Actively Homosexual Saints And Celestial Glory

[Mormonmaniac]

Here is some doctrine regarding marriages not sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise (short of Temple marriage in LDS parlance).

 

D&C 132, 15-17:

 15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

To me this means that any marriage outside of an honored Temple sealing would fall short of exaltation.  Yet exaltation is the highest station in Celestial glory.  Others would still be able to dwell in the Celestial kingdom as Angels, just not gods.  

 

So I again ask, do we judge homosexuals more harshly than a couple who does not qualify for a temple recommend, but was married by the Bishop in the chapel?  Are we excusing our own shortcomings while condemning others who don't share our favorite sins?  (That is rhetorical, I don't expect an answer- but we should consider how we love/judge our neighbor who is different from us).

Homosexuality is a gross sin.

[smac97]

Yes sin bars us from the presence of the Father and Son, if we do not repent.

 

What I find troublesome is that we judge others sins harshly (ex. absolutely No Celestial kingdom for gays)

No, we don't do that. The LDS Church does not teach that.

 

while expecting our sins will be forgiven by the atonement.

If we repent, yes. And we proclaim that the transcendent gift of the Atonement is available to everyone (well, with two exceptions). But the key point here is "if we repent." That is where your OP becomes problematic. You said: "Regarding actively practicing gays and the celestial kingdom. I disagree with the notion (shared here by some) that being in the presence of the Father in the Celestial Kingdom will never be obtainable by actively practicing gays."

I think most of us are construing "actively practicing gays" as "people who have violated the Law of Chastity by engaging in homosexual behavior and have not repented of that behavior." That unrepentant state is incompatible with salvation in the Celestial Kingdom. Not because I say so, but because prophets and apostles have said so. And not because "gays" are categorically excluded, but only people who refuse to repent of violating the Law of Chastity are excluded. This same reasoning applies with equal utility to unrepentant adulterers and fornicators.

So your OP seems to be suggesting that violating the Law of Chastity in a particular way (homosexual conduct) is privileged and excused by God. I do not agree with that. In fact, I respectfully reject it.  With vigor.

 

There is no sin short of denial of the Holy Ghost and the shedding of innocent blood that cannot be forgiven by the Savior.

Quite right. So those who repent of violating the Law of Chastity (such as by repenting of - as you put it - "actively practicing" homosexual conduct) can certainly attain the Celestial Kingdom. But those who refuse to repent of - as you put it - "actively practicing" homosexual conduct will not attain the Celestial Kingdom.

I imagine that the Atonement will work in unexpected and gloriously merciful ways. I certainly hope so. But I reject the notion that the Atonement gives us license to sin or to refuse to repent.

More in the next post.

Edited July 10, 2015 by smac97

[smac97]

I am very open with my gay friends that if they wanted to be an Elder in Israel they would have to change some behaviors and beliefs.  But I am also honest that I too had to change behaviors and beliefs to become one too.

I think that's fine. We are all sinners. I don't think we do anyone any favors by pretending that their preferred sin is special or privileged, or that repenting of it is optional or not necessary because of the Atonement. Hence the caution in 2 Nephi 28:

7 Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.

8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.

10 And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them.

11 Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted.

12 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.

Thanks,

-Smac

[KevinG]

 

I am very open with my gay friends that if they wanted to be an Elder in Israel they would have to change some behaviors and beliefs.  But I am also honest that I too had to change behaviors and beliefs to become one too.

I think that's fine. We are all sinners. I don't think we do anyone any favors by pretending that their preferred sin is special or privileged, or that repenting of it is optional or not necessary because of the Atonement. Hence the caution in 2 Nephi 28:

7 Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.

8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.

10 And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them.

11 Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted.

12 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.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Yeah... I'm not saying that.  I can see why someone would think that.  But I'm not saying that.

 

Homosexuality, like any other sexual practice not ordained by the Lord needs to be repented of.  I agree with that.

[bluebell]

...and I suspect when God reveals to them that they should be sealed or lose the eternities they will have a choice to make.  Until then it is probably not constructive to tell them their relationship is condemning them to hell, and not just to bar them from receiving insurance benefits.

I both agree with you and don't.

Once someone knows your feelings on an issue (if you have the kind of relationship with them where sharing that is appropriate-this is not necessary with acquaintances or people you meet on the street obviously), then you leave them to it and don't need to say any more. It's not our job to hound people with our personal beliefs about the consequences of their actions unless they are harming us in some way.

However, if we truly love someone, we won't pretend that they aren't making dangerous choices when they choose to sin. The Lord loves who He chastises, and we probably need to be more willing to chastise, and also receive chastisement (you can't have one side of the coin without the other) if we really do love another and they love us.

Pretending everything is fine when it's not is selfish.

[KevinG]

 

Here is some doctrine regarding marriages not sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise (short of Temple marriage in LDS parlance).

 

D&C 132, 15-17:

 

 15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

 

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

 

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

 

18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

 

To me this means that any marriage outside of an honored Temple sealing would fall short of exaltation.  Yet exaltation is the highest station in Celestial glory.  Others would still be able to dwell in the Celestial kingdom as Angels, just not gods.  

 

So I again ask, do we judge homosexuals more harshly than a couple who does not qualify for a temple recommend, but was married by the Bishop in the chapel?  Are we excusing our own shortcomings while condemning others who don't share our favorite sins?  (That is rhetorical, I don't expect an answer- but we should consider how we love/judge our neighbor who is different from us).

 

Homosexuality is a gross sin.

 

 

What scriptural verse says that?  Perhaps abomination is a better word for the sin (never the people).

 

This is what I mean by extracting our personal biases when we seek to lead others to the Celestial kingdom by our example and precept.

 

Continue to take undue offense and find "ickyness" in others and they are not likely to stick around and hear the message of the Gospel.

[smac97]

Smac,

 

You did a thorough job of finding the weakness in my use of the English language.     I'm still struggling to explain this sensitive issue.

 

I am not advocating for forgiveness of unrepented sins.  

 

I am trying to say we should not judge others harshly just because we find their particular sin more distasteful than our own.  That's what I'm trying to say by "ick factor".

Okay.

 

I am trying to say we have no business using the law to enforce our own religious beliefs, if we also expect a libertarian treatment of our own beliefs (tax free donations, polygamous marriage in the 1800s, the right to establish schools that teach our doctrines...)

I disagree with you here. I think are at liberty to "legislate" based on our moral code, even when that moral code is based on religious belief. Americans live in a republic, which is "a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf."  I think it's a dangerous line of argument to say that people who choose their representatives to create our laws must forsake their religious beliefs in doing so. 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

Smac,

 

You did a thorough job of finding the weakness in my use of the English language.     I'm still struggling to explain this sensitive issue.

 

I am not advocating for forgiveness of unrepented sins.

That's good to know. I hope you can see how your OP gave the impression that you were (not trying to pick a fight or anying, just pointing out where I was coming from).

Thanks,

-Smac

[KevinG]

 

Yes sin bars us from the presence of the Father and Son, if we do not repent.

 

What I find troublesome is that we judge others sins harshly (ex. absolutely No Celestial kingdom for gays)

No, we don't do that. The LDS Church does not teach that.

 

 

Too liberal useage of the word "we" on my part.  Sorry about the broad brush.  You are correct that is not LDS doctrine.

 

I should say some of us in these discussions have exclaimed there will be no Celestial kingdom for gays.  I hope that is hyperbole or neglecting to remember repentance and atonement, and not their actual judgement. 

 

Too many of our fellow Saints have used shunning and condemnation, as opposed to longsuffering, love, and preaching repentance to our family members who disappoint us with their weaknesses and sins.

 

I often stop myself when correcting a child and ask "am I doing this out of love for them, or embarrassment for me?"   The attitude makes a world of difference in how we interact with others.

[smac97]

Yeah... I'm not saying that.  I can see why someone would think that.  But I'm not saying that.

 

Homosexuality, like any other sexual practice not ordained by the Lord needs to be repented of.  I agree with that.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

-Smac

[stemelbow]

I have similar views, although I admit I take it a few steps further. I've been very close to many homosexual couples myself and have found just as you describe--something as good if not better than my own temple marriage. In many ways.

I think as more realize the non-devilishness of such things, it'll become less and less a problem until people realize such relationships aren't really against God's will at all. That day will come.

I've seen the same thing with committed heterosexual couples who don't believe in marriage. I had an uncle and 'aunt' who lived in such a relationship for decades.  I don't believe that means though that God doesn't really care whether or not people have sex outside of the bonds of marriage and we just haven't realized that yet.

I didn't say as much.

[Mormonmaniac]

Here is some doctrine regarding marriages not sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise (short of Temple marriage in LDS parlance).

 

D&C 132, 15-17:

 15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

To me this means that any marriage outside of an honored Temple sealing would fall short of exaltation.  Yet exaltation is the highest station in Celestial glory.  Others would still be able to dwell in the Celestial kingdom as Angels, just not gods.  

 

So I again ask, do we judge homosexuals more harshly than a couple who does not qualify for a temple recommend, but was married by the Bishop in the chapel?  Are we excusing our own shortcomings while condemning others who don't share our favorite sins?  (That is rhetorical, I don't expect an answer- but we should consider how we love/judge our neighbor who is different from us).

Homosexuality is a gross sin.

 

What scriptural verse says that?  Perhaps abomination is a better word for the sin (never the people).

 

This is what I mean by extracting our personal biases when we seek to lead others to the Celestial kingdom by our example and precept.

 

Continue to take undue offense and find "ickyness" in others and they are not likely to stick around and hear the message of the Gospel.

I look at homosexuality as what it exactly is - gross sin. Im not gonna warm up to them and pad their sin as some dignified specialty like Hollywood does. I wnt to teach others about the gospel too but we have to get back to morals in this country. I look at cheating on ones spouse the same as homosexuality- it too is a gross sin. I teach my young youth at church the great abomination that homosexuality is and its gross plague on our society.

[stemelbow]

I have similar views, although I admit I take it a few steps further. I've been very close to many homosexual couples myself and have found just as you describe--something as good if not better than my own temple marriage. In many ways.

I think as more realize the non-devilishness of such things, it'll become less and less a problem until people realize such relationships aren't really against God's will at all. That day will come.

I've seen the same thing with committed heterosexual couples who don't believe in marriage. I had an uncle and 'aunt' who lived in such a relationship for decades.  I don't believe that means though that God doesn't really care whether or not people have sex outside of the bonds of marriage and we just haven't realized that yet.

My wife sister and her boyfriend have been living together for several years.  They seem to be happy and committed.  Love and commitment might be all that our society deems good or just but God expects more.

He may for certain people and may not for others. Maybe where your wife's sister and her boyfriend are is exactly where God wants them.

[KevinG]

 

Smac,

 

You did a thorough job of finding the weakness in my use of the English language.     I'm still struggling to explain this sensitive issue.

 

I am not advocating for forgiveness of unrepented sins.

That's good to know. I hope you can see how your OP gave the impression that you were (not trying to pick a fight or anying, just pointing out where I was coming from).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Yes.  And with some amusement I was astonished at how difficult it is to express some of these ideas without giving the wrong impression.  Your talent with exactness and language punched some rather large holes in my weave.  You would make a valuable editor.

 

But that is why I wanted to discuss things here.  To refine my teaching, and to better express my ideas.  Thanks!

[Storm Rider]

Smac,

 

You did a thorough job of finding the weakness in my use of the English language.     I'm still struggling to explain this sensitive issue.

 

I am not advocating for forgiveness of unrepented sins.  

 

I am trying to say we should not judge others harshly just because we find their particular sin more distasteful than our own.  That's what I'm trying to say by "ick factor".

 

I am trying to say we have no business using the law to enforce our own religious beliefs, if we also expect a libertarian treatment of our own beliefs (tax free donations, polygamous marriage in the 1800s, the right to establish schools that teach our doctrines...)

 

Our society's morals are based in Christian teaching and all our laws stem from that teaching.  I don't know why we should all of a sudden saw Christian morals should now, in the day and age, have no role or impact on our society.  Seems a bit short-sighted and narrow. 

 

Every society has morals.  If not Christian morals whose morals should take precedence in our society and why?  What gives this new moral standard the seal of approval and on what grounds is this awarded?  Should moral standards be fluid and really more a reflection of the whims of the day?  Maybe, but again a really short-sighted, shallow society results from such willy-nilly approach to morals. 

 

As a church maybe we should be more condemning of all sin.  However, focus is drawn to homosexuality simply because homosexuals are demanding that our society recognize their lifestyle as normal and healthy.  The problem is that nothing could be further from the truth.  The human body is simply not made for homosexual sex.  A gastrointestinal tract is designed and made for one thing; forcing it to serve another purpose creates a whole host of health problems.  Enough said; if you doubt have a frank discussion with your doctor about the what should and should not go where and why and what are the consequences of repeated abuse of same.

 

I am not in the game of drawing firm lines about what kind of people will and will not get into the Celestial Kingdom.  What I am quite firm on is that each of us needs to pursue discipleship with an eye single to the glory of God.  It demands a great deal of each of us and each of us needs to repent daily.  However, trying to excuse our sins because of the sinful nature of everyone else is a nonstarter.  We must stand on our own life, choices, and actions and relationship with our Savior.  Anyone who rejects Christ and attempts to excuse their sin is not going to have a happy resurrection. 

[KevinG]

I look at homosexuality as what it exactly is - gross sin. Im not gonna warm up to them and pad their sin as some dignified specialty like Hollywood does. I wnt to teach others about the gospel too but we have to get back to morals in this country. I look at cheating on ones spouse the same as homosexuality- it too is a gross sin. I teach my young youth at church the great abomination that homosexuality is and its gross plague on our society.

 

 

I'm sure your sins are gross too.  Have you crusaded against those who have your particular weakness in the public square?  Or are you just more comfortable condemning "them".

[Mormonmaniac]

I look at homosexuality as what it exactly is - gross sin. Im not gonna warm up to them and pad their sin as some dignified specialty like Hollywood does. I wnt to teach others about the gospel too but we have to get back to morals in this country. I look at cheating on ones spouse the same as homosexuality- it too is a gross sin. I teach my young youth at church the great abomination that homosexuality is and its gross plague on our society.

 

I'm sure your sins are gross too.  Have you crusaded against those who have your particular weakness in the public square?  Or are you just more comfortable condemning "them".

I readily admit I have sins. Although, they are not gross sins like homosexuality.

[KevinG]

I readily admit I have sins. Although, they are not gross sins like homosexuality.

 

 

That is exactly what I'm talking about.  And here is the doctrinal answer to that claim...

 

Alma 45:16

 

 16 And he said: Thus saith the Lord God—Cursed shall be the land, yea, this land, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, unto destruction, which do wickedly, when they are fully ripe; and as I have said so shall it be; for this is the cursing and the blessing of God upon the land, for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the leastdegree of allowance.

[Mormonmaniac]

I readily admit I have sins. Although, they are not gross sins like homosexuality.

 

That is exactly what I'm talking about.  And here is the doctrinal answer to that claim...

 

Alma 45:16

 

 16 And he said: Thus saith the Lord God—

Cursed shall be the land, yea, this land, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, unto destruction, which do wickedly, when they are fully ripe; and as I have said so shall it be; for this is the cursing and the blessing of God upon the land, for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the leastdegree of allowance.

Yeah, this land is readily ripening for destruction. Homosexuality is a gross plague upon the land. So is pornography, so too is fornications, adultery, etc.- they are all gross sins that plague our society. Homosexuality and this gross SSM thing is especially bad because it flat out flies in the Face of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. I firmly stand as a testimony that all these gross abominations must decease or we shall be destroyed and burned at his coming.

[bluebell]

I have similar views, although I admit I take it a few steps further. I've been very close to many homosexual couples myself and have found just as you describe--something as good if not better than my own temple marriage. In many ways.

I think as more realize the non-devilishness of such things, it'll become less and less a problem until people realize such relationships aren't really against God's will at all. That day will come.

I've seen the same thing with committed heterosexual couples who don't believe in marriage. I had an uncle and 'aunt' who lived in such a relationship for decades. I don't believe that means though that God doesn't really care whether or not people have sex outside of the bonds of marriage and we just haven't realized that yet.

I didn't say as much.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.

Your last paragraph seemed to be saying exactly that. That once people realize a relationship is non devilish (like the SSM marriages you know which are just as good as your own) then they'll realize God is fine with them.

Wouldn't that also imply the same thing for good, non devilish heterosexual partnerships?

[JAHS]

 

 

I look at homosexuality as what it exactly is - gross sin. Im not gonna warm up to them and pad their sin as some dignified specialty like Hollywood does. I wnt to teach others about the gospel too but we have to get back to morals in this country. I look at cheating on ones spouse the same as homosexuality- it too is a gross sin. I teach my young youth at church the great abomination that homosexuality is and its gross plague on our society.

 

I'm sure your sins are gross too.  Have you crusaded against those who have your particular weakness in the public square?  Or are you just more comfortable condemning "them".

 

I readily admit I have sins. Although, they are not gross sins like homosexuality.

 

Is homosexuality a gross sin or is homosexual behavior a gross sin?

[carbon dioxide]

 

I look at homosexuality as what it exactly is - gross sin. Im not gonna warm up to them and pad their sin as some dignified specialty like Hollywood does. I wnt to teach others about the gospel too but we have to get back to morals in this country. I look at cheating on ones spouse the same as homosexuality- it too is a gross sin. I teach my young youth at church the great abomination that homosexuality is and its gross plague on our society.

 

 

I'm sure your sins are gross too.  Have you crusaded against those who have your particular weakness in the public square?  Or are you just more comfortable condemning "them".

 

We all have sins.  The problem is that there is a crusade going on to make something that has always been a serious sin less than serious.  In fact not a sin at all.  I don't see such a campaign right now for other things like stealing, coveting, lying, and other practices.  But I have NO doubt we will get there.  The devil is never satisfied.  One can count on an immoral society accepting new things that have been previously looked down on.  There is no floor to the hole that society keeps digging for itself.

[Kenngo1969]

 

He may for certain people and may not for others. Maybe where your wife's sister and her boyfriend are is exactly where God wants them.

 

I think God will judge us as mercifully as possible, yes, but I don't think He will do that by relaxing His standards for some and not for others.  I don't think He will say, "Keeping this particular commandment was especially hard for you, so I'm going to give you a free pass, will judge you as though you had not broken it, and will reward you with the blessing or blessings you would have received that is (or that are) predicated on obedience to it."  God is both perfectly merciful and perfectly just, but mercy cannot rob justice.  If mercy could rob justice, in my opinion, the scriptures teach that God would cease to be God.

[Kenngo1969]

 

My wife sister and her boyfriend have been living together for several years.  They seem to be happy and committed.  Love and commitment might be all that our society deems good or just but God expects more. 

 

 

 

 

The Acme Judgment Company offered me a terrific position with a great salary and excellent benefits, which was really tempting given my tenuous employment situation ...  Alas, I could not, in good conscience, accept it, because I don't feel I'm qualified.  I'm not in the business of forcing people to accept my paradigm.  I don't believe in attempting to impart "Living Water" to someone through a fire hose set at full blast, and, while I could, willy-nilly, strew good seeds everywhere hoping that they'll bear good fruit without having paid sufficient attention to whether the ground is sufficiently well-prepared to receive them, that's not likely to be an endeavor that bears much good fruit.  

 

 

 

However, all of this having been said, while the libertarian side of me says, "Live and let live," often, libertarianism posits a vacuum in which very little of one's person's conduct has any direct adverse effect on anyone else, and I'm not convinced of this proposition.  The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., once famously wrote that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.  Could not the same be said of unrighteousness; is not unrighteousness anywhere potentially a threat to righteousness everywhere?  The scriptures teach that "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump," (Galatians 5:9), and don't forget Abraham's conversation with God about how many righteous needed to be found in Sodom for the Lord to spare it (see Genesis 18).  

Edited July 10, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[california boy]

I am very open with my gay friends that if they wanted to be an Elder in Israel they would have to change some behaviors and beliefs.  But I am also honest that I too had to change behaviors and beliefs to become one too.

I think that's fine. We are all sinners. I don't think we do anyone any favors by pretending that their preferred sin is special or privileged, or that repenting of it is optional or not necessary because of the Atonement. Hence the caution in 2 Nephi 28:7 Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.10 And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them.11 Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted.12 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.

Thanks,-Smac

I don't disagree with anything you have said. But I would like to tell you from someone who is gay why having gay sex isn't really that important. You see the church has done a good job convincing me that there is no place for a gay person in the celestial kingdom. The current doctrine of the church is that for a gay person to be accepted Into the celestial kingdom they must be celibate in this life. The promised is that by doing so they will become straight and be able to marry a woman for eternity. There are no gays in the celestial kingdom.

So if I don't want to become straight after I die, what is the point of repenting? It is a much better decision to choose to have a fulfilling life here on earth shared with someone you love.