Anddenex

I reject the idea that the church has "lost ground" anywhere. As Latter Day Saints don't we believe that we are led by prophets and apostles of God? President Eyring's talk in the Priesthood session was all about having faith that God still leads us through his chosen leaders, even though they are imperfect. 
 “It takes faith to believe that the resurrected Lord is watching over the daily details of His kingdom. It takes faith to believe that He calls imperfect people into positions of trust. It takes faith to believe that He knows the people He calls perfectly, both their capacities and their potential, and so makes no mistakes in His calls.”
Don't you believe that Christ leads his church? Honestly, it bothers me that you are so fervently criticizing Elder Ballard. I loved his talk and felt inspired by his prophetic counsel to love God by loving our fellow man. It's hard for me to understand how your constant and sustained critcism of our divinly called leaders does anything helpful. I know God is still in charge of His church no matter what we perceive His apostles' weaknesses are. Plus do you really have so little faith in our leaders that you truly believe the First Presdency would allow something to be spoken in General Conference that was not the mind and will of God without stopping or correcting what was said? I think it's innapropriate to nit pick the words spoken by our Savior's servants. After all, don't forget D and C 1:38 
"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

Elder Oaks talk was all about this. We are to keep our desires within the bounds the Lord has set (if not, it is sin). An individual doesn't need to come out with an exact quote, "Homosexual desire, lust is sinful," for the statement to be there. This concept has been said over and over and over again.
The Church hasn't given up any ground. Lust is bad, hetero or homo.
Let's reword, "Identifying as heterosexual, whether one intends to or not, means that individual has sexual lust for someone of the opposite sex-that is sinful.  And lust most certainly can be controlled and banished . . .married individuals are expected to banish lust for anyone not their spouse." Heterosexual does not mean "lust." This is a personal interpretation that you are suggesting all should agree upon. I only have to bring up Christ to prove this to be incorrect. Christ was heterosexual, and he did not "lust" after any woman. Christ would have had heterosexual desires without lusting upon any woman. Conflating desire with "lust" is as one might say (in reference to Elder Ballard) "disingenuous." I have a desire to do well in school. This does not mean I have "lust" to do well in school. Desire does not equal lust. Heterosexual desire does not equal lust.
The heterosexual desire to be married to a woman does not equate with "lust." Just as someone identifying as "homosexual" does not mean they are lusting for other men, which is what the Church is now highlighting, not a new doctrine.

Elder Oaks talk was all about this. We are to keep our desires within the bounds the Lord has set (if not, it is sin). An individual doesn't need to come out with an exact quote, "Homosexual desire, lust is sinful," for the statement to be there. This concept has been said over and over and over again.
The Church hasn't given up any ground. Lust is bad, hetero or homo.
Let's reword, "Identifying as heterosexual, whether one intends to or not, means that individual has sexual lust for someone of the opposite sex-that is sinful.  And lust most certainly can be controlled and banished . . .married individuals are expected to banish lust for anyone not their spouse." Heterosexual does not mean "lust." This is a personal interpretation that you are suggesting all should agree upon. I only have to bring up Christ to prove this to be incorrect. Christ was heterosexual, and he did not "lust" after any woman. Christ would have had heterosexual desires without lusting upon any woman. Conflating desire with "lust" is as one might say (in reference to Elder Ballard) "disingenuous." I have a desire to do well in school. This does not mean I have "lust" to do well in school. Desire does not equal lust. Heterosexual desire does not equal lust.
The heterosexual desire to be married to a woman does not equate with "lust." Just as someone identifying as "homosexual" does not mean they are lusting for other men, which is what the Church is now highlighting, not a new doctrine.

Elder Oaks talk was all about this. We are to keep our desires within the bounds the Lord has set (if not, it is sin). An individual doesn't need to come out with an exact quote, "Homosexual desire, lust is sinful," for the statement to be there. This concept has been said over and over and over again.
The Church hasn't given up any ground. Lust is bad, hetero or homo.
Let's reword, "Identifying as heterosexual, whether one intends to or not, means that individual has sexual lust for someone of the opposite sex-that is sinful.  And lust most certainly can be controlled and banished . . .married individuals are expected to banish lust for anyone not their spouse." Heterosexual does not mean "lust." This is a personal interpretation that you are suggesting all should agree upon. I only have to bring up Christ to prove this to be incorrect. Christ was heterosexual, and he did not "lust" after any woman. Christ would have had heterosexual desires without lusting upon any woman. Conflating desire with "lust" is as one might say (in reference to Elder Ballard) "disingenuous." I have a desire to do well in school. This does not mean I have "lust" to do well in school. Desire does not equal lust. Heterosexual desire does not equal lust.
The heterosexual desire to be married to a woman does not equate with "lust." Just as someone identifying as "homosexual" does not mean they are lusting for other men, which is what the Church is now highlighting, not a new doctrine.

I wonder if the Church isn’t laying the groundwork for a sort of mad-genius-troll argument here.
For the last decade or so, a common subtext in gay-rights discussions has been “being gay is not just about the sex, you pervert!  it’s about a whole other way of thinking and feeling and being!”
”Fine”, saith the Church.  “Think and feel and be as gay as you want, and come join us!  We ask only that you abstain from the sexual behavior that you tell us is so non-essential to your identity anyways.”

I needed to clarify this point before it is taken wrongly and it seemed better suited to post a clarification than editing what's there. Same Sex attraction is likely no more a sin than opposite sex attraction, it is the jump from thinking that since same sex attraction isn't a sin than neither should same sex marriage be. This part is clearly not part of God's plan for the family. I believe it's precisely why Elder Oaks specifically mentioned both cohabitation outside of marriage and same sex marriage because they are both in violation of the bounds the Lord has set on family and the use/abuse of the procreative process.

Because of people who want to lead others astray and wrest the scriptures to fit their way of thinking. Consider this blog post that I won't be linking too:
This kind of drivel is all over the internet from individuals trying to make a case for why same sex attraction is not a sin by whatever means they can contrive. People all over are suggesting that the only thing preventing homosexual sealings in the temple is a bigoted policy that needs to change, just like the end of the priesthood ban did. Elder Oaks very wisely put this kind of thinking in it's place by explaining how the proclamation came about (a consensus among the quorum of twelve apostles and first presidency) and that it is not merely a policy which can change. He also did it by kindly re-explaining what the God-ordained family looks like and setting it forth as the ideal.
Just like the Book of Mormon serves to reaffirm the teachings of the Bible and testify of Christ, so does the proclamation reaffirm teachings on the family in harmony with the teachings of ancient prophets in a day and time when such clarity and added support is greatly needed.

I believe the proclamation is given by prophetic revelation both as a warning to our generation and as a witness of the restoration of prophetic keys.
 
The Traveler

A couple points everyone should realize:
Professional athletes who don't stand for the National Anthem are bringing politics into the workplace.  They rightfully can be terminated from their employment by crossing that line.  The media platform that has been built around their employment is not for them to use for their personal political agendas.  If you want to protest an issue, do so outside of work.  
Kneeling during the National Anthem sends a stronger message that you don't support this country rather than you taking issue with racial discrimination.  Your message is confused by your actions.  Choose a more appropriate way to protest.

I will miss him. I loved his quiet and loving testimonies of the Savior Jesus Christ.

My he rest in peace, and I am thankful for this servant of the Lord and all that he accomplished, even though he was imperfect.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-robert-d-hales-passes-away?cid=HP_day_date_dPAD_fANN-HALS_xLIDyL1-A_

I thought this was the best talk of the day, though I didn't see them all..

Yes they did and again told them to see their stk pres.

I would feel the same, a mockery to all who died that we might have this privilege, and that ignorant "children" can take a kneel instead of respecting those who have fallen. The national anthem and the flag are not times, due to respect to those who have fallen, to show a disapproval for something. The nation already has venues and methods by which you can show your dislike toward something, and seek recompense.
It doesn't matter if you are a professional athlete, a school teacher, a jogger, a domestic engineer (Moms), or anything. Respect those who have fallen, or be like these ignorant children who think they are taking a "good" stand by kneeling. Oh, and by the way, I am still standing although I disagree with gay marriage, abortion, and all the immorality in this world.
EDIT: And just in case this is not missed. I do not like police brutality, and I do not like people who abuse the police either. I will stand, because it is the national anthem and the reason why I am able to protest, that I am able to even be Mormon (although under this nation and flag people tried to snuff it out), that I am able to choose my own vocation, and that I am able to enjoy freedoms that no other nation can enjoy as we enjoy.

I disagree with this. There are very few avenues for conservatism to fight it's battles. Trump is one of those avenues and he knows it. If he doesn't stand up and say such things as he says, who will? The media? Hollywood stars? Who?
Now how he says it -- problematic at times -- but at least he's saying it.

So many different issues, all rolled into one—and it seems like everyone’s a little wrong on this.
—Trump, as a government official, needs to stay the heck out of private-sector decisions regarding hiring and firing.  Also, this is a cynical move on his part that advances his short term political interests but divides the country as a whole.  
—Progressives:  if we can’t unite around respect for the flag and the anthem, there’s very little left holding us together as a nation and Balkanization isn’t far behind.  You guys are the ones who want the federal government to control everything and bring intransigent local populations into line; so I would think you’d quit undermining people’s loyalty to the federal government.  (And yes, kiddies, that’s what you’re doing.  Trump’s divisiveness is bringing us closer to civil war; but you guys are taking the bait in spectacular fashion.)
—Conservatives:  Patriotism is great; but I was unaware that we were ever really into enforced ritualistic worship of Big Brother; and last time I checked (I think it was about a month ago) we were adamantly defending people’s right to air their political views in the workplace without suffering government-greenlit retribution.  Also:  guys, we don’t have to step in every turd the Orange Orangutan-In-Chief leaves on the field, you know?
—NFL:  The league as a whole are cowards; muddying the waters with their attempts to split the difference (we’ll kneel.  Not during the anthem, but before.  Or maybe during.  And then we’ll stand and link arms in support of Kapernik and his donations to cop-killers—er, no, we’re just supporting him as a teammate and a brother—er, actually, BLM has a point—er, no; really we just hate Trump.  We love America too much to stand up for it.  Or something.)
—Civil libertarians:  yeah, any time you have armed police officers patrolling amongst the citizenry there are going to be abuses.  That’s human nature, and it needs to be dealt with.  But police departments are local entities, and you’re libertarians—why are you demanding a national response here?
—BLM:  hoo, boy; where do I even begin with you guys?  Look, I was there when you started—with Trayvon Martin, who was shot by George Zimmerman after beating Zimmerman to an inch of his life for having dared to follow him; and Michael Brown, who knocked over a convenience store and then attacked the cop who saw him and figured he matched the radioed description of the perp (which made sense since—you know—Brown WAS the perp).  Those shootings, tragic as they were, were justified incidents of self-defense; and your refusal to acknowledge as much makes it really hard not to conclude that what you *really* believe, is that black people should be able to rob and brutalize white people with impunity. We’ve seen the stats of white-on-black violence versus black-on-white violence; and we wonder why we’re supposed to just take it quietly and then be hectored about our “racism” for good measure.  We’re sick and tired of seeing a dysfunctional subculture rife with violence, drug use, unwed parenthood, demands for cultural separatism, and generalized contempt for education and authority and “acting white”—and rather than looking inwards to figure out how it can adapt to the (aspirationally, at least) color-blind, market-based meritocracy like modern America, its leaders rail against “white people” and bloviate on about “structural racism” and “safe spaces” (which of course, inevitably translates into “give us money.  Lots and lots and lots of money.”).
So, yeah.  A plague o’er all your houses, and get off my lawn.

Except its statistically garbage.

I have been having some issues with my testimony, and at the recommendation of my wife, I have started a more thorough and intense reading of the Book of Mormon.  I started reading tonight in the introduction, and found myself knee jerking into doubt again.  I don't know that it matters about WHAT gave me pause,  just that I found myself thinking about how the whole thing is a sham based on this line or that line and how it relates to XYZ.  It made me think about my faith and how I have never truly been able to get past that.  I have never been of the mindset to assume the Book of Mormon is true.  I have always been of the one to read something I don't understand and knee jerk into "the whole things a fabrication."  It just worries me that in nearly 10 years and having been through the temple, I am really no farther along than I was at baptism.
I guess what I am asking is, does this ever get better, am I just not diligent enough?  I often worry that's the case.  I know there are things I MUST do better, but truthfully I feel most times I need to do better.
In any event, thanks for the insight!

Regarding we are closer to God today, then other generations. You only have to look back to two times in scripture to see that there were people who were much closer to God then we are today: City of Enoch and Nephites and Lamanites after Christ came for a short period of time. We have not as a people come anywhere near what they achieved.

Prophets. 

We shouldn't make changes in the church purely to increase inclusion if a perceived minority. If I were a quorum president and chose a counselor who was black and another that was Asia on the basis of increasing inclusion, I would not be acting by revelation, but by my own agenda.
The same can be said about changes in policy. It needs to be coupled with revelation

Honestly brother I don't think there's much I can tell you. You are, of course, welcome to come to church and I'm sure the members of the congregation will welcome you. In fact, I encourage you to come, the Church is a hospital for all of us sinners. But you made it clear in your post that you love your fiance more than God. Homosexuality is a serious sin, and it will keep you out of the Celstial Kingdom, and eternally seperated from your family. I could give you scriptures and quotes to that effect, but I suspect they would fall on deaf ears at the moment. Peace be with you brother.

You may attend LDS church in your current apostate state, and will be welcomed.   But we will also preach Truth, even in the presence of sinners (which we are all).  That means we preach honesty in front of front of the liar, humility in front of the proud, and the law of chastity to all (which means sexuality is reserved for a lawful heterosexual relationship).  Of course we do love many people, as @anatess2 explained.
If you're interested, one of the apostles has gay brother, and his story is actually be broadcasted the weekend between General Conference sections.
http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/09/17/mormon-apostles-gay-brother-shares-his-religious-journey-preaches-love-for-his-former-partner-faith-and-family/

To answer your question, you can stay a member of the church as long as you don't have your name removed or get yourself excommunicated.  Stuff that gets you excommunicated includes having sex with someone you're not married to, and we Mormons continue to figure that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman.  So if you married someone of the same gender and had relations with them, that'd probably get you excommunicated.
This site might have more answers for you: https://mormonandgay.lds.org/
 

I'm assuming this is a sincere question.
I'll answer this one.  It's a pretty easy one actually because you stated it in your OP:
The bolded above is a lie.  This lie stems from the basic reason why gay marriage is a mockery of God's order.  Gay marriage teaches that Love's foundation is physical attraction.  That is a lie.
When God commanded us to Love, He did not base such a commandment on physical attraction.  Rather, Love is based on Christian charity - that sincere and honest desire to give of ourselves to bring someone with us closer to Christ.
To say that God says you can't Love because you're gay shows a vast lack of knowledge of what Love means.  Therefore, a marriage based on that false Love is living a big lie.
That said, we don't go to Church because we are perfect people.  We go to Church because we are sinners pleading for Christ's atonement and God's mercy.  Unfortunately, a Bishop may decide that having you and your gay partner sitting together as a married couple, holding hands, exchanging physical displays of affection, etc., is too much of a distraction and would sow division within the ward.  So it is possible that the Bishop will ask you to not do that at Church or not attend the meetings.  But that's just me talking.  It would be better if you go ahead and talk to the Bishop and hear what he has to say about it.
I wish you the best.