Anddenex

IMO, this can only be reconciled by the vicarious experience of the Atonement.  But yeah, it doesn't quite fly.  Bits of the parable have to be tweaked or set aside for this combo to work.

In the scriptures God gave the command Thou Shall not kill.  Seems pretty cut and dried doesn't it.   Then he commanded the Israelites to totally destroy those in the promised land killing men, women, and children.  Was God talking out both sides of his mouth?  Were Moses and Joshua confused or failing as prophets and leaders when they gave those command?  Did Nephi disobey God when he Killed Laban?  Or was God talking out both sides of his mouth?
The Scriptures clearly teach that God's ways are not our ways, so it is not uncommon or unexpected  from time to time that we can't follow God's logic or reasons.  And by default the instructions he might give through his appointed leaders.  The Question is how do we respond?  Do we acknowledge that it is our limitation and our failure to understand God that results in our confusion... Or do we declare that God' through is appointed leaders are talking out both sides of his mouth, or that his appointed leaders are fallen and incompetent? 

I think it fair to @zil to share "scripture" reference in context, "The idea that their arrival constitutes sin just seems as wrong as can be (and I think scriptures prove the idea is wrong).  I see no hope in such a world."
The context/question, "Do we sin the moment we experience temptation"? The New Testament gives evidence that believing "temptation" is equivalent to "sin" is wrong, by the scriptures specifying that with every "temptation" there is a way out. Your example of Christ experiencing "temptation" (which isn't sinning) is another example.
In light of context, and scripture, zil is definitely correct. Which I don't believe you disagree with.

Let me clarify. As I have explained, I do not believe there is such a thing as wholesome homosexuality. The key, in my mind, to lust being lust is wholesomeness. I do not "lust" after my wife because my desires are wholesome. Since all homosexual desire is unwholesome, it is therefore, per my view, lust.

Thank you; however, this doesn't answer the question proposed, and the question does not attempt to qualify the two as the same. To identify as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" does not automatically equate with "lust" for other men (homo) or other women (hetero).
We are identifying a person who would identify themselves as "homosexual" in comparison to one who identifies as "heterosexual." We agree there is a difference between a boy/man who is pursuing a woman (hetero) and even holds hands (who is single), vs. a boy/man who is pursuing a man (homo) and eventually holds hands. The latter is contrary to the will of God, the first is not.
A man who identifies as "homosexual" (he recognizes his attraction to men and does not "act") is not the same as one who identifies as "homosexual" (recognizes his attraction and does "act") as he pursues his interests. These are not the same, and to do so demeans a brother or sister that should not be reprimanded when they are indeed controlling their attraction the same as a hetero who controls their actions within the bounds the Lord has set.
 

The difference in my mind is this: There is appropriate heterosexual action even outside the bounds of marriage. The plain fact is that -sexual, homo or hetero, is sexual in nature. It's end is, ultimately, sex. A man holding a woman's hand on a date is a sexually based act, but an appropriate one. The determination and desire to hold hands, kiss, hug, dance with, etc., are all sexual in nature, but all conditionally appropriate outside the bounds of marriage for someone courting. The thoughts and desires behind doing these things, therefore, are also sexual in nature, and appropriately so, as long as they do not extend beyond these acts themselves in any detail. (By "detail" I mean that a man courting a woman may, in my opinion, reasonably, have the idea of making love to her someday come into his head without it being a lustful thought, something he does not dwell on or consider in any detail, etc., something he puts aside understanding that to dwell on it would be inappropriate.)
The point being, heterosexuality is wholesome. It is a wholesome, healthy, appropriate, righteous thing. It can be made unwholesome, unhealthy and unrighteous by misuse. But it, in and of itself, is a good thing.
Homosexuality has none of these characteristics. It is never wholesome, never healthy, and never appropriate.
To treat resistance to heterosexual behavior and thought the same as resistance to homosexual behavior and thought is invalid. It is not. One is a good thing that may be misused. The other is a corrupt thing.
The comparison I make is not a comparison of active homosexuality to repressed homosexuality. They are, indeed, different, and to call them the same would be unjust. But that does not mean that repressed homosexuality is equivalent to wholesome appropriate expressions and control of heterosexuality, or even that it is in any way equivalent to repressions of heterosexuality. There is no legitimate comparison of something that, at it's core, is right and good and something that, at it's core, is evil and corrupt.
I don't condemn the idea of repressing homosexuality or argue that someone so engaged is unworthy of great praise. What I do claim is that this state may be concurrently worthy of praise and also worthy of concern. What I reject is the idea that a suggestion that someone who struggles with SSA should strive to overcome it is equal to the exhortation that an active homosexual stop sinning. But that's how it gets treated. The two are not the same, as you have said, and therefore the exhortation to change is not the same either. But the fact that having SSA but not acting on it is not equivalent to acting on it, and therefore shouldn't be categorized at the same level of impropriety, does not mean that having SSA is proper, or that once one chooses to not act on the characteristic that all is over and done with on the path to our perfection.

Thank you; however, this doesn't answer the question proposed, and the question does not attempt to qualify the two as the same. To identify as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" does not automatically equate with "lust" for other men (homo) or other women (hetero).
We are identifying a person who would identify themselves as "homosexual" in comparison to one who identifies as "heterosexual." We agree there is a difference between a boy/man who is pursuing a woman (hetero) and even holds hands (who is single), vs. a boy/man who is pursuing a man (homo) and eventually holds hands. The latter is contrary to the will of God, the first is not.
A man who identifies as "homosexual" (he recognizes his attraction to men and does not "act") is not the same as one who identifies as "homosexual" (recognizes his attraction and does "act") as he pursues his interests. These are not the same, and to do so demeans a brother or sister that should not be reprimanded when they are indeed controlling their attraction the same as a hetero who controls their actions within the bounds the Lord has set.
 

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!