Magus

You feel the Spirit because the Lord loves you and because your heart, despite your sins, is attuned to him enough to still feel it and be receptive to it. I, too, have felt the Spirit in my life at times when I was not worthy. The Lord loves us more than we can comprehend, of that I can testify. At times he may possibly be "slow to hear" the cries of those who have transgressed, so to speak (as mentioned in Mosiah), but he never abandons us and his hand is extended towards us always. Usually it is we who abandon him.

You do not need to choose between the Church and your boyfriend. That is a false choice and frankly, a deception the Adversary would have you be deluded in. The real choice is righteous living vs. sexual immorality.

If your boyfriend can't accept you being chaste - that is his decision.

The other thing is.....marriage was invented for a reason...................not saying you guys should just go and get hitched because you want sex. But I think a more mature perspective on your relationship is probably in order (sorry if that sounds judgmental, just trying to give point blank advice. Maybe you are already thinking of these things I'm about to mention). One that includes long term views of commitment and where things are going to go. Do you want to have sex with someone you will not marry? Will you marry him? Do you love him? Then what's stopping you? Will he join? Does he love you? What's stopping him? All pertinent questions to consider and follow through on. Heavy lifting, I know. But that's life, I suppose. I wish you the best. The Lord loves you, never forget.

Yeah, I think that's an interesting observation.
 
Joseph Smith set up the foundations for the restored gospel. It wasn't everything there is to know, but it was what was needed. I recall that after he introduced the endowment and temple ordinances, he rejoiced and said something to the effect that he was glad/relieved to have finished what he was sent to do with the time he had left (he knew he was going to die at least 5 years before he did). It wasn't too long after that that he was martyred.
 
Some stuff has been added since, but it's mostly just been re-affirmation and preaching of the gospel, messages from the Lord to the Church about what we need for our spiritual growth at that time.

I have a recent personal story relating to astrology...
 
Some background first...
 
so,again, my Russian wife - a lot of Russians believe in astrology to a certain extent. i think part of it is that the environment toward it in Russia is different than here. In the US, astrology is associated a lot with expensive over-the-phone readings, scams, or just sort of dirty, shady places that also just want your money. However, in Russia, it seems like everyone knows a local and trusted senior citizen in the area who has either psychic ability or who knows a thing or two about the stars, and so the environment is a lot more personal, friendly and trustworthy for them.
 
The idea is not that celestial bodies are controlling people or that they necessarily predict your future - but that somehow they are likely to have an influence on people, whether it be personality traits or influencing peoples' actions. That doesn't mean those things are set in stone or cannot be overcome,  but it does mean that doing so is a bit like swimming against the current. Where that influence comes from or what exactly it is, I don't know how to explain.
 
I myself am sort of in between on the issue. I don't wholly reject astrology, because I think it makes sense that there could be some sort of ordering power or influence in the universe like that, and because I know that for me and most people whose astrological signs I know, they match. Also, looking through Church history, it's apparent (to me) that there the early prophets of the Church probably did know things about astrology and the stars and that those things very likely fit into the larger sort of esoteric picture of Mormonism, things that are not part of the main meat and potatoes of the every day religion we all follow, but that are present and true and valuable to undrstand nevertheless, for those so prepared and able to understand with the Spirit. 
 
I also know that a lot of people bash astrology who really know nothing about it. They think it's just horoscopes and mumbo jumbo, but that stuff is junk. So to be fair, real astrology isn't fairly represented by that stuff. My dad is one of those people who totally rejects such things (at least vocally...) In fact he's so against the idea of someone telling him about things influencing him outside of his control, he never got his patriarchal blessing....but I digress...
 
Anyway, here's the story:
 
My wife met another Russian lady online, and she has an astrology program and offered to read some astrological charts for us. One of the ones my wife asked for was for her brother. It turns out that her brother had a very strong influence of Pluto on his chart, which is associated with things relating to death and the underworld. His Pluto was so strong that she asked my wife he has ever seen dead people, if they have ever come to him and spoken to him from beyond the grave. She said no, not that she knows of, but she would ask. The lady said that according to his chart, he should.
 
So my wife asked him. And as it turns out, he's been keeping a secret since childhood. Dead people do indeed come to him, in his dreams, and have told him things. It usually happens when one of them dies, and he attends the funeral or something. He said that for that reason, he doesn't like going to funerals anymore. He shared a few stories with us.....anyway, it was all pretty uncanny.
 
She read a few other charts for us and they were also all right on on the personality traits and things.

There are some Russian superstitions my wife has carried over with her, and one of them actually seems to hold up - which is that if you drop a spoon, it means you can expect company will be coming that day. I'm the American, so it never works for me, but she's the Russian, and every time she drops a spoon, she takes note of it, and sure enough, company arrives later in the day.
 
There are some others she observes.
 
Also, every time we leave the house on any kind of trip, in addition to a family prayer, we always say "Se Bogum" which means "With God."

There are some Russian superstitions my wife has carried over with her, and one of them actually seems to hold up - which is that if you drop a spoon, it means you can expect company will be coming that day. I'm the American, so it never works for me, but she's the Russian, and every time she drops a spoon, she takes note of it, and sure enough, company arrives later in the day.
 
There are some others she observes.
 
Also, every time we leave the house on any kind of trip, in addition to a family prayer, we always say "Se Bogum" which means "With God."

I have seen with my eyes a spirit of darkness or an angel of darkness.
 
I have seen in my minds eye, or more so sensed, the presence of spirits around me once when as a youth I attended the temple and was doing baptisms for the dead.
 
I did not see the angel but I was saved by an angel when I was 19 years old while climbing some rocks. I was about 50 feet above the ground. My little brother and I were exploring a quary. There were many large and small pieces and chucks of jagged rocks below us. On the face of the rocks were bore holes or impressions of what was left of bore holes. I was using one of these old bore holes to grasp on to while my feet were on a ledge that was about 6 inches wide. I wanted to cross it to get to another part of the rock. When I got about ten feet on the ledge I saw that the ledge dipped or sloped about five inches, and the face of the rock started to lean outward a bit. To continue across the ledge I needed to hold on to the sloping face and then drop down a few inches to the ledge. Not being experienced at all at rock climbing in this situation I should have turned around. But, in my bravado I continued and dropped my foot on the ledge below. When I did, I lost my balance due to the awkward slope, the precarious ledge, and my inexperience. I began to fall and my mind froze and I didn't know what to do. In an instant, however, both of my arms flew out in front of me kinda like I was getting ready to push down on a bike pump. I fell just far enough for my arms to catch on the slight ledge below and somehow I just stopped falling and regained my balance. I didn't do anything but act foolish and fall. My little brother couldn't believe it. He was certain that he was going to see his brother die, yet somehow I just stopped falling and was able to climb back up to the ledge and return back to where my brother was. I have no explanation for how I saved myself other than that an angel saved me. Had I continued to fall I would have hit the large jagged rocks below and would have probably died.
 
-Finrock

I've never seen one but felt one wrap his arms around me for protection. I was riding my motorcycle home from work at dawn when a car in the oncoming traffic lane pulled out to pass. The car was so close I only had time to close my eyes and get killed. The impact didn't happen so I opened my eyes to find myself, still on the bike, out of harms way. I felt as though a warm blanket had been thrown around me and wasn't the least bit shaken up. That feeling lasted all the way home and I had the best days sleep I can ever remember having. 

When I was on my mission in France, one of my companions and I baptized a man from Brazzaville, Congo.  Hs name was Andre.  He was a student at a French university in the city of Pau.  After studying the gospel and attending meetings for several months, he was baptized after he began receiving revelatory inspiration through his dreams.
 
After Andre's baptism, he began sending copies of the Book of Mormon and various pamphlets home to his family and friends in Congo.  There were no missionaries in that country at the time (around 1981-82).  His mother and brother felt drawn to the gospel.  His uncle, who was sort of a family patriarch, began to try to undermine the gospel message.  There was no branch of the Church his mother and brother could attend. (Keep in mind that this was just a couple of years after the 1978 priesthood revelation and the work in English-speaking Africa was just beginning.  The work in French-speaking Africa began to develop much later.)  Essentially, my new convert's family had only the Book of Mormon and the prayer of faith on which to make any decisions about the gospel.  Even if they believed, there was no Church presence for them to receive baptism.
 
By this time, I had been transferred to another area of the mission and I learned of this experience by a letter.  After the uncle had troubled my investigator's mother about the enthusiasm Andre had communicated about the gospel, the mother prayed for guidance.    Andre related that an angel--his deceased grandmother--appeared to his mother in their home.  The grandmother told her that she should believe Andre and assist him in his work.  She said that doing so would help bring Zion to her people.  
 
I wish I knew the rest of the story, but there was no Internet back then and it was easy to lose touch with friends after the mission.  I have always hoped that Andre's family was able to receive baptism at some point.  It was always a confirmation to me of the gospel's power.

I wouldn't say that at all.  Here is a link to several good videos by an actual Egyptologist:
 
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLw_Vkm1zYbIENnXFBIHVUXS4ckY_I-u_O
 
He makes a lot of really good points, such as the egyptology community is actually really small, most simply don't care about the Book of Abraham.  I highly recommend it.  Rather than read about what other people say egyptologists have said why not get it straight from the horse's mouth?

Let me give you a little more as an assignment - for fun.  Take Abraham chapter 3 and read that in conjunction with Doctrine & Covenants section 88.  Now think in terms that Abraham was given to an ancient culture whose mathematics and science was based in realization of ratios.  That all things exist as ratios of other things.  (could cover this in much more detail but just understand that the ancient culture demanded that real things have ratios in order to exist in harmony with each other).
 
Now compare that with D&C section 88.  Which covers basically the same religious concepts but this time with Newtonian based culture and traditions.  Things like the laws of thermal dynamics and Newton's laws.  Note that one is based in ratios and the other based in laws.  Then realize that both were written by the same person with no more than a 3rd grade education and that the subject matter is in essence the same but representing two very different periods of time and two very cultures.
 
What you are seeing is empirical evidence that Joseph Smith was very unexplainable and unique.

To be clear, I wasn't meaning that I thought you were saying Joseph was a doofus. I mean that it strikes me that the approach seems more suited to appeasing those who claim Joseph was a doofus than it seems suited to support honest evidence, of which there is very little.
 
 
What conclusion is being drawn from this though? That because we have this the other fragments we have must also have the textual source? The historical record would indicate otherwise. There are quotes that indicate red writing, for example, and other descriptions (like that the translation came from the rolled parts of the scrolls rather than the mounted pieces we have today) of the part where the book of Abraham came from, none of which match the fragments we have. We also, obviously, don't have all the vignettes from which the facsimiles were created, which clearly indicates some of the source material is missing.
 
 
You'd have to source this. I presume you've read this apologetic approach before...but for the sake of those who may not have... it's a bit like arguing that putting "by J.K. Rowling" on the Harry Potter books is a lie because she didn't actually hand print each copy.  As near as I understand it (and I'm not that knowledgeable on the matter), these "statements" are either third party (and it's pretty meaningless what family and friends thought the scrolls were) or else fairly easily understood in this context. I know Joseph wrote "written by his own hand", but this was a fairly common term in Joseph's day that means exactly the same thing as "by" does nowadays, and does not necessarily imply that Joseph thought the scrolls were literally hand-written by Abraham.
 
I'm not claiming Joseph's statements and understanding was perfect in the matter. But I do, very strongly, believe that somewhere on the scrolls they had were the writings of Abraham that were translated to become the book of Abraham, and I have seen no serious compelling evidence as of yet to sway this stance.
 
To be further clear, I have no problem with believing Latter-day Saints reconciling their understanding with such explanations. And I'm not intending to just debate the matter -- but more to point out to the OP that there are interpretive variables that can be factored differently, and that none of these factors make a whit of difference as to our faith in the work as one that was given by God to Joseph for our benefit and understanding.

Well, I wouldn't say Joseph was a doofus at all--just that he didn't know everything.
For me, TFP, the determinative pieces of evidence are a) the presence, in the fragments we have, of a vignette that to my eyes looks a heckuva lot like Facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham; b) Carbon dating of that fragment to the first century AD, not the eighteenth or nineteenth century BC; and c) miscellaneous statements from Smith and his immediate family that the scrolls in his possession were the same scrolls (not just copies) handled by Abraham himself. I've not yet seen a persuasive reconciliation of all those factors; and so I'm inclined to think that Smith's understanding on this matter was simply incomplete.
Joseph didn't need an original manuscript to produce the JST. He didn't always require immediate visual contact with the gold plates to produce the Book of Mormon. He didn't require John's parchment to bring forth D&C 7. I don't think the JS Papyri need to have been the actual documents handled by Abraham, either.

I was concerned at the offset of this thread that sacred things could be cast as pearls before swine.  Some posters have already touched on this.  However, for the record, I will clearly state that I personally have several encounters – both with the clean and unclean personages.  In some cases I knew the personage as I recognized my brother that drowned shortly (within a few months) after returning from his mission.
 
As a general rule I would bring to light that a visitation of an angel is as likely or more likely to be for the reason of calling someone to repentance as it is to comfort, testify of something important or bring one’s righteousness to account.  In short – such a thing is highly unlikely to be something to brag about or share with others; for whatever the reason.

I've met 3 people who have. 2 were LDS, 1 was not, but the experience caused him to leave the christian sects he was attending before then, and investigate the LDS- due to how angels are represented in popular mainstream christian culture was significantly different than his experience.

I have not seen an angel. But I have felt them around me. I have had impressions about who they were, and felt their comforting words/thoughts conveyed to me. I have also felt negative beings. To a greater or lesser extent I have felt them regularly over the last few years. Angels are of course all around us. The problem is we are not in tune. 
 
We often talk about receiving spiritual promptings. This is the first step. But there is obviously much more. We need to continue down that path. Calming our mind and learning to sense and understand on the spiritual plane. After being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost one of the first blessings and directions Nephi gives us is to speak with the tongue of angels. He says, "then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue [ie. in the language] of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel" (2 Ne 31:13). What is the language of angels? Nothing more nor less then spirit to spirit communication, as Nephi further states, "Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost" (2 Ne 32:3).
 
Communication comes directly to our spirit in the form of impressions, thoughts, and ultimately words. I have not experienced, but believe, that seeing angels on a regular basis is simply a further refinement of that process. I also believe there are rare occasions where angels communicate with those unprepared. But these are for specific purposes and with specific assignments. 

In many European countries, having tea is very much a customary part of the culture, and members of the Church do not give up all tea when they join, only the types of tea that actually have the tea leaf in it, as required by the modern interpretation of the WoW. On my mission in Russia, every time we went to anyone's house, it was basically a tea party, as we were always served herbal tea and some sort of snack. We missionaries also regularly drank it back at our apartments, as well, and were really quite partial to certain brands or flavors. It was a big thing. Missionaries not into herbal tea before their mission came home very into it.
 
Herbal tea is great and very good for you. There really shouldn't be a problem, imo.
 
I do wish that black or green tea wouldn't be part of the WoW, there are so many other things we do that are worse for you. Coffee too, for that matter. But whatever, I get it and I can go along with it. And I get that that point of view is where your concern is...you don't want the temptation to arise to start drinking actual tea. But I feel like that's sort of like saying, let's not drink Root Beer because then we'll want to drink caffienated drinks, and then if we drink caffienated drinks, we'll be tempted to drink coffee. People can make their own decisions, but meanwhile, I don't think we need to shun a good thing just because someone, on their own, might make an association and might find a personal temptation there. Temptations are everywhere, every day, and we all will deal with them. Tea parties with herbal tea are okay, in my opinion. The more one makes a big deal about the concern, the more of a conscious thing it becomes anyway. And that's what you'd actually want to avoid. So my feeling is just don't make a big deal about it. That, and I'm personally against over-sensitivity. If people like the idea and want to do it, go with it, have fun, and if anyone is offended, that's their own personal problem. At some point, zealotry stops having a net benefit.
 
The other question that needs to be asked is, not IF people will be offended/tempted, but SHOULD they be offended/tempted? And follow-up question: What kind of culture do we want to nourish within the Church? What kind of member do we want to build? One that only feels safe in a super-Mormon culture that shuns anything that is too similar to aspects of the world we don't participate in, or one that can be comfortable and (within reason) fit in with the world around them and be able to participate in it, still keeping the commandments, but also still feeling perfectly at home? Without making non-members uncomfortable because "oh, you're Mormon..." - because they can sense that.  I think this is a perfect case where the boundaries should be pushed and people exposed to what is, all in all, a wholesome cultural activity.

I was unaware you had a history. But out of curiousity, what are his contrary stances against the Church? I personally disagree with some of his opinions that I've seen in this thread, and I understand how some of his wording may have been confusing or poorly chosen in expressing the entirety of his intended meaning, but I'm not sure I'd go so far to say that anything he's said in this thread is in direct contradiction to the Church, or against the Church, or that his comments are the inverse of innocent and somehow diabolical or intended to ensnare or cause contention.
 
I'm relatively "new" here, but I just have this thing where I hate seeing people get told they're flat out "wrong" (as in like, you're "against the Church" for it) for their opinion by a large group of people anytime they express an opinion to the contrary of the majority., even if I myself disagree with them. I've been in that situation on boards where I'm the only religious/conservative member. There are doctrines of the Church that we are all familiar with, but there's still plenty of room for opinion or speculation between the cracks, and people are entitled to it. I'm not sure I've seen omega deliberately say anything contrary to the doctrines of the Church in this thread, but I feel like there's probably been some poor communication and a lot of people saying the same thing just from different angles and then being a bit contentious about it.
 
I never got from him that he meant that there are actually two Jesuses or that he thinks God forgives the unrepentant. But I did get a bit of a vibe that some were really trying to downplay (not saying intentional or not) the differences between the OT and the NT in making their cases, in a way that's sort of felt like omega isn't allowed to ever make a valid observation.

It's an interesting and somewhat difficult topic. Let's not kid ourselves - in Leviticus, death or any other number of horrible things are given as a punishment for sins as simple as picking up sticks on the Sabbath - and that one dude was stoned to death...though I don't remember if that was specifically the law for everyone or if he was just being made an example of.
 
But the fact is, Jesus doesn't tell us to stone people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath anymore.
 
And by that standard, I think we'd all have been stoned to death a long time ago.
 
Yes, it's all the same Jesus, and yes, when Jesus comes again, the wicked will burn and great judgments will also be poured out upon the world due to its wickedness....(and again, let's not kid ourselves, some of those "wicked" could easily be you or me, sometimes we think we are "safe" in living our lives by a Terrestrial law but our analysis between Terrestrial and Telestial law just might be off...and plenty of "wicked" people are delightful, good people otherwise)....but to act like there's virtually no difference between how things were handled in the OT and how Jesus advocated us handling them in the NT and today is also a little willfully ignorant.
 
I guess it has something to do with the fact that Jesus (as Jehovah) was dealing with a very stubborn group of people that rejected him even when he freed them from Egypt and had done a great deal of earth-shaking miracles for them. Had it been another group of people that were not as stiff-necked, maybe the rules would have been more lax.
 
I don't know that Jesus ever specifically said, during his mortal ministry, to do away with such and such Mosaic laws. He seemed to walk a fine line. And although he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," he never said specifically "hey everyone, no more stoning." There's that walking the fine line - because taken literally, he's still saying "cast the stone," but the qualifier he proposed was perfection, which he knew none fulfilled. So what he didn't say explicitly, he showed and taught by his own personal example. And so he personally defended the woman out of compassion for her life and for giving her an opportunity to repent, and did advocate a higher standard among the people - that of giving people the chance to repent and to change instead of reactionary and condemning judgment for everything, when those same people are not themselves sinless. Jesus represented another opportunity for the people to accept and live the higher law, which was rejected by those who crucified him, but accepted by those who converted and followed him, and for the first time in the world known to them, a group was established of people who knew and tried to live that higher law. And here we are today. The Jewish religion has remained largely stagnant, (relatively speaking) and the people scattered and smitten across the earth, while the teachings of Christ have spread across the globe, albeit in imperfect and fractured form.
 
And that's not to discredit the Jewish religion - there are many great, valuable and somewhat lost teachings to be found therein...Joseph Smith himself studied and appreciated the mystical Kabbalah...and I think everyone would benefit greatly from studying such things....but my point is just to say, the Jewish religion has grown very little in comparison to how Christianity has spread.
 
Anyway, I digress.......I think what got people up in arms is when omegaseaman75 said Jesus would "forgive" and go, and people took that very literally. I think what he meant was that on an emotional level, Jesus would have a loving attitude and be there for them despite their sins, as he is there for us despite our sins, not that he would literally forgive the unrepentant.
 
I myself am not inclined to agree that Jesus would show up at all or participate, as I think showing up at the wedding isn't a qualifer to "be there for them despite their sins" (although it can be seen as a "nice" gesture...) and I think one can show love without doing all of that, but that's my opinion. I just think this thread has gotten into a lot of arguing over nothing and been a bit contentious.
 
If omegaseaman75 wants to believe Jesus would show up - who cares? We all have our opinions, much of which are not doctrinal, and none of us speak for Jesus anyway.

It's an interesting and somewhat difficult topic. Let's not kid ourselves - in Leviticus, death or any other number of horrible things are given as a punishment for sins as simple as picking up sticks on the Sabbath - and that one dude was stoned to death...though I don't remember if that was specifically the law for everyone or if he was just being made an example of.
 
But the fact is, Jesus doesn't tell us to stone people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath anymore.
 
And by that standard, I think we'd all have been stoned to death a long time ago.
 
Yes, it's all the same Jesus, and yes, when Jesus comes again, the wicked will burn and great judgments will also be poured out upon the world due to its wickedness....(and again, let's not kid ourselves, some of those "wicked" could easily be you or me, sometimes we think we are "safe" in living our lives by a Terrestrial law but our analysis between Terrestrial and Telestial law just might be off...and plenty of "wicked" people are delightful, good people otherwise)....but to act like there's virtually no difference between how things were handled in the OT and how Jesus advocated us handling them in the NT and today is also a little willfully ignorant.
 
I guess it has something to do with the fact that Jesus (as Jehovah) was dealing with a very stubborn group of people that rejected him even when he freed them from Egypt and had done a great deal of earth-shaking miracles for them. Had it been another group of people that were not as stiff-necked, maybe the rules would have been more lax.
 
I don't know that Jesus ever specifically said, during his mortal ministry, to do away with such and such Mosaic laws. He seemed to walk a fine line. And although he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," he never said specifically "hey everyone, no more stoning." There's that walking the fine line - because taken literally, he's still saying "cast the stone," but the qualifier he proposed was perfection, which he knew none fulfilled. So what he didn't say explicitly, he showed and taught by his own personal example. And so he personally defended the woman out of compassion for her life and for giving her an opportunity to repent, and did advocate a higher standard among the people - that of giving people the chance to repent and to change instead of reactionary and condemning judgment for everything, when those same people are not themselves sinless. Jesus represented another opportunity for the people to accept and live the higher law, which was rejected by those who crucified him, but accepted by those who converted and followed him, and for the first time in the world known to them, a group was established of people who knew and tried to live that higher law. And here we are today. The Jewish religion has remained largely stagnant, (relatively speaking) and the people scattered and smitten across the earth, while the teachings of Christ have spread across the globe, albeit in imperfect and fractured form.
 
And that's not to discredit the Jewish religion - there are many great, valuable and somewhat lost teachings to be found therein...Joseph Smith himself studied and appreciated the mystical Kabbalah...and I think everyone would benefit greatly from studying such things....but my point is just to say, the Jewish religion has grown very little in comparison to how Christianity has spread.
 
Anyway, I digress.......I think what got people up in arms is when omegaseaman75 said Jesus would "forgive" and go, and people took that very literally. I think what he meant was that on an emotional level, Jesus would have a loving attitude and be there for them despite their sins, as he is there for us despite our sins, not that he would literally forgive the unrepentant.
 
I myself am not inclined to agree that Jesus would show up at all or participate, as I think showing up at the wedding isn't a qualifer to "be there for them despite their sins" (although it can be seen as a "nice" gesture...) and I think one can show love without doing all of that, but that's my opinion. I just think this thread has gotten into a lot of arguing over nothing and been a bit contentious.
 
If omegaseaman75 wants to believe Jesus would show up - who cares? We all have our opinions, much of which are not doctrinal, and none of us speak for Jesus anyway.

I also want to keep writing in my journal. That's important to me.

Well one of my big goals would be World Domination   so pretty much anything else might seem small compared to that.
Okay that isn't really a goal....  or is it! lol

Trying to become a better member-missionary

How else would you show the principle I was trying to show?
 
I respect your opinion about Jesus being best man at a gay wedding. I'm strongly inclined to disagree. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe there's an exceptional circumstance in which He would do it - but my point of view is based on the idea that you can show love for someone without participating in what they are doing.
 
Objectively speaking, I certainly don't think it's a slam-dunk conclusion that Jesus "for sure" would be his best man.

I agree with the rest of your post as well, but I wanted to particularly emphasize my agreement with this part of it.
 
As members of the Church, we should strive to avoid contention. Especially with each other. I don't care if it's conservative disagreeing with liberals or liberals disagreeing with conservatives - I think we all need to make an effort to curb our online snarkiness with each other. I mentioned this elsewhere, recently, but there was a time I came here (quite awhile ago) with some points of view I wanted sincere feedback on, and it quickly devolved into a rather snarky and somewhat disrespectful internet debate, probably because people were feeling defensive with what I said and misunderstood me, and as someone else has said, they were probably thinking about how to respond, not how to listen. It turned me off and I left the community for quite awhile. I face enough condemnation from the world for my religious/political views, get called a bigot for it, etc etc. Or I get called a cult member for being a Mormon. The last thing I want when I come to a Mormon community is to face more condemnation, judgmentalism or internet snark from other members, when we are supposed to be One, as Jesus prayed for in Gethsemane. Despite whatever our views or differences are, we are supposed to be One. Brothers and Sisters. We are supposed to be, ultimately, strengthening each other and showing love, even if we disagree on things.
 
If any place on the internet should have a different culture from all the snark, the back-biting, the contention and negativity - it should be and LDS forum. Otherwise, we're just like everybody else.