Some of my Concerns with the Church

[Leah]

I don't believe recoiling from what is in my mind the ludicrous designation of "sinful" ascribed to premarital sexuality (even as it pertains to tongue kissing or groping) and masturbation is remotely analogous to expecting the Church to bend to the whims of the people.

He was not explicitly told he could not attend services, but like I said, he was belittled and berated. He was made to feel extremely unwelcome.

Alright?

But I doubt I have said anything that would strike anyone as flatly unbelievable. If we are going to have a discussion here I suppose you will have to take my word for it.

The fact that you find some of the church's standards and teachings "ludicrous" is truly meaningless (nor does it mean that you are correct). You are not a member, nor are interested in becoming one, so why be bothered by some of our standards?

I am frankly skeptical of your description of your friend being "belittled and berated". While no human being is perfect, I would be very, very surprised if he was actually treated as such. It could very well be simply his interpretation/response at not being able to behave however he chooses and have all of his choices met with approval.

I can imagine it being true that he felt "unwelcome". It is not unusual for people to have that response when they are not allowed to do as they please without any consequences. I doubt that was the intent of those counseling with him, however. But it could very well be the spin he put on not getting things his way.

I am curious...it is clear WHAT you are bothered by. But WHY are you bothered by it?

Edited June 18, 2013 by Leah

[RipplecutBuddha]

The only point I wish to discuss of your list is #3; essentially that there is no evidence supporting the Book of Mormon.

The truth of the matter is that there are several things mentioned in the Book of Mormon that have modern support. Here's a partial list below.

-Book of Mormon parallels to the Dead Sea Scrolls

-Authentic non-Biblical ancient ceremony recorded in the Book of Mormon

-Authentic non-Biblical ancient legend recorded in the Book of Mormon

-Ancient Book of Enoch text quoted in the Book of Mormon

-Ancient Arabian Geographical naming conventions used in the Book of Mormon

-Ancient non-Biblical poetic style used in the Book of Mormon

-Ancient non-Biblical idiom used in the Book of Mormon

-Biblical literary structure, undiscovered until 1950's, found in the Book of Mormon

-Authentication of dozens of non-Biblical Book of Mormon Names

-Statistical analasys gives 1000 to 1 odds against the 'one author theory'

-Golden plates

-Temple building

If you're interested in the complete study of these issues, I'm citing a document that was written in 1997, and can be found here.

Each of these items were either known only to a few experts in the archaeological field in the 1830's when Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, or they were completely unknown by anyone in the world at the time.

There are also many other points such as these that I haven't included.

So what does this prove? As the author of the work I referred to has said, it really doesn't prove anything either way, however it should start generating some interesting questions. Questions like; If none of these bits of knowledge were available when Joseph translated the Book of Mormon, then was he really inspired, or was he just really good at guessing at facts more than a century before hand?

Another good question would be; Even if some of this information was known during Joseph Smith's life, why did none of his contemporary critics name a possible source he could have used?

Why is it that every last alternative explanation for how the Book of Mormon came to be is deconstructed with minimal effort or research?

The truth of the matter is that proving the Book of Mormon true or false lies with personal prayer to God. Ultimately, it is this one experiment that all of us must perform to find out for sure one way or the other. The only question to consider in that situation is this; Are you prepared to accept and act upon the answer you recieve?

--------------------

As to your other points, I only have this to say. If there is a God, and I believe there is, then that God which created all that is, including you and I, has no need to answer to us for how his church is organized, what terminology is used, what the rules are, or what doctrines will be taught there.

What are you going to do, Chastize God for setting up his church wrong? For not following the will of his imperfect, short-sighted, narrow-minded, selfish, arrogant, greedy, lustful, and error-prone children? What do you expect from a supreme being that holds all of creation in his hands? A humble contrition to what your short-sighted, mortal needs might be for a scant 90 years at best?

The fact is that truth is an eternal thing. What is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong. The rules God has established for us happen to be geared towards maximizing our eternal happiness and progression in the life to come. Yes there are a lot of things that would be fun to do while we're here, however in the long term, they are damaging to us in ways we don't consider, or may not be aware of. So it is then up to us to humble ourselves and demonstrate that we are willing to be obedient to the will of the Father in all things, no exceptions. Your friend was caught up in the difficulty in following through with that promise, as we all are throughout our lives. The key to passing the test is in humbling ourselves, admitting when we have strayed from our promised path, and working dilligently to return to the light God wants us to have in our lives.

Your friend chose not to pursue that goal. The only time the LDS Church expels one of its own is under extreme conditions of rebellion and open attacks against the doctrines and/or leadership of the Church. It doesn't seem like your friend went that far, so as far as I know, he willingly chose to separate himself from the Church. When you speak with him again, let him know he's welcome to return at any time.

[bytor2112]

1. The bizarre/arcane sounding terminology

Not a huge deal, but off putting to some to be sure. It struck me as obvious that a group already (wrongly) considered by many to be some sort of dark cult, would do better to use designations such as "mens/womens group," rather than "Relief Society" and "Elders' Quorum." On that note, referring to teenaged boys as "elders?" Come on!

Do better....as in, looked upon more favorably? By whom? I think the appeal to some is that the church and our culture and language is intriguing and boys are not ordained to the office of elder and conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood...that is reserved for men. Unless you don't think an 18 year old is a man...

2. The Book of Abraham

Despite its demonstrable nature of not being what Joseph Smith claimed it was, it is still regarded by the faithful as divine revelation.

Source? To paraphrase from Corinthians, : the things of God can only be understood by the power of the Holy Spirit."

3. The absolute lack of any genetic (with regard to the heritage of American Indians), linguistic (with regard to the language of the American Indians), or archaeological (with regard to artifacts/animals that would be expected to exist were the Mormon texts historically accurate) evidence supporting the historical claims made by the Church.

It's late...so this may be of some intrest as well.

That whole Black Thing.

I am not here singling out the LDS church as being unique in its mistreatment of any group as it pertains to race, sex, or creed. It is the lack of acknowledging/apologizing for this mistake that sits so poorly with me. As I said, nearly any organized group, whether political, corporate, or religious, has in the past or in the present mistreated marginalized groups. However, the better part of them have adapted to the changing world, made apologies, and moved on. The LDS stance regarding the refusal of granting black men the highest level of priesthood, as I understand it, is not that the Church had made an enormous mistake in the past despite its later and necessary reformation, but that it was in fact divine revelation from God stipulating this position, and a later divine revelation from God following the Civil Rights Movement that finally granted the ability for black men to obtain the priesthood. Again, Come on!

That is good...because we didn't mistreat anyone. Blacks were not forbidden from joining the church and I am not certain they were standing in long lines waiting to hear the Gospel from the Latter day Saints either. I would note that we don't know why and everything including your assertions are speculation. It is however my understanding the the restriction wasn't towards "blacks" or skin color but was based on lineage....or those of African descent. I would note that once, only the Tribe of Levi was so privileged...

5. All or Nothing, and the Culture of Shame and Dishonesty

This was probably the hardest pill for me to swallow with regard to the beliefs and practices in the LDS Church. I'll start with a story from one of my closest friends. He grew up in the Church, treated everyone well, served a mission, and was universally liked and respected within the Church. In his young adulthood, being the intelligent and cordial individual he was, he was recruited to take on more involved callings, and possibly being groomed for a position of leadership.

What put his involvement in the Church to a halt? His honesty.

Being interviewed by the Bishops, he spoke with them candidly, and much to their dismay, about his life outside of Church. Without going into any detail, he did some of the things most men in their early twenties do that would make them ineligible for Temple attendance or good standing in the LDS Church. They asked him if he was trying to stop doing those things, he said no. They asked him if he WOULD stop doing those things, he said no. He told them that he loved the Church, loved its members, and wanted to continue his involvement as he had to this point. He was dressed down, brow beaten, screamed at, and essentially told he was no longer welcome. What followed was the ugly ostracizing far too common among apostates.

Doubtful that he was screamed at or brow beaten as you say...though when you confess to your ecclesiastical leader and then say you have no intention of abandoning your sins and thereby playing roulette with your eternal soul...a stern warning is a bit in order and IF your friend was an endowed member of the church a disciplinary court was probably convened.

Your friend certainly was aware of the consequences of his actions and the requirements that the Lord has placed on each of us in order to repent. Like ALL of us ( you too) we are all invited to Come unto Christ and find in HIM Eternal Life. Christ atoned for the sins of all mankind and made mercy available on conditions of repentance...or that we change, turn away from our sins...put off the natural man and put on Christ.

And:

What put his involvement in the Church to a halt? His honesty.

Sorry...I think you know better. If your friend doesn't attend church that is his choice and if he doesn't receive all of the blessings provided by the Lord's church, that too is his choice.

For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;

And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Edited June 19, 2013 by bytor2112

[pam]

The name of the Church and the titles of priesthood offices are contained in our canonized revelations, but the ages are not. Ask Gramps did a segment on this a while back

http://www.askgramps.org/3970/when-was-aaronic-priesthood-mormon-church-first-given

Truthfully, we could change the names of the offices if we wanted to. We don't because they are very traditional names, but are becoming less familiar to the general population because the general population is becoming less familiar with religious terminology.

I love when people use askgramps as a reference. :) I have a special fondness for that site.

[bytebear]

Thank you for your response.

What for you, personally, makes more sense/is more believable?

1. God reveals at one point in history that that black people cannot hold the priesthood, then later reveals that they can.

or

2. The position of black people in the Church was and is the result of external social/cultural pressures.

If you prefer not to answer the first phrasing of the question, ie, which is more believable, would you answer which of the two you believe to be true?

Why can't it be both? God had his reasons. We interpret those reasons. But I do know that when Mormons decided to embrace blacks, the vast majority of the church's members rejoiced and embraced blacks. When America decided to include blacks it caused a bloody war that still has ramifications and continued bigotry toward blacks today.

[Magen_Avot]

...I could never accept any of the spiritual or supernatural claims made by the church....

I respect your position KH. I am interested in understanding your own religeous beliefs, such as your belief in deity, ect?

I ask because a premise to seeking Christ is to humble oneself and bend our will to His and obey His commandments ect. It should go without saying that one would make changes in their life when encouraged by His spirit. Obviously that didn't happen for you as it has happened for others, but what was your experience in context to this?

Sorry, no time to edit now cuz the day is done and my ride is hollerin'.

[bytor2112]

When America decided to include blacks it caused a bloody war that still has ramifications and continued bigotry toward blacks today.

Not to sidetrack the discussion, but, the war between the States had a great many issues that led to conflict. Doubtless that slavery was a hotly debated issue of the day, but, it was not the ultimate cause of the war. Lincoln did not invade the South to free the slaves, but rather to preserve the union and the vast majority of the 300,000 dead southerners that died didn't own slaves. Taxes and tariffs, the Missouri compromise limiting the expansion of slave states and thereby congressional representation, sectionalism, states rights, etc all were issues that led to the secession which led to war.

As Abe Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." - Abe Lincoln

Edited June 19, 2013 by bytor2112

[Klein_Helmer]

Hi everyone, thank you all for your responses. I've been really busy these last few days and I haven't been able to post. I have read everything in here though, and I will get back to each and every one of you (hopefully this weekend). Anyway, just dropping in to let you know I hadn't forgotten or abandoned the thread.

Best,

- Helmer

[Klein_Helmer]

1. Yeah, I can see that.

2. I guess we're done there. :)

3. Have you looked at FARMS or similar things? I'm not saying they're 100% right, but that's the type of stuff that might interest you on this matter.

4. Done there as well. :)

5. I disagree sexual and drug-using desires are nearly involuntary. By that definition, you can see raping someone is excusable because they couldn't control themselves. If you control yourself enough to realize that raping someone goes against cultural and moral standards, you can control yourself to realize such-n-such group has certain rules that many, many people are able to follow and that if you wish to participate in the full sense you ought to follow those.

3. I have looked at FARMS. I was referred to their work while I was involved in the church and raising questions regarding the aforementioned lack of genetic, linguistic, or archaeological evidence that would be expected were the historical teachings of the Church accurate. My reaction to FARMS and similar apologetic organizations is this: I am immediately suspicious of any of their findings simply because their science is done in reverse, ie, they already have their conclusion, and they then gather what they call evidence to support it, rather than objectively forming conclusions following said gathering of evidence. If you can provide for me a peer reviewed article, from FARMS or elsewhere that could verify any of the historical claims of the Church that fly in the face of conventional history and science, you would have my attention.

5. I agree that the desire to use drugs is not involuntary, if I previously insinuated as much I fully recant. If you believe that sexual desires are anything but involuntary, I think, with all due respect, you may not fully understand human biology. I also think your sweeping comparison between rape and other more socially acceptable forms of sexual expression is disingenuous. I do not know of any society or culture, past or present, in which rape was not roundly condemned as immoral. It follows then that the LDS church would condemn it as immoral. I am more specifically referring to masturbation, tongue kissing and groping. These things have not been condemned by every society past and present as reprehensible (I imagine because they are largely natural, biologically driven behaviors). My objection is telling young men and women that if they do such things, or even have thoughts of such things, they are morally transgressing.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Klein_Helmer

[Guest]

Are you suggesting that masturbating is a biologically unavoidable compulsion that can't be denied? And yet many of us have managed to go decades without masturbating, even in celibacy, without anything exploding or falling off. Funny, that.

[Klein_Helmer]

Neither.

I have a PERSONAL opinion that it was due to internal forces and attitudes within the Church. I believe that when we look at history through today's societal norms, we will look at most people back then as racist. The Church was not immune to this. Heck, everyone back then was a CONVERT! We were bound to get some things 'not quite right'.

But were these admittedly racist beliefs and practices not handed down from and sanctioned by the then prophet? If that is the case (his getting things "not quite right," would that not establish that his words were not true revelation?

Then, how do you correct a past-prophet of the Church? This was why it required a revelation to clarify the Lord's will concerning who can hold the priesthood of God.

If we just 'changed policy' without "the new light and knowledge that has now come into the world" (Bruce R. McConkie)... then we would be adapting only to social pressures.

The problem is that there were no classes after the revelation in 1978 to directly address this. The closest we seem to have is: Speeches

New light and knowledge WAS given. It was just buried within the footnotes of the new 1981 edition of the LDS scriptures. Who authorizes the footnotes and chapter headings? The brethren do... through various committees.

I invite you to review the links in this thread: http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/45876-scriptures-church-history-racism-blacks-scriptures.html

Now, I've had many discussions with others (particularly JAG) who disagrees with some of the conclusions. This information is not 'official' from the Church. However, I believe it to be scripturally and doctrinally sound.

You can come to your own conclusions.

The problem I see here is this: Will future generations not judge us in the same way we have judged previous generations? Will we not appear to them as primitive, bigoted, and misguided as those from centuries past seem to us?

This is the corner one paints oneself into when they claim the mind of God is to them accessible. True divine revelation from God would not need clarification, nor would it ostensibly change with cultural attitudes. I would contend that not allowing black men to hold the priesthood was exclusively the result of contemporary racism rather than a divine mandate. I think the later revelation, as you put it, "clarifying" the previous, was also the result of contemporary social attitudes rather than an additional, rather different divine mandate.

I think your designation of the later revelation as "clarification" is far too generous - it wasn't a clarification, it was an overhaul. I would expect a similar occurrence in the not too distant future as it pertains to the recognition of homosexual relationships. Perhaps it will be claimed as an additional, "clarifying" revelation, but I will understand it to be the Church (as it should) changing with the times.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Klein_Helmer

[Klein_Helmer]

Are you sure that many wouldn't find it unbelievable? For one thing you mention Bishop(s). There would have only been one Bishop. Another thing, I think you would find it extremely rare that a Bishop would scream at, brow beat, belittle anyone for being honest and confessing any sexual sins.

Yes.

I am quite sure that most reasoning people would have little difficulty believing a story (told by someone who had never shown himself to be untrustworthy) about an individual in a position of authority modestly abusing his power.

Thank you for the clarification regarding the number of Bishops. I was aware of that and misspoke. I should have said "The Bishop and other senior members."

I do imagine the behavior I described would be rare, but that is hardly a reason to believe it never happened.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Klein_Helmer

[Klein_Helmer]

I wish I had time for more, but that will have to do it for the night. Please take these responses as a show of good faith that I will be back to address all other comments and questions.

Thank you for all of your time,

- Helmer

[Leah]

I am curious.

What do you hope to accomplish in this forum?

[Leah]

3. I have looked at FARMS. I was referred to their work while I was involved in the church and raising questions regarding the aforementioned lack of genetic, linguistic, or archaeological evidence that would be expected were the historical teachings of the Church accurate. My reaction to FARMS and similar apologetic organizations is this: I am immediately suspicious of any of their findings simply because their science is done in reverse, ie, they already have their conclusion, and they then gather what they call evidence to support it, rather than objectively forming conclusions following said gathering of evidence. If you can provide for me a peer reviewed article, from FARMS or elsewhere that could verify any of the historical claims of the Church that fly in the face of conventional history and science, you would have my attention.

5. I agree that the desire to use drugs is not involuntary, if I previously insinuated as much I fully recant. If you believe that sexual desires are anything but involuntary, I think, with all due respect, you may not fully understand human biology. I also think your sweeping comparison between rape and other more socially acceptable forms of sexual expression is disingenuous. I do not know of any society or culture, past or present, in which rape was not roundly condemned as immoral. It follows then that the LDS church would condemn it as immoral. I am more specifically referring to masturbation, tongue kissing and groping. These things have not been condemned by every society past and present as reprehensible (I imagine because they are largely natural, biologically driven behaviors). My objection is telling young men and women that if they do such things, or even have thoughts of such things, they are morally transgressing.

Why are you concerned about the church's teachings regarding the Law of Chastity? You are not a member, so they do not pertain to you? Are you unwilling to let others follow their own moral beliefs? This does not affect your life, so why are you so concerned about it?

Do you also post at...say...Orthodox Judaism forums...and tell them of your "objections" to how they live their lives?

[pam]

I get that you don't agree with many of the things of the church. As Leah asked..what do you hope to accomplish? If you don't agree why continue to debate or provide the negative comments regarding our beliefs?

[Anddenex]

I am curious.

What do you hope to accomplish in this forum?

To strengthen his view point, to simply express his concerns, or he is sincerely looking but is more persuaded by horizontal learning rather than by vertical inspiration.

The chances are high he falls into one of these three options. In my view, I haven't found his rebuttals, or beliefs, to be disparaging. :)

[skippy740]

But were these admittedly racist beliefs and practices not handed down from and sanctioned by the then prophet? If that is the case (his getting things "not quite right," would that not establish that his words were not true revelation?

The problem I see here is this: Will future generations not judge us in the same way we have judged previous generations? Will we not appear to them as primitive, bigoted, and misguided as those from centuries past seem to us?

Not me personally. :) This is why I'm involved with the Blacks in the Scriptures series. Not everyone agrees with it, but I haven't see anything else that comes close to helping to ease tensions and teach that God is no respector of persons.

This is the corner one paints oneself into when they claim the mind of God is to them accessible. True divine revelation from God would not need clarification, nor would it ostensibly change with cultural attitudes. I would contend that not allowing black men to hold the priesthood was exclusively the result of contemporary racism rather than a divine mandate. I think the later revelation, as you put it, "clarifying" the previous, was also the result of contemporary social attitudes rather than an additional, rather different divine mandate.

I think your designation of the later revelation as "clarification" is far too generous - it wasn't a clarification, it was an overhaul. I would expect a similar occurrence in the not too distant future as it pertains to the recognition of homosexual relationships. Perhaps it will be claimed as an additional, "clarifying" revelation, but I will understand it to be the Church (as it should) changing with the times.

With our beliefs so centered on The Family, I would doubt that it would happen in regards to same-sex marriage.

[pam]

I think your designation of the later revelation as "clarification" is far too generous - it wasn't a clarification, it was an overhaul. I would expect a similar occurrence in the not too distant future as it pertains to the recognition of homosexual relationships. Perhaps it will be claimed as an additional, "clarifying" revelation, but I will understand it to be the Church (as it should) changing with the times.

You'll never see the church changing their stance on the marriage definition. Others may change with the times on this issue but the LDS church will not.

[Backroads]

3. I have looked at FARMS. I was referred to their work while I was involved in the church and raising questions regarding the aforementioned lack of genetic, linguistic, or archaeological evidence that would be expected were the historical teachings of the Church accurate. My reaction to FARMS and similar apologetic organizations is this: I am immediately suspicious of any of their findings simply because their science is done in reverse, ie, they already have their conclusion, and they then gather what they call evidence to support it, rather than objectively forming conclusions following said gathering of evidence. If you can provide for me a peer reviewed article, from FARMS or elsewhere that could verify any of the historical claims of the Church that fly in the face of conventional history and science, you would have my attention.

I don't do enough with FARMS (stuff like this just doesn't interest me much), so I'll end this with a shrug, if that's okay with you.

5. I agree that the desire to use drugs is not involuntary, if I previously insinuated as much I fully recant. If you believe that sexual desires are anything but involuntary, I think, with all due respect, you may not fully understand human biology. I also think your sweeping comparison between rape and other more socially acceptable forms of sexual expression is disingenuous. I do not know of any society or culture, past or present, in which rape was not roundly condemned as immoral. It follows then that the LDS church would condemn it as immoral. I am more specifically referring to masturbation, tongue kissing and groping. These things have not been condemned by every society past and present as reprehensible (I imagine because they are largely natural, biologically driven behaviors). My objection is telling young men and women that if they do such things, or even have thoughts of such things, they are morally transgressing.

My point is that the only thing that makes certain sexual acts acceptable/not acceptable is human morality. Which indeed does vary from group to group. My point in bringing up rape (which I do admit was extreme) was to demonstrate that the need for sex can be controlled. Rape is derived from sexual urges. It is based on biological urges. Most people frown upon rape because of their morals. Many groups also frown upon other less extreme sexual acts because, again, of their morals.

So, yes, our religion does teach that acting upon such things is morally transgressing. We are far from the only social group that thinks such. (In fact, I have met two Wiccans and an atheist who feel the same way). You also misunderstand the whole "thinking about it". Our church does not teach people that sexual thoughts in and of themselves are morally reprehensible.

Now, sexual desires? Of course everyone has sexual urges to a greater or lesser degree. I fail to see why the fact they exist makes acting upon them involuntary.

[Backroads]

I get that you don't agree with many of the things of the church. As Leah asked..what do you hope to accomplish? If you don't agree why continue to debate or provide the negative comments regarding our beliefs?

Indeed.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but rather than looking for understanding about why we believe the way we believe, you seem desperate to "win" some obscure argument.

[Leah]

To strengthen his view point, to simply express his concerns, or he is sincerely looking but is more persuaded by horizontal learning rather than by vertical inspiration.

The chances are high he falls into one of these three options. In my view, I haven't found his rebuttals, or beliefs, to be disparaging. :)

Where did I use the word disparaging?

You can guess all you want as to why he is here, but you cannot answer the question for him.

I am always curious as to why someone goes to a website to tell someone their beliefs are "wrong". We have a law of chastity. He feels compelled to tell us we are "wrong" about that. What's the point? He must have some reason for taking time out of his life to go on a website to tell total strangers that their moral beliefs - which don't affect him - are "wrong".

[Backroads]

If Klein were merely interested in understanding how we think and why we believe what we believe, he would not be repeatedly telling us we are wrong for belonging to a group that happens to support certain morals.

[Finrock]

Good evening Klein_Helmer. I hope you are doing well! :)

I think your designation of the later revelation as "clarification" is far too generous - it wasn't a clarification, it was an overhaul. I would expect a similar occurrence in the not too distant future as it pertains to the recognition of homosexual relationships. Perhaps it will be claimed as an additional, "clarifying" revelation, but I will understand it to be the Church (as it should) changing with the times.

Any way that you look at it, at its core, the gospel is about the continuation of life. I don't know how many people, member or non-member alike, really appreciate this fact about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

You can consider this from any perspective. From a purely naturalistic point-of-view our ultimate purpose as a species is to carry on the species. If we, as a species, do not procreate, then we die. There is only one principle upon which human life will continue and that is upon the principle of heterosexual sex.

The greatest promise we have in our religion is that of a continuation of our seed forever. That means life perpetuated in to eternity. The continuation of life forever and ever. The gospel is about life and perpetuating it and having man reach his fullest potential; to be filled with light and life.

There is no life without male and female. There is no life in homosexuality. It simply cannot exist. It is a relationship that will end in death. It is a dead end.

That is why the Church will never change its stance on this issue.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited June 26, 2013 by Finrock

[Guest Mc7donald]

having been forthcoming with my many praises for the Church, and having received candid/documented permission to voice dissenting opinions within the rules from a senior moderator, I will now do so.