The Gap is too Wide to Bridge

[Storm Rider]

21 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Just curious, what exactly will be your reaction when the church announces a revelation and changes its current attitude towards gays and women by extending priesthood to women and recognizes same Sex marriage?  Granted this will not come about until there is tremendous societal and financial pressure put on the church...so I'm guessing that this WILL HAPPEN within 10 to 20 years time.  Anti discrimination laws will have to be passed and implemented, financial penalties will have to be part of the legislation as well and the cost to the church will have to be crippling...but it will happen and the church will have a choice to announce a new inclusive revelation or continue down its current road to irrelevancy.

Remember that you are not a polygamist today because the church caved to past financial and societal pressure...it will have to be something of that level of future pressure to get the church to alter its current eternal truths once again...

The church will be able to continue to "Believe" anything it wants ...just as it still believes in polygamy...it just can't practice that formerly eternal truth today...so it may morph to where it can believe in

You know, Johnnie, you may be right.  Could be just like you project on the Church and its future.  Of course, you could be dead wrong.  Your opinion and my opinion and five dollars will get you a cup of Joe at your local Starbucks.  

You are good with spin; maybe you should consider working in politics.  

I don't think you have a clue about the topic, but its just me.  Cheers, 

[Johnnie Cake]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Personally I would reject the revelation as being false.
As for what that would mean for my membership and activity in the Church - well, that would take some serious prayer.

And polygamy was revoked under common consent laws by the Church.  God never changed his doctrine on the practice.

...and the disenfranchisement and financial ruin of the church under the 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act had absolutely nothing to do with the supposed suspension of earthly Polygamy in 1890?  Ummm...ok

Edited June 21, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

19 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

You know, Johnnie, you may be right.  Could be just like you project on the Church and its future.  Of course, you could be dead wrong.  Your opinion and my opinion and five dollars will get you a cup of Joe at your local Starbucks.  

You are good with spin; maybe you should consider working in politics.  

I don't think you have a clue about the topic, but its just me.  Cheers, 

Actually I only need $3.47 for my morning Americano...ummmm...good

 

Storm Rider, I want to be respectful....so help me understand how you don't see past eternal truth changes by the church as caving to societal pressures?  How exactly was the 1890 polygamy ban NOT a direct result of the Edmunds - Tucker Act which act did the following:

Quote

The act:

• Disincorporated the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company, with assets to be used for public schools in the Territory.^[3]
• Required an anti-polygamy oath for prospective voters, jurors and public officials.
• Annulled territorial laws allowing illegitimate children to inherit.
• Required civil marriage licenses (to aid in the prosecution of polygamy).
• Abrogated the common law spousal privilege for polygamists, thus requiring wives to testify against their husbands.^[4]
• Disenfranchised women (who had been enfranchised by the Territorial legislature in 1870).^[5]
• Replaced local judges (including the previously powerful Probate Court judges) with federally appointed judges.
• Abolished the office of Territorial superintendent of district schools, granting the supreme court of the Territory of Utah the right to appoint a commissioner of schools. Also called for the prohibition of the use of sectarian books and for the collection of statistics of the number of so-called gentiles and Mormons attending and teaching in the schools.^[6]

The Act also led to the 1890 U.S. Supreme Court authorizing the seizure of Church property under the Edmunds–Tucker Act in Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States.

NOTE the 2 dates of 1890 Supreme Court authorizing the seizure of church assets and the 1890 church abandonment of earthly polygamy?  Coincidence or caving to societal pressure?

 

Edited June 21, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

...and the disenfranchisement and financial ruin of the church under the 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act had absolutely nothing to do with the supposed suspension of earthly Polygamy in 1890?  Ummm...ok

It had everything to do with it.
The law was passed in 1887.
In Nov 1889 Pres. Woodruff received a revelation in which he was told among other things:

• 3. Let not my servants who are called to the Presidency of my Church deny my word or my law, which concerns the salvation of the children of men.
  4. Let them pray for the Holy Spirit which shall be given them to guide them in their acts. Place not yourselves in jeopardy to your enemies by promise. Your enemies seek your destruction and the destruction of my people. If the Saints will hearken unto my voice, and the counsel of my servants, the wicked shall not prevail.
  5. Let my servants who officiate as your counselors before the courts make their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit, without any further pledges from the Priesthood, and they will be justified.
  6. I, the Lord, will hold the courts, with the officers of government and the nation responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion.
  7. I, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, am in your midst. I am your advocate with the Father. Fear not, little flock, it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom. Fear not the wicked and ungodly.
  10. Let my servants call upon the Lord in mighty prayer, retain the Holy Ghost as your constant companion and act as you are moved upon by that Spirit, and all will be well with you.
  11. The wicked are fast ripening in iniquity, and they will be cut off by the judgments of God. Great events await you and this generation and are nigh at your doors. Awake! O Israel, and have faith in God and his promises and he will not forsake you. I the Lord will deliver my Saints from the dominion of the wicked in mine own due time and way.

Less than 1 year later President Woodruff told the members that "I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land."
He also later said "I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …" and " the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. "

At which point a common consent vote was taken and the Church chose to end Polygamy in the Church although the leaders in high priesthood offices continued for many years to come.

Polygamy ended by the voice of the membership.  God never revoked a single iota of doctrine on the subject.
 

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It had everything to do with it.
The law was passed in 1887.
In Nov 1889 Pres. Woodruff received a revelation in which he was told among other things:

• 3. Let not my servants who are called to the Presidency of my Church deny my word or my law, which concerns the salvation of the children of men.
  4. Let them pray for the Holy Spirit which shall be given them to guide them in their acts. Place not yourselves in jeopardy to your enemies by promise. Your enemies seek your destruction and the destruction of my people. If the Saints will hearken unto my voice, and the counsel of my servants, the wicked shall not prevail.
  5. Let my servants who officiate as your counselors before the courts make their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit, without any further pledges from the Priesthood, and they will be justified.
  6. I, the Lord, will hold the courts, with the officers of government and the nation responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion.
  7. I, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, am in your midst. I am your advocate with the Father. Fear not, little flock, it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom. Fear not the wicked and ungodly.
  10. Let my servants call upon the Lord in mighty prayer, retain the Holy Ghost as your constant companion and act as you are moved upon by that Spirit, and all will be well with you.
  11. The wicked are fast ripening in iniquity, and they will be cut off by the judgments of God. Great events await you and this generation and are nigh at your doors. Awake! O Israel, and have faith in God and his promises and he will not forsake you. I the Lord will deliver my Saints from the dominion of the wicked in mine own due time and way.

Less than 1 year later President Woodruff told the members that "I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land."
He also later said "I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …" and " the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. "

At which point a common consent vote was taken and the Church chose to end Polygamy in the Church although the leaders in high priesthood offices continued for many years to come.

Polygamy ended by the voice of the membership.  God never revoked a single iota of doctrine on the subject.
 

Then why didn't they still keep followinf God's doctrine???

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Then why didn't they still keep followinf God's doctrine???

Because the members as a whole didn't want to.
The Church operates on common consent.

Some members (including a majority of the General Authorities) ignored the manifesto and kept on marrying and performing marriages until 1904.
The Manifesto just gave those that voted for it an excuse not to live plural marriage.  If it were a commandment the General Authorities sure didn't think so.

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because the members as a whole didn't want to.
The Church operates on common consent.

Some members (including a majority of the General Authorities) ignored the manifesto and kept on marrying and performing marriages until 1904.
The Manifesto just gave those that voted for it an excuse not to live plural marriage.  If it were a commandment the General Authorities sure didn't think so.

Thank you.  Don't suppose the members could do this again any time soon  Take a vote on some policies??  It is good, though that there is common consent. 

[kllindley]

Quote

Just curious, what exactly will be your reaction when the church announces a revelation and changes its current attitude towards gays and women by extending priesthood to women and recognizes same Sex marriage? 

 

As an active LGBT member, I would leave the church along with my wife and children.  Such a fundamental shift would offer conclusive proof that the leadership of the Church had fallen into apostasy. 

 

[Calm]

Good to see you back, we need input from a variety of people with different experiences in order to make informed choices (which is ino essentially what is going to happen as part of what leads up to the Judgment).

[kllindley]

Mystery Meat,

As an active LGBT member, I also fear that the gap is generally growing too wide.  As a general culture, groups like Affirmation and Mama Dragons have moved beyond the point of mutual respect and compassion.  However, there are numerous individuals, like California Boy and Daniel2, who are able to genuinely model the type of respectful disagreement that they likewise deserve.  

Polarization is an ugly thing and it is happening in lots of different areas right now, not just LGBT/Mormon.  Abortion. Gun Regulation. Terrorism.  Welfare.  And it's not just the liberal/progressives doing this.  We all like to think that we are rational beings and that we have come to each of our opinions through careful consideration.  Most people generally want to believe that they are reasonable and respectful.  Unfortunately, it seems that it is human nature to primarily associate with other people who tend to think like us.  This creates an echo-chamber effect where we never really get a chance to see other people and understand their experiences and the reasons they have for believing differently. It is too easy to start to believe that not only is my belief/opinion correct, it is also the only logical, reasonable, respectable opinion.  Believing that, I have to assume that any opponent is either uninformed/naive or willfully deceitful.  I know that I often get unconsciously defensive and read "other" opinions looking for reasons to discredit or disbelieve, so that I can continue to believe what I already believe.  And this is getting easier as, so many of the arguments we make (and read/hear) become not really attempts to inform the other.  They become more of a way to prove to my friends and supporters that I am one of them and that we really are right.   

In the end, I don't know whether we (as LGBT/Mormons, as a nation, as humans) are going to be able to transcend this tendency to polarize.  There are significant movements of people trying to promote dialogue and genuine respect.  I hope that they become successful and gain momentum.  I am afraid that what we are seeing in US Politics today is proof that we are heading to an ugly end.  What is so sad to me is that the entire process could burn to the ground and each side would remain firmly convinced that it was 100% the other side's fault.  The reality is that anyone on either "side" is to blame. 

[rodheadlee]

24 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 

As an active LGBT member, I would leave the church along with my wife and children.  Such a fundamental shift would offer conclusive proof that the leadership of the Church had fallen into apostasy. 

 

This is what I'd do too. 

[Mystery Meat]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Mystery Meat,

As an active LGBT member, I also fear that the gap is generally growing too wide.  As a general culture, groups like Affirmation and Mama Dragons have moved beyond the point of mutual respect and compassion.  However, there are numerous individuals, like California Boy and Daniel2, who are able to genuinely model the type of respectful disagreement that they likewise deserve.  

Polarization is an ugly thing and it is happening in lots of different areas right now, not just LGBT/Mormon.  Abortion. Gun Regulation. Terrorism.  Welfare.  And it's not just the liberal/progressives doing this.  We all like to think that we are rational beings and that we have come to each of our opinions through careful consideration.  Most people generally want to believe that they are reasonable and respectful.  Unfortunately, it seems that it is human nature to primarily associate with other people who tend to think like us.  This creates an echo-chamber effect where we never really get a chance to see other people and understand their experiences and the reasons they have for believing differently. It is too easy to start to believe that not only is my belief/opinion correct, it is also the only logical, reasonable, respectable opinion.  Believing that, I have to assume that any opponent is either uninformed/naive or willfully deceitful.  I know that I often get unconsciously defensive and read "other" opinions looking for reasons to discredit or disbelieve, so that I can continue to believe what I already believe.  And this is getting easier as, so many of the arguments we make (and read/hear) become not really attempts to inform the other.  They become more of a way to prove to my friends and supporters that I am one of them and that we really are right.   

In the end, I don't know whether we (as LGBT/Mormons, as a nation, as humans) are going to be able to transcend this tendency to polarize.  There are significant movements of people trying to promote dialogue and genuine respect.  I hope that they become successful and gain momentum.  I am afraid that what we are seeing in US Politics today is proof that we are heading to an ugly end.  What is so sad to me is that the entire process could burn to the ground and each side would remain firmly convinced that it was 100% the other side's fault.  The reality is that anyone on either "side" is to blame. 

Thank you for this. Well said and worth considering.

[Johnnie Cake]

On 6/21/2016 at 5:20 PM, rodheadlee said:

This is what I'd do too. 

So you're admitting here that you'd reject an equality revelation?  Isn't that what Warren Jeff and his ilk do pick and choose?

poster removed

[kllindley]

40 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Isn't that what Warren Jeff and his ilk do pick and choose?

A perfect example of the divide being widened.  My personal conviction that eternal exaltation really does require male and female and that God wants loves all of us enough to want us to attain exaltation makes me the moral equivalent of Warren Jeffs. 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, kllindley said:

Mystery Meat,

As an active LGBT member, I also fear that the gap is generally growing too wide.  As a general culture, groups like Affirmation and Mama Dragons have moved beyond the point of mutual respect and compassion.  However, there are numerous individuals, like California Boy and Daniel2, who are able to genuinely model the type of respectful disagreement that they likewise deserve.  

Polarization is an ugly thing and it is happening in lots of different areas right now, not just LGBT/Mormon.  Abortion. Gun Regulation. Terrorism.  Welfare.  And it's not just the liberal/progressives doing this.  We all like to think that we are rational beings and that we have come to each of our opinions through careful consideration.  Most people generally want to believe that they are reasonable and respectful.  Unfortunately, it seems that it is human nature to primarily associate with other people who tend to think like us.  This creates an echo-chamber effect where we never really get a chance to see other people and understand their experiences and the reasons they have for believing differently. It is too easy to start to believe that not only is my belief/opinion correct, it is also the only logical, reasonable, respectable opinion.  Believing that, I have to assume that any opponent is either uninformed/naive or willfully deceitful.  I know that I often get unconsciously defensive and read "other" opinions looking for reasons to discredit or disbelieve, so that I can continue to believe what I already believe.  And this is getting easier as, so many of the arguments we make (and read/hear) become not really attempts to inform the other.  They become more of a way to prove to my friends and supporters that I am one of them and that we really are right.   

In the end, I don't know whether we (as LGBT/Mormons, as a nation, as humans) are going to be able to transcend this tendency to polarize.  There are significant movements of people trying to promote dialogue and genuine respect.  I hope that they become successful and gain momentum.  I am afraid that what we are seeing in US Politics today is proof that we are heading to an ugly end.  What is so sad to me is that the entire process could burn to the ground and each side would remain firmly convinced that it was 100% the other side's fault.  The reality is that anyone on either "side" is to blame. 

Thanks for this thoughtful post.  Maybe we can't bridge the gap.  But we don't have to widen the chasm.  I would give you a rep point, but for some reason your post doesn't have the arrow.  Further proof of a conspiracy. 

[california boy]

In the interest of bridging the gap, I found this article very thought provoking.  

When forbidden sexuality meets unchanging religious tradition

From the article

Quote

 

Look at it this way. When a young person from a strict religious upbringing discovers the powerful force of his own sexuality, it is scary enough. But if that sexual interest flows toward people of the approved sex, religious authorities have at least a marginally comforting answer: You and your sexuality are normal, but you need to wait till you are married to have sex. It’s difficult, but it can be done. Pat on the back, and out you go.

But for lesbian, gay and bisexual young people, the answer is very different: You are not normal. Your sexuality is uniquely sinful, a rejection of God himself. You must repent and change. You can never act on these sexual attractions. How long must you wait to have a sexual or romantic relationship with someone you actually desire? Forever. You can never, ever, do it, or you will incur God’s wrath.

These answers come from all recognized and trusted authorities in the young person’s world — first parents, then also religious teachers and leaders, and finally most friends from church, synagogue or mosque. Quite often the answers are accompanied by the sternest, sometimes the cruelest, verbal, emotional and even physical violence. Even the very tentative declaration that a young person may be feeling some same-sex attractions can send religious parents and pastors through the roof. At best, relationships survive, but the person’s sexuality is rejected by those whose approval matters most.

So when the irresistible force of a forbidden sexual orientation runs into the immovable object of an ancient religious tradition, what is the affected person supposed to do?

A large number of young adults ultimately abandon their religious traditions as hazardous to their health. Some are in gay nightclubs early Sunday morning because they are welcome there — and would not be welcome in church eight hours later.

Others spend years attempting to conform their desires and behaviors to the religiously prescribed options, such as celibate singleness or heterosexual marriage, remaining in their religion at the cost of cauterizing their sexual identity.

Some ping-pong back and forth between these options, both of which they find agonizing and neither of which they can sustain.

Others eventually find peace in creating, or discovering, a version of their faith that can accommodate the sexuality they have, rather than the sexuality that the tradition demands they have. They find a place where they no longer have to choose. This is usually a very long and difficult process.

 

I don't think this article will change anyone's mind, but I think it might provide more understanding.

Edit:  Sorry for the big type.  Does anyone know how to change font size.  The old program used to do it automatically.  

Edited June 22, 2016 by california boy

[Kevin Christensen]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

In the interest of bridging the gap, I found this article very thought provoking.  

When forbidden sexuality meets unchanging religious tradition

From the article

I don't think this article will change anyone's mind, but I think it might provide more understanding.

Edit:  Sorry for the big type.  Does anyone know how to change font size.  The old program used to do it automatically.  

It's still interesting how this dialogue has ping ponged back and forth in the usual grooves even after I raised the possibility of sex addiction being a factor to consider.  It's interesting that, a page back, when Daniel calmly addressed the presence of my essay on the topic, he didn't actually mention sex addiction, as through the concept is somehow taboo, when it is specifically that notion that that distinguished my discussion from the Pearson/Fales/Pearson accounts of the effects of sexuality on their lives:

Quote

That is, rather than defining the concept and considering the possible relevance to the story she tells, she redirects our attention to the ideal of tolerance for all.  In this Mormon Rashomon, I come as an outside observer like the woodcutter and I ask, “What happens if you consider the possibility that an individual homosexual could also be a sex addict, and therefore, that addiction could be a significant factor in behavior?”

If in an individual case, sex addiction appears to be a reasonable diagnosis, regardless of whether it is directed towards the opposite sex, same sex, some combination, whether directed toward promiscuity or media or sex with self or some combination, the proper response, the helpful response, the freeing and healing response is in fact "the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit," which is simply to offer one's misdirected desire and one's impaired thinking as a sacrifice to God.  Physiologically speaking, addiction manifests as increased craving combined with impaired judgement.  Twelve Step recovery addressed the craving with group accountability, reducing shame in an environment of love and acceptance and elimination of secrets, creating boundaries that help a person heal, and addressing the impaired thinking via study, the writing, the fearless and searching moral inventory, which is the exact equivalent of Alma's life changing life review, and turning to Christ.  A key diagnostic characteristic of sex addiction is the feeling that "sex is my most important need."  A key result of healing is that sex becomes optional, and as optional, in no longer in such destructive tension with personal commitments, whether to a faith community or one's family or spouse.

Controlling the narrative involves which stories are we going to tell, whose stories to we allow and take as representative, and whose stories  and which story tellers do we accept.  Kuhn explained that the choice of narratives turns out to also be a choice of communities, and a choice between incompatible modes of community life.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

It's still interesting how this dialogue has ping ponged back and forth in the usual grooves even after I raised the possibility of sex addiction being a factor to consider.  It's interesting that, a page back, when Daniel calmly addressed the presence of my essay on the topic, he didn't actually mention sex addiction, as through the concept is somehow taboo, when it is specifically that notion that that distinguished my discussion from the Pearson/Fales/Pearson accounts of the effects of sexuality on their lives:

If in an individual case, sex addiction appears to be a reasonable diagnosis, regardless of whether it is directed towards the opposite sex, same sex, some combination, whether directed toward promiscuity or media or sex with self or some combination, the proper response, the helpful response, the freeing and healing response is in fact "the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit," which is simply to offer one's misdirected desire and one's impaired thinking as a sacrifice to God.  Physiologically speaking, addiction manifests as increased craving combined with impaired judgement.  Twelve Step recovery addressed the craving with group accountability, reducing shame in an environment of love and acceptance and elimination of secrets, creating boundaries that help a person heal, and addressing the impaired thinking via study, the writing, the fearless and searching moral inventory, which is the exact equivalent of Alma's life changing life review, and turning to Christ.  A key diagnostic characteristic of sex addiction is the feeling that "sex is my most important need."  A key result of healing is that sex becomes optional, and as optional, in no longer in such destructive tension with personal commitments, whether to a faith community or one's family or spouse.

Controlling the narrative involves which stories are we going to tell, whose stories to we allow and take as representative, and whose stories  and which story tellers do we accept.  Kuhn explained that the choice of narratives turns out to also be a choice of communities, and a choice between incompatible modes of community life.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I read your blog twice.  I found it to be pure speculation based on picking and choosing lines from three people who wrote a book each.  Your conclusion is a diagnosis based on fragments of a story about someones life.  You further seem to want to project this diagnosis on an entire group of people.  Or am I reading you wrong.  PLEASE correct me if that is not your intent.  Because I find that concept to be completely bogus.  It is like diagnosing Clinton and Kennedy as being sex addicts and then concluding that anyone that runs for public office is a sex addict.  Please.. . 

I hope I am wrong about this.  If I am, can you please explain the point of your repeated posts on this speculative blog of yours??

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

...and the disenfranchisement and financial ruin of the church under the 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act had absolutely nothing to do with the supposed suspension of earthly Polygamy in 1890?  Ummm...ok

I don't think there will be anything of that magnitude affecting the church regarding this issue. Perhaps BYU, though. 

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, kllindley said:

 

As an active LGBT member, I would leave the church along with my wife and children.  Such a fundamental shift would offer conclusive proof that the leadership of the Church had fallen into apostasy. 

 

This is an interesting declaration in my mind.  Aren't we to accept the concept of learning line upon line?  The idea that we see through a glass darkly and we do not know all things?  Maybe there is far more about this that we simply don't know or understand.  Maybe God has many more surprises for us? 

[salgare]

On 6/16/2016 at 4:36 PM, JLHPROF said:

Sorry, I can't agree with that relativistic approach.

The afterlife is NOT unknown.  It has been revealed, but people either by choice or by doubt are not accepting of it.
And loving and inclusive do NOT go hand in hand.  God loves all his children.  He still followed law and its prescribed penalties.

If you have trust issues with mortal/physical aspects, and I assume have not received the promises of the Oath and Covenant, how could you possibly have any trust in the revealed afterlife that that God is going to uphold his end of that deal?

[Gray]

15 hours ago, kllindley said:

 

As an active LGBT member, I would leave the church along with my wife and children.  Such a fundamental shift would offer conclusive proof that the leadership of the Church had fallen into apostasy. 

 

Conclusive proof based on what standard of evidence?

[JLHPROF]

44 minutes ago, salgare said:

If you have trust issues with mortal/physical aspects, and I assume have not received the promises of the Oath and Covenant, how could you possibly have any trust in the revealed afterlife that that God is going to uphold his end of that deal?

Because the afterlife is not contingent on promises being fulfilled.

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

This is an interesting declaration in my mind.  Aren't we to accept the concept of learning line upon line?  The idea that we see through a glass darkly and we do not know all things?  Maybe there is far more about this that we simply don't know or understand.  Maybe God has many more surprises for us? 

Perhaps.  It would just mean that He lied to me when He told me that there was no other way given for me to fulfill my potential than through a heterosexual sealing.  And then again when He inspires me to share my experiences in support of the current Apostles and Prophets as they teach that there is no eternal future for homosexual marriages.  Maybe God really can lie.  I also accept the possibility that I misunderstand the revelations I have received.  If such a revelation were to be presented, I might accept it if God also concurrently apologized for lying to me and the other thousands of us.  

 

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Conclusive proof based on what standard of evidence?

Conclusive proof only to me and my wife based on our personal revelation and experiences.  

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Conclusive proof only to me and my wife based on our personal revelation and experiences.  

Thank you for clarifying