askandanswer

I don't think we have to go so far as to say "golly gee willikers, no one knows what the will of God really is; so I guess we're all just the moral kings of our own individual universes!"  (Not saying that's your position; just waxing hyperbolic for argument's sake.)
On the other hand, I think Spackman would likely point out that we, too, approach scripture and history and morality and God Himself with our own set of cultural expectations.  Our own perceptions on gay marriage and race-and-priesthood are heavily influenced by--if not exclusively 21st-century--certainly post-Enlightenment Western notions such as liberty, democracy, equality, power (and who should wield it), culture, race, ethnicity, the modern nation-state, cross-cultural sensitivity, the tension between universal ethical standards versus allegiance to one's own identity group, the relationship between individualism and collectivism and between duty and personal fulfillment/happiness (both in society as a whole, and within the constraints of one's own "clan"), covenant, child-rearing, and relatively unique constructs of "love" generally and "romance" in particular.  In the absence of modern prophets speaking authoritatively for God, we're on extremely tenuous ground if we assert that these particular values and notions are morally/ethically superior to those that rooted earlier civilizations; or if we purport to know God's will about any particular topic any better than any other person at any other point in history.  
It's especially perilous for us as Latter-day Saints to make projections about what kind of behaviors (or, for that matter, doctrines) will become en règle in the future; because the whole notion of living prophets presupposes that God has information to give to future generations that He didn't give to past generations--that He will expect actions of future generations that He did not expect of past generations.  We can't say for sure that divine ratification of same-sex marriage is impossible; any more than we can rule out the banning of the color cyan, the mandating of eating fish on Fridays, a proscription on home solar arrays, the restoration of plural marriage (including concubinage), or a re-institution of a race/lineage-based priesthood ban.  For all we know, tomorrow night President Nelson will get a revelation that the Savior of the World was actually an overweight pipefitter with a heart condition named Earl who died in Chicago in 1954. 
We conservatives have to concede that in theory, as far as the future goes, nothing is completely off-the-table.  (Obviously, there are eternal truths and divine absolutes and there are indeed things that will never be permissible, worlds without end; but our ability to "know" precisely which parts of the Gospel as we understand it are truly immutable, is somewhat malleable.)  All we can do is take a proposed doctrinal innovation and weigh it against the body of revelation and practice the Church has already received, and make sometimes-tentative and sometimes-pretty-darned-confident declarations about how "this could actually fit and solve a lot of problems" versus "this would be a radical departure from everything we have known and done in the past".  (And then, of course, comparing that necessarily-subjective conclusion to the whisperings of the Spirit and the pronouncements of the current Church authorities.)
When dealing with these kinds of questions, I think it's also easy to fall into an overly simplistic discourse about "what God wanted."  The fact is, human motives aren't that clear-cut, and I don't know that God's are either.  I don't want to eat my vegetables, or get up and go walking at 5 AM, or discipline my kids for misbehaving in a particular way.  But I do it, because I'm playing a longer game, and I know that distasteful actions in the here-and-now are necessary to attain a particular goal over the longer-term.  
In that sense, I have no problem agreeing with @MrShorty that God probably didn't want to impose the priesthood ban.  It's not how He got his kicks and giggles.  But for some reason, He found it necessary.  That reason could be any one of a myriad of things.  Maybe it was due to the prejudices of Church members.  Maybe it was necessary for the sake of PR for a church operating in a hopelessly prejudiced region.  Maybe it was, as Elder McConkie stated after the fact, an extension of God's practice of dispensing the Gospel to different peoples at different times.  Maybe it was strategically necessary as a guide for the Church to focus first on growing in the areas where Church growth would prove most sustainable while avoiding areas where Church efforts would be undone in coming decades due to political or cultural upheaval.  Maybe a blanket ban nipped in the bud the pretensions of designing, predatory men (William McCary, perhaps, or others) who, if they could claim authority via priesthood ordination, may have led thousands astray or even precipitated a race-based schism in the Church.  Maybe President Young (as interpreted by Reeve) was actually right that there really is something to the idea of Africans having common descendancy from Cain or some similar ancestor, and it being improper to allow that ancestor to have priesthood-bearing seed under the Patriarchal Order for a period of time.  Maybe there were factors going on in the pre-existence that we know nothing about.  We've been asked not to hitch our wagon to any particular speculative explanation, and so I try not to.  But that doesn't mean that no such explanation in fact exists.  
On the other hand, stripped of 21st-century cultural baggage, the theological argument against divine origin of the ban seems to me to boil down to the protestation that "the God I worship just wouldn't do such a mean thing!"  The trouble with this argument is that, as @Vort points out, Prince's biography of McKay cites multiple witnesses to illustrate persuasively that God did do such a mean thing, as recently as the 1950s.  Which pretty much eviscerates the argument that He could not also have done such a thing in the 1850s.  (And of course, Jews in the spirit world awaiting their redemption who happen to have died during the Holocaust, continue to suffer under a current race-based temple ban vis a vis proxy temple work; and that happened within the last twenty years.)  
Probably inevitably, arguments over the priesthood ban don't really revolve around the question of whether it was a divinely-instituted necessary-evil.  Instead they tend to jump to the assumption that President Young, President McKay, and the other pre-McKay prophets instituted or maintained a spurious discriminatory practice against God's instructions and due to nothing more than their own unquestioning adoption of broader cultural discriminatory mores and oppressive power dynamics.  Because the modern political ramifications of such a position are fairly obvious:  If the GAs were hateful fun-sucking old doodie-heads once upon a time, then they probably are again; so we'll just wait for their moral judgment to catch up with ours, and in the meantime bring on the sexy time!!!  
But, with regard to gay sex and gay marriage vis a vis the priesthood ban:  Reeve himself, in a podcast interview with Gospel Tangents around 2018-2019, pointed out that there is a distinction between that and the priesthood ban; as gays do have the option to govern their behavior in such ways as to make them eligible to receive priesthood and temple blessings.  It's also worth noting that there was a very early LDS tradition of ordaining at least a few black men to the priesthood, and that even when the ban was imposed Young foresaw that it would someday be lifted.  By contrast, there is no precedent in LDS history for permitting or solemnizing gay sexual relationships at any point in its history and no authoritative suggestion by a GA that such unions will ever be permissible.  
Like I mention above, when talking about future Church policy we can probably never say "never" with one-hundred percent confidence; because we simply don't know everything and we do believe that the Restoration is ongoing.  But as many have shown in a variety of contexts, it's always tempting to trip all over ourselves trying to pre-emptively follow what we fancy the prophets will be saying in 50 years, to the point that we forget to follow what they're saying right now.  The current Church position is the one that keeps us safe, leads us to Zion, and ultimately introduces us into the Divine presence.
And if a person's going to prattle on about how someday the Church will allow gay sealings in its temples, I feel like I have a right to prattle on about how someday both society and the Church will allow the children of apostates and outsiders to be sold into slavery.  My prediction, having the value of scriptural precedent behind it, would be just as well-founded as theirs is.  And if @mikbone or @old or @The Folk Prophet tells us all that we should start praying to Pipefitter Earl the Corpulent on the basis that that's what all the Mormon cool kids will be doing as of 2124--I suppose we don't have have much of a basis to prove them wrong, either.   

I can only speak for myself. And I can't say for sure whether this is solidly accepted by others or not. But I can say that in my current view, I don't think this is the purpose of our mortal experience. Rather, I think it's perhaps more of a benefit/blessing than a concrete purpose. And as with all blessings, to some it is given, to some it is not.
But even IF that is one of the major purposes of morality, then the question of HOW still needs to be considered.
It seems like you're suggesting that the how of it is that we need to learn to exercise our own mortal intelligence to figure it out. Therein lies destruction.
The purpose of life is stated as a proving grounds. But the test wasn't stated as "see if they will learn good from evil", but rather to "see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them".
It seems to me that the how of the matter lies therein. We learn good from evil by doing what the Lord commands.
After all, what's inscrutable to one seems plain to another. Believing that anything I find inscrutable is the end-all control for morality is such an arrogant and prideful idea.

We do what we can righteously do, and then we stand still and see the salvation of God as he fights our battles, shows to all that he is God, provides means for our continued action, comforts us, and reveals his arm.  God is able to do his own work.

This is a worthwhile question.
My response would be take up personal concerns with leadership but do so in private. Publicly questioning Church policy only causes doubt in those who faith is weak and emboldens the enemies of the Church.

Be still and know that I am God.

Republicans are not so bright.  Trump may be the darling of most stanch republicans, but he is not attractive to the general populace of America.  It is obviously true that the democrats have and continue to screw up everything they touch prompting republicans to think they have (according to stacked pooling) an easy ride to success.  Then on election day they get blown away at the ballot box.
I believe that the bumpy ride of the electoral process is nothing compared to what will come after the election.  It appears to me that political types are more worried with what happened in the last or some previous election than what is coming next (both foreign and domestic).  I learned from white water rafting that there is no reason to think about anything that has happened on the river – regardless of whatever tole was taken to get through any previous hydrologic.  The only thing that matters or is important is to face down the river and prepare for what is coming next.
 
The Traveler

Sadly, I had to learn to deal with disappointing Christian leaders in my coming-of-age years. Both were defrocked. One went to prison. May God empower all of us to walk worthy lives 'til the time of our home-going.

@Maytoday, having read several of your posts now, I suspect that you will enjoy your interactions here and learn much. You show a healthy, balanced, sincere approach that works well. Ask a few questions at a time and read the responses carefully. The posters here appreciate interacting with non-LDS like us. You will receive thoughtful answers. Welcome and blessings to you!

The doctrinal difficulties are not minor. It's not a matter of whether to drink alcohol or not. Who is God? How will we spend eternity? Who are we? I ran a post a few years back comparing my own church's Statement of Fundamental Truths (16) with the Latter-day Saint's Articles of Faith (13). There was not one point of agreement. It's fine. I'm still here--still welcome. We continue to have great conversations about important questions. 
To put this another way, I am welcomed to discuss beliefs here but would not likely be asked to be a speaker at a Sunday ward service. Likewise, while there have been "convicted conversations" in Evangelical churches (during which LDS and Evangelical speakers engage each other), it's unlikely that an LDS speaker would fill an Evangelical pulpit at a regular Sunday service. 
So, we respect each other's faith walk. We work at understanding each other's beliefs. But we know that there are some serious differences in how we understand God, the Church, the world, and even ourselves. 

Greetings. The topic of this string can easily lead to difficulties. What is a Christian? Latter-day Saints have throughout their roughly 200-year history experienced opposition from Protestant Christians--especially Evangelicals. Infamously, Governor Boggs, of Missouri, ordered that they could be shot and killed without penalty, because he wanted to drive them out of his state (this happened in the 19th century). So, the seemingly innocent, "Are you really Christians?" comes across as aggressive.
LDS will say they are Christians because they believe in Jesus Christ for salvation and because their fruits (godly lives) are positive. One of the common retorts are that the doctrines are different--especially concerning the Trinity and salvation by faith alone. In reality, the doctrines (teachings) are different. My own struggle, as a Pentecostal, is that Oneness Pentecostals (especially the United Pentecostal Church) deny the trinity. Nevertheless, while most Evangelicals consider them to be wrong, they would not deny their Christianity. Of course, some do.
So, in trying to learn about Latter-day Saint beliefs it might be best to simply ask doctrinal questions without debating what a Christian is. This site is a good place to learn a lot. However, another great starting place might be to read The Articles of Faith: 13 Beliefs | Come unto Christ (churchofjesuschrist.org). Those 13 teachings are the foundation of Latter-day Saint belief--so much so that they are considered scripture. 

I'm much the same way, which is in part what led me to this faith.  I'm an adult convert that made a post here one day asking questions.   Now here I am.   Using this logic only, what makes more sense to me?
1.  There is a vengeful God that created man to spend eternity worshipping Him?
2.  There is a premortal family existence in which a loving Father created an opportunity for us to grow, learn, and become like Him for eternity?
 

Exodus 20:3-17:
verse 3 = commandment #1 - no other gods
verses 4-6 = commandment #2 - no idols
verse 7 = commandment #3 - don't take the name of God in vain
verses 8-11 = commandment #4 - keep the sabbath day holy
verse 12 = commandment #5 - honor father and mother
verse 13 = commandment #6 - don't murder
verse 14 = commandment #7 - don't commit adultery
verse 15 = commandment #8 - don't steal
verse 16 = commandment #9 - don't bear false witness
verse 17 = commandment #10 - don't covet

This is probably going to be a long post and I'm sorry about that.
Well yes, I've found that the only thing that really brings most people to a faith is a personally testimony and considering you already believe in God I'm  not sure what use is in that.  Perhaps if I rephrase it...I am asking questions out of curiosity and a desire to learn about your faith, I'm just REALLY bad at wording things so if it sounds like an argument please tell me and I will attempt to rephrase.
This is a good point. I suppose its less of, I need statistics and data and more of a this is the most logical outcome.  Look at the world, so finely tuned. Most logical outcome, it was designed. How a religious document is proven true? I'm now questioning that myself.
 
Oh yes if he has time it would be very much appreciated.
 
He is the source of truth.  My goal is not to force you to turn against your religion. Moreover, my goal is to find the truth of the matter and I cannot find the truth without looking at all sides.  Everything I believe I believe until I find the truth, if that makes any sense.
 
I mainly use NIV or ESV, only because I am unable to understand the wording in KJV.  (if you get a theme here I'm very good with whats in my brain but getting it there and out is difficult)
This is always something that I have been on the fence about and not really sure of the trinitarian belief, and this makes sense.
What does this mean?  Do you have to do this to be saved? If I mess up, does it mean I'm not?  
Honestly, I've never thought about this. Faith has always just been faith to me.  This makes more sense.  I've always heard that the Holy Spirit was the motivating principle. If it is faith, what does the Holy Spirit do? Or are they the same?
I've been reading about this but I am still unsure what it means.
How does it separate? Though I'm protestant, I would say I am not a charismatic Christian.
Is there a reason for using KJV? I'm just curious about that. Do you also teach with the KJV to very young children?
I've never grown up with these, but I can't say they aren't inspired by God or not scripture. I would have to look at them and see if they contradict the Bible, which I do know is God's word. 
Well, yes. If each man interpreted the word differently then there wouldn't be a truth.  I am hesitant to trust recent time prophecy because of how easy it would be to lie, but I would cross examine it with the Bible because I know God certainly can do anything. I don't quite understand it though. If I have a question about how to act am I unable to study the Bible to find truth?  Am I unable to trust what I read because I wasn't told this by God? I feel like if I needed a vision from God before doing anything I wouldn't ever actually do anything.
In my understanding, modern interpretations are only one commandment about coveting(the tenth), am I correct about that?
I agree with this...which seems to be uncommon nowadays.  This is when I sometimes wish I lived in Utah.
I'm never going to drink alcohol except at communion, but Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine wasn't it? Why would he do that? Also, tea? does that include non-caffeinated tea? And what about chocolate? 
For reference, I'm using this: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2016/06/what-do-we-know-about-life-after-death?lang=eng#title15
This all seems very complicated.  Like most afterlife ideologies, I of course have my beliefs, but I've always found it to be non-salvation, or not such a big deal it could prevent you from Heaven.  However, I am confused on this.  In John it says:
"16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
And in Romans it says:
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
So if all have sinned and are condemned, how do the "good" nonbelievers get a kingdom?
If you've read all this way thank you very much and I will be very excited to read any responses you have!

This seems to have some similarities with 1 Nephi 8. It might be worth re-reading that chapter and then pondering on if/how it might aid in interpreting/understanding your dream. 

@zil2 needs to draw a spiritual witch now. 

Archaic language is the explanation, as far as I know.
Webster's 1828
Can't think of anything special about the terminology beyond what the older definitions suggest.

Hello @Maytoday welcome to the forum. We could do with a few more non Latter-Day Saints here, its good to have a diversity of opinions.
I'm not sure what you mean by proven to be true, and I suspect that what constitutes proof will vary widely. Every day in courts of law across the world judges and jurors will listen to exactly the same evidence/information and come to different conclusions as to whether a particular fact has or has not been proven. 
For me, the only things that have been proven and that I can know for sure are my own existence and those things which have been confirmed personally and directly to me by the Holy Ghost. Everything else, absolutely everything else, including the theories of gravity and relativity and the idea that the sky often appears to be blue during the daytime when there are no clouds around, is usually a good working hypothesis but definitely not something I or anybody else knows. 

I suspect that my first day, and your first day, and your son's first day were all the same day
3 And I, God, said: Let there be alight; and there was light.
4 And I, God, saw the light; and that light was agood. And I, God, divided the blight from the darkness.
5 And I, God, called the light Day; and the darkness, I called Night; and this I did by the aword of my power, and it was done as I bspake; and the evening and the morning were the first cday.

My seven year old -  “Dad, what was the first day like?”

To clarify (and my apologies if this goes further down the rabbit hole, but the response of my inner twelve-year-old would be "You Started It!"):
What I said (or was attempting to say) is that, accoring to Greg Prince*, President McKay wanted to change the Church's policy with respect to who can receive the Priesthood. But in sincerely and repeatedly asking of God, he reported something like "the heavens were a brass ceiling over my head". While I realize that nothing a prophet says makes a particle of difference to non-Latter-day Saints, I would think that any faithful and believing Saint would interpret an utter lack of divine response to a Church President's direct, sincere, and repeated petition as just that: Silence from God. The man was literally asking God, "Can I ordain black men to the Priesthood", and God wasn't answering. If the policy of the Church was to avoid ordaining men of sub-Saharan African descent, how else could such silence from heaven be interpreted other than a negative?
*Not that I find Greg Prince to be a particularly credible source, but I see no reason to disbelieve this.
In contrast, when President Kimball asked that very same question of the Lord a decade or so later, he eventually received a clear spiritual response. When he presented the revelation to the Brethren, all testified that they received the same spiritual response. As a believing Latter-day Saint, I see no other reasonable interpretation except that God did not want LDS Church policy changed in the 1950s or 1960s or early 1970s when his prophet asked back then, but he did want it to change in the late 1970s when his prophet asked at that time. And if God specifically did not want a policy to change, then that is at the very least a tacit endorsement of said policy. Thus, at least to that degree, we can be completely sure the continuation of that policy was of God, regardless of how, why, or by whom it was instituted.

Like @Carborendum, I have no social media accounts apart from here at thirdhour and this site is where I make my largest digital footprint. 
I find it odd that you are asking us to form an opinion on the basis of half a dozen media posts made over a period of two or three years, the most recent of which was more than 6 years ago. Surely a well-informed opinion would be based on an objective and even-handed analysis of all of his social media posts. Even that would be a totally inadequate basis on which to form a reliable opinion as it would only cover one aspect of his life. 

The problem with this illustration of principle is that the so-called Priesthood ban was of God. This is absolutely sure, at least to the level that God refused to rescind it as recently (at least) as David O. McKay. We may importune God as we see fit, but God is not required to do anything just because we ask it of him.
If there is a principle of the gospel of which you do not have a testimony. silent loyalty to that principle is your very best option until you gain a spiritual conviction of it.

A thought I had while reading your post is how, from the beginning, the Lord has involved in His kingdom those who would ultimately fall away if not completely turn against His Church. Whether it's Lucifer, Judas or many of the early brethren who disaffected the Lord does not seem to fear disloyalty. And I think this aspect of building the kingdom is only going to get magnified with time. He will strengthen and use their talents until they decide on whose side they are really on. And I think we may be surprised by which side some choose both bad and good. But what we do know is that all things will be made to work to accomplish the Lord's purposes. That may make it a bit uncomfortable for us but there is purpose to that too.

Lots of things I could say.  The one that seems best is: I trust the Lord Jesus Christ.  He leads the Church.  This is outside my stewardship, so I will trust the Lord to deal with it properly in his own due time.

We all have to make a living, and I don’t pay his bills or feed his family with my paycheck. Nor am I going to start doing so. I should probably be quiet.  
 
However, if he asked for my opinion I’d tell them to get another job. It’s dirty. Like working for an adult movie manufacturer.