter to recognize it as such? What would one use to identify this state of being? Would the scriptures themselves perhaps do?...perhaps the language of modern day prophets? I’m not even going to include the scriptures that speak against the direction your post is going. For the moment, it is sufficient that you and Nephi warn against false teachers.

The doctrine is to believe in a Father and a Son and a Holy Spirit of Wisdom as separate beings, and to love each other, and to witness that covenantal love by the ordinance of Baptisms. Pretty minimal; we're given correct principles, and we're left to govern ourselves. Trying to construct a fence around the Law so as to avoid even the possibility of sinning is what leads us to hyperlegalistic excess; we're to follow the Spirit.

Again, this is a subtle twisting together of conflicting precepts from your earlier departure from concepts of immortality and eternal life. The ordinance of baptism is of little value or necessity except for those striving for eternal life. It is not required to resurrect into one of the other kingdoms of God. Only God’s life as he lives it in the celestial kingdom requires this as the gateway ordinance into the Kingdom of God.

Again, the doctrine is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity.

Precisely correct. Immortality embraces resurrection but not eternal life. Elder Wirthlin clarified both very clearly just a few years ago:

Bringing to pass immortality

is essentially a work of creation...Because of the sacrifice of the Son of God, the hour will come when “all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:28–29).

The just as well as the unjust are given a priceless and incomprehensible gift: immortality. Because of Jesus the Christ, we will live forever. We are immortal.

Eternal life, however, is something altogether different. Immortality is about quantity. Eternal life is about quality.

To use a metaphor, immortality is how long the dinner lasts. Eternal life is what is on the menu and who is with us at the table.

If immortality is God’s work, then eternal life is God’s glory

. However, eternal life does not come automatically.

We must purge our hearts of evil and fill them with the desire to do good continually. Our Heavenly Father, with love that is scarcely within our power to comprehend, desires more than just our immortality. He desires each of us to partake of this greatest of all gifts: eternal life. (Joseph B. Wirthlin, “What Is the Difference between Immortality and Eternal Life?,” New Era, Nov 2006, 8–9)

To me, it does not seem equitable to deny marriage to homosexuals.

I think it's possible to believe that working towards extending marriage rights towards homosexuals is not contrary or opposed to the accepted mission of the church, which, because every member has taken upon themselves the name of Christ, is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity.

The Gospel is "the doctrine of the resurrection and the redemption of mankind from the fall, and from individual sins on conditions of repentance." 3 Nephi 11:32 says "this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God."

The Doctrine of the Gospel is, fundamentally, a testimony that He lived again.

In everything else, inasmuch as we err, we will be corrected from time to time.

Perhaps then you might accept a little correction of your viewpoint by considering this which is unequivocally the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God

and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife.

We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.

We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

The family is ordained of God.

Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity

, who abuse spouse or offspring,

or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God.

Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

The clarity of this response to the world is to address the very question you posit in your missive. When it was declared to the world it was to answer the questions that you have expounded upon. I do not know how you step over this most concise and clear of documents to ask the questions you ask and to wrest the scriptures in the fashion of your post.

Why, then, should we condemn homosexual relationships as uniformly inappropriate as if they are all identical? If there is a homosexual relationship which is caring and provides for the needs of the couple and any children they might have, what is left to condemn?

I think the fundamental issue here is consent. If people are harming others, they are presumably doing so against someone's will.

You are conflating Gods laws with men’s law just as you have immortal life with eternal life throughout this effort that you have presented here. If you believe in the approval of SSA marriages then realize that those participate in such are only making a choice. It is an acceptable choice, that does not restrict their opportunity for the resurrection. They can embrace it, rejoice in it and address their needs of caring for themselves or their children. They do not need covenants, baptism or temple recommends to make this life conform to the priority of these choices. However, embracing a telestial law is only immortality. It is so far from eternal life as to be incomparable. However, it may be precisely the place that individuals so disposed will be most content to live out the eternities. This choice can be made but they trade the temporary moment of this life for the reward of a telestial existence against the eons of eternity living an eternal life of continued creation. Really at the end of the day you seem to be asking is SSA marriage and the presumed intimacy that is part and parcel of such unions acceptable for eternal life. No, it is not.

You are an artist take away the colors of the rainbow and restrict yourself to only black and white. It is true that some very beautiful works of art can be produced with black and white. However, over time the palette may seem wistfully lacking for the absence of the colors of life. The reds, yellows , oranges, blues, greens, and purples of majesty that combine to produce an array of art that captures so much more of the emotions of life. The fullness and the infusion of the passions of existence that are best illustrated in the colors of life are most fulfilling in all their variety when they can be composed of the shades that a fullness of creation require. Would you be at ease as the artist if you only could command a bit of black and a touch of white to express the colors of your heart? Would you willingly teach someone that all they should strive for is to work in charcoals or the like?

I use this quote, frequently of late as it seems to be at the root of so much misconstrued conjecture of scriptural intent.

"The gospel's principles do require synchronization. When pulled apart from each other or isolated, men's interpretations of these doctrines may be wild." (Neal A Maxwell, Ensign, May 1993)

Eternal life is a life of procreation. Levels of procreation that exceed simply our spirit children but as the primary position of dominion in the eternities all levels of procreation depend on individuals successfully knowing how to keep their own procreative powers in appropriate boundaries. If you take this one principle out of your image of God’s “work and his glory” then everything you posit could work. However, if we ask “what is eternal life” and return the response that it is “a continuation of the seeds forever and ever” then all of the sudden these wild interpretations fail completely.

Jeremy, as an artist of color and talent why confine your thoughts to black and white and some serious shades of gray in the combination of the two. You need color to be at your happiest. You should strive for a fullness of color and do all you can to make it through the University of Life that you will have full capacity of expression in the eternities.

Edited July 19, 2012 by SamIam

[Calm]

never mind

Edited July 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

It is, however, the current membership that it would harm. Just think about what would have happened if blacks were giving the same authority as white men in the racist era. It would have made many white members leave the church, which was the majority of members.

Pure speculation that the Lord would have made his decision based on what was good for the current members who were lacking in christian charity and humility as opposed to what was good for black investigators and other worthy people. Edited July 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Whether or not Louie and May were lesbians--or just straight lovers--is beside the point. Nor is it really our business whether their romance had any physical component to it. They were never explicit on that point, so only they know whether or not they were physically intimate. But it doesn't matter. They had a true romance. Whether they were both gay or straight, or whether one of them was gay and the other straight, they were deeply in love with each other. They happily compared themselves to David and Jonathan, another couple who were probably straight (or bi, at the very least), yet were deeply in love.

There is no evidence....unless you are claiming that comments made by another person about them in a children's magazine were somehow romantic lesbian love notes, which is ridiculous. Presentism---using the florid for us language of the day to claim that they meant something they didn't---strikes again. You are equating romantic love with brotherly love so I guess that makes all siblings and parents and children "in love" with each other. I find accusing these women of lying and covenant breaking (since such would have been against church teachings and considered sinful to promote such feelings) to promote your own agenda very wrong. Edited July 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[tyler90az]

Pure speculation that the Lord would have made his decision based on what was good for the current members who were lacking in christian charity and humility as opposed to what was good for black investigators and other worthy people.

Clearly pure speculation... it does make a tadbit of sense though.

The kingdom is on earth never to be removed agan. That would mean the kingdoms survival is of utmost importance. As far as individuals, all things will work together for their good.