If the LDS church did change course and accept homosexuality and gay marriage, they truly would have a lot of pack peddling to do which I feel would therefore lessen the credibility of the LDS community as well as cause a rift perhaps big enough to split the church.  It would demonstrate that the LDS church is governed by a God that is fickle and does indeed change with the times.  That appears to be different from the current idea of God being a rather fixed point. 

In all, it could happen.  It seems to have already occured somewhat with allowing African Americans and Black Africans the ability to hold the priesthood.  I wonder if it did occure if there would be a push to also allow women to hold the priesthood.

A fascinating thought for sure, but I won’t hold my breath.

It goes on and on and on – meanwhile you and others that believe the same, are simply left in the dust wondering how could this be, in reference to the scriptures you brought up.

The LDS Church will continue moving foward, at a pace, where you will find it more difficult just to catch up.

The instructions of the Brethren have differed from the instructions of the scriptures on many occasions. Some of the more notable ones include:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak;” – 1 Corinthians 14:33
“For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife;” – Jacob 2:27
Meat “should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.” – D&C 88:13

As for the second point, that the Brethren will not support a principle that goes against statements “like Elder Packer has given” I would only respond that the Brethren commonly make statements that supercede, clarify, or even contradict other statements made by the Brethren. For example:

“We will never get a man into space. This earth is man’s sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.” – Joseph Fielding Smith

“The negroes are not equal with other races when the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom, but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, based on His eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate.” – Bruce R. McConkie

Speaking of his statement that blacks would never receive the priesthood, Elder McConkie Stated: “Forget everything I have said, or what…Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said…that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.” (Bruce R. McConkie, “New Revelation on the Priesthood”)

So even after saying that keeping the priesthood from blacks was “based on His eternal laws of justice”, Elder McConkie still retracted his statement.

It’s impossible to say which “eternal laws” will be changed next.
But if the changing of the eternal temple garment, the modification of eternal temple ordinances, or the end of the eternal principle of polygamy are any indication, it won’t be long before the next eternal principle is changed.

I’m not saying the church isn’t true; I’m just saying that there is no Gospel principle that cannot be ammended by the Brethren.

The more you write the weaker your arguement becomes. You bring up in the Middle of #175 that the Brethren could say this or that or that or the Bible was mis-translated etc. Sure! They could say anything to support your point of view. But they won’t becuase what you propose is simply against scripture and statements like Elder Packer has given.

Moses 1:39 is simple. It refers to mankind [male and female - as one flesh]

“There has not been a time when God or Man did not exist”. – which makes Elder Packer’s statement all the more profound.
The logic you have provided here to support your arguement could support a number of other disorders as being acceptable by Heaven. If only the Brethren could change this or that or re-translate the Bible then only you and others that believe as you do will live happily ever after.

As for the rest of us?……….We will side with Heaven. For, as it has been taught to us, has a better plan.

So for the benefit of those who don’t have the time to look up and interpret the references you posted, I’ll post the scriptures here, followed by my responses to them.

Matt. 19: 4-6
“4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

All I see is Jesus quoting a passage from Genesis that talks about a man and a woman leaving their parents and becoming one flesh. I don’t see Jesus saying that it must always be that way. One of the advantages of having modern prophets and apostles is that they can reveal new doctrines that were not present in Genesis or during Christ’s mortal ministry. If the LDS church accepted gay marriage, they could say that Jesus was referring to a doctrine that was meant for a specific people at a specific place and time, and not to the people of the 21st century. There’s a difference between doctrines and commandments that are “timely” (meant for people in a specific place and time) and “timeless” which are meant for all people in all times. The Brethren could say that the prohibition on gay marriage was simply a “timely” commandment and that all prophets who said otherwise were either misquoted or offering their own opinions as mortal, uninspired men. And, if the Brethren wanted to, they could also claim that Matthew 19:4-6 was simply a part of the Bible that was mis-translated.

Gen. 1: 27,28
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth

Interestingly enough, most Christian religions do not believe that this commandment applied to anyone besides Adam and Eve.
That’s why the LDS Official Proclamation on the Family has to state: “We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.”
There is nothing holding the Brethren back from declaring that God’s commandmend to multiply is no longer in full force.

Moses 1: 39
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

I’m not sure what you were trying to say by quoting this reference, so I’ll make a guess and you can tell me if I got it right. My guess is that you were saying that it is the occupation of God to bear and raise children, and there needs to be both a father and a mother in order to create children.
If this was your intent, then I would argue that all-powerful beings (such as heavenly parents) could have the power to create children in whatever manner they desired, because they are, after all, omnipotent. If you meant to say something else then please explain.

And finally, the quote you posted from Boyd K. Packer:
“Natural and spiritual laws which govern life were instituted from before the foundation of the world. They are eternal, as are the consequences for either obeying or disobeying them. They are not based on social or political considerations. They cannot be changed. No pressure, no protest, no legislation can alter them.” ‘Boyd K. Packer – For Time and all Eternity’ Ensign Nov. 1993″

Once again, I see no statement in any of the scriptures you referenced saying that these were eternal laws. In Matthew, Jesus says that God made males at females at the beginning. Not before the beginning, like the eternal laws Boyd K. Packer was talking about.

However, #149 refers to the union of male and female and #155 shows how this cannot be changed. The concept that two males or two females could be sealed together and counted as one, and that they could go out and start their own universe – is like musing about you being sealed to your dog [male or female] and doing the same thing. Sorry, it just won’t happen.

Brigham Young and others said several times that polygamy was an eternal principle. Up until polygamy ended, most members referred to it as a spiritual law that couldn’t be changed.

But then it changed.

So it’s useless to say that “natural and spiritual laws cannot be changed” because you can never know for certain what’s an eternal spiritual law and what’s just temporary.

Your wrong! It is impossible – read #149 and especially #155.

A lot of people have been saying that the Mormons would NEVER accept gay marriage, because:
1) Mormon leaders have been condemning homosexuality for over a century now, saying that sexual sins are only a little less serious than murder.
2) The Brethren would have to admit they were wrong, and we all know that’s not going to happen. According to members of the Mormon church, the Brethren CAN’T be wrong (at least not on something they’ve condemned to thoroughly) and according to non-members, the LDS Brethren would NEVER admit they were wrong, because that would undermine their legitimacy as prophets.

It just made me sick how Mormons, non-Mormons, ex-Mormons, liberal Mormons, anti-Mormons and everybody else was saying “the church will NEVER accept gay marriage.”

But the fact is, the Mormon people have a long history of adapting their beliefs to fit the new and sometimes contradictory revelations that come from the Brethren. And I’m not just talking about blacks and polygamy. I’m talking about the changing of supposedly unalterable Temple ordinances, the redesigning of the Temple Garment, the new standards imposed on the Youth, changing the Word of Wisdom to make it mandatory instead of optional, and so on.

If you still doubt the flexibility of the members in changing their opinions, then here’s an experiment you can try in your own Ward: next time you’re talking to a Mormon and the subject of gay marriage comes up, ask then if they would support gay marriage if the Brethren received a revelation that gay marriage was okay. I’ve asked dozens of members this question and so far I haven’t met one person who said they would go against the Brethren.

I’m just saying that if we want the Mormons to accept gay marriage, then it’s not the members we have to convince, it’s the Brethren. And Church history is full of stories where the Brethren have approached the Lord with issues and received answers to their prayers that they never would have expected.

Once again, I’m not saying the Church’s acceptance of gay marriage is inevitable, I’m just saying that it’s nowhere near impossible.

Whether it’s my Father or yours, don’t worry about it. You won’t see either one. But do some reading and find out who will judge you.

I’ve heard people say this but I really don’t see it when I read 132. . .

I see it say that a man and a woman need to be sealed properly to receive their exultation, and then that plural wives are permissible. . .but not required.

It looks to me like from a question on the ancient prophets having plural wives we also received new light on the eternity of the marriage covenant and exultation.

Most of the revelation speaks of a man and a woman singular and then at the end it’s like, oh yeah and if done properly plural wives are okay. . .

Well, there’s nothing I like more than a good, homemade tautology. So if anyone doesn’t think that sxark is right, you should… because he is. And we know he is, because he’s right.

Go to the LDS official site, use the search engine, and read the entire article. It does address your questions.

How do you know SSM fits this definition of natural and spiritual law? Do you not see that the brethren used to teach homosexuality was a choice, because it is unnatural. They have backed off that stance…we don’t know why some are or are not homosexual, but it is a sin to practice it until we are told by God otherwise.

D&C states polygamy is a law that is required to live to enter the CK, contridicting Jacob in the Book of Mormon. Then polygamy was denounced, and now you are excommunicated for practicing it.

It was taught that Blacks could not hold the priesthood because of their standing in the pre-existence. It was taught by church leaders that would never change. Then it changed.

The problem, in my opinion, is being absolutely sure that you know God’s mind.

I’m sure you can dream some “consequences” up.