As for Our House, The Miracle of Forgiveness Stays

In the last decade there has been a movement to get Spencer W. Kimball's book, The Miracle of Forgiveness removed from LDS bookstores or revised probably because of its scripturally-based view of homosexuality. They want it rewritten to reflect, what? Well, to match up with our sexually permissive culture. Of course that's not how the LDS progressives would phrase it. They call this outright revisionism, well, enlightenment. Let's get this straight. They are saying that past leaders have been totally wrong about this, that the scriptures are totally wrong about this, that all of human experience is totally wrong about this, that biological and medical facts are totally wrong about this. They are saying that they themselves, certain people who happen to be walking the earth today, can decide for the whole world, past, present, and future, that everybody has to completely reject God's timeless tried-and-true laws for human sexual desire and behavior.

We guess they gave up on revising the book. As of this writing, the beloved LDS gospel-centered classic The Miracle of Forgiveness is no longer available in print, but only in audio or e-book format. According to a manager at Deseret Book "the hard cover is out of print and paperback out of stock indefinitely." On Amazon it is only available used in paperback. So hold on to your copy! It is now considered obsolete by the powers that be, as are many priceless truths in this wicked world today. It makes one wonder when the scriptures will be out of print also.The scriptures say the same sorts of things as this book and are certainly out of fashion. Even supposedly religious people don't seem much inclined to applying the plain and precious truths of the gospel. Too harsh, they say. Now isn't that prophecy coming true? Good will be called evil and evil good. People will say all is well in Zion, yea, Zion prospereth and set aside as nothing the things of God.

A couple years ago a woman, who admits she never gave a previous thought to homosexuality and knows nothing about it, went to some lengths to discredit and remove this book on a nomorestrangers blog. Apparently, since she sought out some gay people socially and liked them, she decided everybody should revamp their ideas about sexual morality. Come again? People like this woman think sexual lusts and behaviors are like a person's ethnicity and that being unaccepting of homosexualism is like being a racist. No. Homosexualism is not like racism. A person's race was never an individual's mindset/behavior/sin. This is an example of brainwashing and pride and human emotions making you completely and utterly blind to reality and reason and facts and God. It's an example of merely looking on the surface and seeing only what you want to see.

For instance, why did this woman go to proud gay people to discern the truth about homosexualism? They are certainly going to be biased in favor of it. Why not also seek out ex-gay people or better yet, turn to God's word?

As a matter of fact, when we had this problem in our family, President Kimball's book was a great help. But these new homosexualists don't seem at all interested in humbly learning the truth from the Spirit of the Lord. And yes, people involved in homosexuality may look fine from what you see, but very bad stuff is going on in their heads and hearts and with their bodies.Sure, people can appear to be wholesome and they can do many good things that show outwardly. But they can most certainly be dong those good things for all the wrong reasons and behaving very badly in private.   

Honestly, has this woman never cracked a good book? Has she never heard of sin and deceit and evil? She doesn't know that Satan can appear as an angel of light? She doesn't know that it's human nature for people to cover up their sins? Does she really think her momentary shallow human judgment of people's souls is accurate or definitive? That's for God to judge, and He judges not on the outward appearance but on the heart. All people have some good and some bad. (Even serial killers brush their teeth.) The homosexuality part of these people is very bad. It harms themselves and others. 

Do these mushy people get that the embrace of homosexualism/sodomy opens the floodgates to the societal promotion of unlimited sexual behaviors? Why wouldn't it? They don't stop to realize that if truth and reality can change with the times, there are no boundaries, no laws.Views based merely on current popular opinion are arbitrary, open to change at any time. And why not? There's no science, there's no long-term human experience, there's no wisdom, there's no scripture supporting any sort of  normalcy or wholesomeness in homosexuality. In fact, those things are evidence of the opposite: that homosexuality is maladaptive and destructive. And please don't believe the red herring about the link between gay acceptance and suicidality. Gays who do themselves in have much worse problems than what others think of their sexual proclivities. For one, they deceive themselves. Homosexuality is a dark filthy pornographic world. It's a dead end.  Sin is pleasurable, but only for a time. That's what's so hopeless.

This sickening nomorestrangers thing concerning the book The Miracle of Forgiveness complete with its trail of self-congratulatory humanist comments is an illustration of  how people can come to think they know more than God and the accumulated wisdom of the ages. How morally superior they make themselves sound but how rebellious, prideful, and blind they are. It's the philosophies of men all tangled up with scripture. No such thing as sin and no need for repentance. Anti-Christ. Yes, they are following Satan. It's incredible how they don't care about the homosexual's soul. And how incredible that these "latter-day saints" avoid the fact that they are riding in the wake, using the momentum, reaping the emotional capital, created by the zeitgeist of our wicked times. Satan's ideas are where they get 100% of  their persuasiveness.Without the powerful and predatory gay movement's inroads these people wouldn't dare encourage homosexuality like they do. They would never have even thought of it.

All this is going to end very badly. We need to get the truth out. If given the chance there will be some who will choose God and goodness come what may. As Hugh Nibley said, the righteous are those who are repenting, the wicked are those who are not. No, we're not removing Miracle from our shelf. It remains in a place of honor and is often referred to because it highlights timeless truths that apply to us all. It contains the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ that is now being systematically rejected.Who knew a relatively few unrepentant homosexuals and the wholesale societal embrace of homosexualism would be such a significant means of causing the rejecting of Christ on such as grand scale? Of course this movement is born out of a selfish anti-Christ secularism that has been developing for a century or more.

12/7/15 Postscript: Church members are divided on this. Some have relatively recently decided to hate this book and some love it as they always have. It seems the former would rather go with the flow of the selfish wicked world today and the latter are choosing to be humble and steadfast in Christ. Interesting that this book was quoted in regards to homosexuality as recently as the 2006 Spencer W. Kimball manual distributed to and taught in all Relief Society and Priesthood classes. How quickly this evil has taken over in people's hearts! 

7/22/2022 Postscript: Since this post a lot has come to light. Not only are current leaders not quoting past leaders anymore, but the actions of the LDS church are showing an increasing acceptance of homosexualism. It's not what they say, it's what is being allowed and done. We could write a book on the many many concessions and accommodations the church and its entities has given to the gay movement within the church. Along with this evolution has come a further watering down of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This above all else has caused us to come to Christ. 

After all, we have had to remove this book from our shelves, not because Kimball was right about sexual immorality, but because he was wrong about Jesus. This may be another reason this book is on the outs, as the church seems to have a program to convince the world it is as Christian as the next. This following quote proves Mormons do not believe it is by the grace of Christ alone we are saved, which is a huge irreconcilable criticism the Christian world has against the LDS church. We quote from Kimball, "One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by men is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation. Along with all the other works necessary for man's exaltation into the kingdom of God this could rule out the need for repentance. . . " (page 206-7). Not only is this the very opposite of what the Book of Mormon and the Bible say, it shows a complete lack of understanding of and personal participation in the gospel of Jesus Christ. To boil it down, the gospel necessarily includes repentance and forgiveness, possible solely because of Christ. When a person truly comes to Christ, he is so grateful to be relieved of the burden of his past sins that he will strive his best to resist sin continually and repent constantly for his inevitable flaws and failings, yes, his sins. Coming to Christ doesn't mean we never sin again, albeit the sins might be different, greater or lesser ones, or even the same old ones; it doesn't matter.  We must continually repent and rely on Christ completely. And rejoice. He is the only way to salvation and changes us into new creatures who desire to be righteous and give all glory to God, for our repentance, for our faith, for everything. We were not taught this in the Mormon church. They don't want their people to know it because it would lessen their dependence on the church authority and its many requirements and demands and claims. The church needs its members to keep it a going concern.

Loving Your Kid Means Loving Their Homosexuality? Excuse Me?

We got this incomprehensible comment on our previous post, "The Scarlet A and Invisible I."

oh my. you think people who don't agree with you are guilty of incest? the only reason to love their gay kids is to hide their own sin? please please stop

First, we invite this sad, anonymous, lower-case-letter reader to cease reading our blog if it causes them so much pain. But we hope they can tough it out because it sounds like we're the only source from which they hear the right point of view.

Next, a careful reading of our post, "The Scarlet A and Invisible I," seems to be needed. Nowhere does it say that we think "people who don't agree with us are guilty of incest." Brother. What a crazy leap. Seriously. This is sad. What we said was that sometimes homosexuality is caused by incest, and people don't want to admit it. This is absolutely true and really happens. People's tragic personal experiences were shared at our Stand4Truth conference recently and can be viewed at libertylineup.org. By the way, people are watching this conference and lives are being changed. Praise the Lord.

Also, only a brainwashed person thinks loving your kid means you have to love their homosexuality, as inferred in the above comment. Yes, this is what some people actually think. That's like saying you don't love your kid if you don't love their bad ideas or their sloppiness or their goth-type clothes or their ridiculous hair style or their drug abuse or their bad grades or their speeding tickets or their promiscuity or their stealing or their spending too much money, and the list could go on and on. Any good parent will be annoyed or disgusted or devastated by such things, but will still love their kid, maybe even more.

Let's get this straight. Gay is not who a person is. It is a mindset about sex and sexuality. People are much more than sex and sexuality, for heaven's sake. Some people with very bad sexual manners also do unrelated good things. Some people with very good sexual manners also do unrelated bad things. Some people live long productive lives totally without sex. Anybody who publicly identifies himself by a perverse sexual proclivity is preoccupied with/addicted to sex and/or obsessed with himself.  And he might have some worse problems, too.

Really, people actually have been brainwashed to believe that the parent of a kid who identifies himself by a perverse sexual proclivity is supposed to love the perverse sexual proclivity! Or else! Well, absolutely not. First of all, homosexuality is physically risky and addictive in the extreme.  Second of all, it's a destructive sin, inside and out. Third of all, kids are born knowing nothing whatsoever about life or sex or love. Fourth of all, powerful predatory organizations are all about recruiting young people into all things homosex, including transgenderism. Fifth of all, what other sexual proclivities is a parent supposed to automatically love? Porn addiction? Bestiality? Sadomasochism? Pedophilia?

Now some people will say, oh my gosh, they're comparing SSA with bestiality and pedophilia! How horrible! Well, why not? Homosexualists have made a law unto themselves by pronouncing homosexuality, what God calls an abomination and what formerly was known as an unspeakable vice, perfectly okay. They ignore God and His rules and biology and reality and make themselves God. Then they make themselves God again by pronouncing other people's sexual proclivities (such as bestiality and pedophilia) out of bounds. Who made them the boundary-setters? They, themselves. With absolutely no authority or truth on their side. Just a bunch of arrogance and rebellion and shallow sentimental sociological mumbo-jumbo. By the way, there are powers that be which are all about denigrating "heterocentrism" and teaching this sick ideology to kids. No, it's not just equality homosexualists want. It's superiority. And why not? Without God in the picture, anything is permissible.

Guess what, brainwashed but beloved and valued people: All this stuff you're saying and thinking and believing is totally arbitrary, that is, based on whatever some very powerful and nonbenevolent people have decided to make up and brainwash other people with.  And guess what else? Parents who really love their kids don't give in to their maladaptive and dangerous and dead-end sexual ideas and conduct. They love their kids and that's why they are so worried about them when they are lured into homosexuality.

God is a parent, too. God loves every one of his children and doesn't want any of them involved to any degree in this very bad stuff. He gave his Son so all sinners, that's all of us, could repent and have everlasting life.

The Scarlet A and the Invisible I

Perhaps we all read Hawthorne’s masterpiece, The Scarlet Letter, in high school. Then, we were taught it was about the hideous overharshness of the 1600s America Puritan culture (what Hawthorne’s ancestors were part of) in publicly shaming a woman all her life for the sin of adultery made obvious by a resulting child. But that’s not what the book is about.

As interesting as the other main characters are—the ill-treated but shallow Hester, loyal at all costs to her secret lover, her idolized wild unfathered little daughter Pearl, and the devilishly vengeful Chillingworth— it is the riveting second half of the novel concerning Dimmesdale that is the heart of the story.

Yes, the pure-and-saintly-seeming Reverend Dimmesdale was a dim bulb, but a very interesting character. His talents were great, his rise remarkable, his influence far-reaching, but as a result of many years of covering his sin (he is Pearl’s father) his tortured soul itself is deceived. For all his popularity and glowingly righteous appearance, he is spiritually dead, which ultimately causes untimely physical decline and death. And strangely, for all his Bible-knowledge and flowing, charismatic sermons full of truth and comfort, he himself, hypocrite that he is, chooses not to take advantage of the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ and so become humble, clean, and forgiven. Instead, he makes himself the one exemption, fooling himself that he can do more good unconfessed, making of himself a secretly suffering martyr. He convinces himself that by keeping his sin hidden he can do the greater good for man's welfare and for the glory of God through his own tireless and continual good works.

Chillingworth, Hester’s actual husband, this fact unknown to anyone but them, bad as he himself is in a different way, has Dimmesdale’s number when to Dimmesdale’s convoluted hypothetical argument he blurts out,

“These men deceive themselves . . . They fear to take up the shame that rightfully belongs to them . . . [I]f they seek to glorify God, let them not lift heavenward their unclean hands! . . . Wouldst thou have me believe, O wise and pious friend, that a false show can be better—can be more for God’s glory, or man’s welfare—than God’s own truth? Trust me, such men deceive themselves!”

Nathaniel Hawthorne was indeed a great thinker. And we must do a bit of thinking ourselves if we are to understand his story and take warning from it.

That’s the Scarlet A. Now for the Invisible I. We were featured on a radio show the other day and a lady called in. She told about her sister-in-law who as a girl was sexually abused by her brothers, who later decided to present herself as a male (so no man would ever hurt her again?) and who eventually took her own life. The caller later found out it was her own husband who had been one of his sister’s tormentors and who had also been sexually abusing their sons. She said multi-generational incest is huge in Utah, among the Mormon population no less.

We’ve heard plenty of these stories. They demonstrate what is known as The Family Secret. We’ll call it the Invisible I. I for incest.

Then it struck us. So many LDS families are having a slobbering love affair with homosexuality because someone in their family claims same-sex attraction. These gay family members are their especial pets even. They don’t wonder why.  They, quite cruelly, don't care to know the causes. They accept this identity no questions asked. They even denounce their faith, even leave the Church, because of these gay children or relatives or friends. Why? Well, how about this? Perhaps, like in the experience related above, it’s that ugly family secret, the invisible I, that is the reason so many LDS families are so unquestioningly accepting of their children coming out as gay. Perhaps that is why they don't seem to care about the reasons for and the physical and spiritual dangers of their child's homosexuality. They’d rather sacrifice these poor damaged souls to the myth of inborn homosexuality than have their own sordid family secrets uncovered and their reputations sullied. No, they don’t want anybody shining the light on the skeletons in the closet. Perhaps they consider their standing in the community, their good works, their reputations too important, too valuable. Yes, perhaps they choose to do a Dimmesdale: deceive themselves into believing they are doing more good for their fellow man, for God, by keeping the I invisible, by covering their sins, by denying this ugly truth, by keeping this horrible crime hidden, and instead celebrate the destructive homosexual tendencies of their child.

We believe many vulnerable young people can fall into homosexuality merely because of our oversexed culture’s gay-promoting environment, false stereotypes and peer abuse, being unlucky in love, pornography,  perverse sex -ed and the pushing of homosexuality in schools, but of course there can be different factors. The Invisible I,  for one. Because of the costs, such as the shame and the shunning and the loss of community, job, family, and church status, even imprisonment, incest/pedophilia most often remains a deep dark family secret that is therefore replicated through multiple generations leaving all sorts of destruction in its wake. 

Here's a heads up. Beware the overpure appearance and talked-up outward piousness of some families, whether they toot their own horn or have others do it for them. Family secrets can be kept hidden indefinitely. Devils can appear as angels of light. 

This is the meaning of the scripture about how a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Some evil may be able to put on an angelic appearance, like Dimmesdale, like plenty of people all around us, but it’s corrupt at its roots and will not survive or prosper in any meaningful, important, or eternal way. Whether or not anyone else will be ultimately helped or God glorified in spite of that standing evil is questionable. At least people won't be helped as much as they could be. As Hawthorne said, how can a false show do more for mankind or to glorify God that God’s own truth? We mustn’t deceive ourselves into believing a corrupt tree can bring forth good fruit. It’s a good bet Hawthorne had read his Machiavelli; the ends do not justify the means. Unless God Himself unmistakably tells you to do something you know to be wrong, if  you stand to benefit personally in any way from that wrong thing, you better believe it’s dead wrong.

The Family Secret, a.k.a. Dimmesdalian covering up and rationalization of sin, is not a mere fiction. It has happened and continues to happen in real life. How sad that people would rather allow great suffering and perpetuate such evils than confess, humbly turn back to the Lord, and be saved from their sickening hidden sins now and forever. 

A Revised Handbook, Homosexualism, and the Triumph of Sin

"The triumph of sin comes with our failure to perceive it," said Roger Scruton. If you insist on characterizing the sin of homosexuality as merely a benign "identity" or even a too-complex purely psychological disorder, you are failing to perceive it as a sin. If you treat homosexuality, what God calls abomination in heart, mind, and body, only as a sin when it's acted on or called gay marriage, you are stuck on a convenient technicality and have failed to perceive a soul-killing sin that people are both sympathetic to or deeply involved in, bad sexual behavior/"marriage," or not. This tactic---ignoring the destructive nature of homosexuality itself and instead focusing on traditional marriage and children deserving a mother and father---many politicians, family values activists, groups, and churches have utilized, and stubbornly persist in utilizing, to no avail. Gay marriage is now institutionalized nationwide, in some large part because its majority of opponents went along with the normalizing of homosexuality as an identity and avoided the fact that homosexuality is a sin, and a dangerous one. Ask around. Homosexuality quit being considered sinful more than a decade ago, even in mainstream LDS Church circles. In fact, we learned that some men, members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, were heard to say, "Why doesn't the Church get with the program and let people love whomever they want [accept gay marriage]?" (We'd say the MoTab is pretty LDS mainstream.)

Failure to perceive sin as sin is making for a lot of confusion by way of conflicting statements and policies. For example, the Mormon Church surprised everybody by recently issuing some very strong new instructions in a revised handbook to local clergy on how to discipline same-sex married couples and their children, the leakage of which has caused strong emotions on all sides of the issue. It's disappointing to the LDS progressives/homosexualists who have made such progress in reinventing religion, Christ, and human sexuality. It's confusing to the orthodox who have been slowly but surely brought along to believe homosexuality is not sinful, at least, not that sinful. And many, on whatever side, seem to think the rules are much too harsh, especially for the children of gay parents. Still others are saying it's about time the Church said anything firm on this issue, but also see the Church contradicting itself. How can something be acceptable in principle (see mormonsand gays.org) but apostate in practice as the handbook states? As per the handbook, how can the Church continue to be affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America now that the BSA has accepted homosexual  behavior among its ranks? Isn't the BSA an apostate group? All temple-going Mormons promise they do not affiliate with, support, or agree with apostate individuals or groups. And now the Church itself has made us all affiliated with an apostate group! In fact, there are many pro-gay Mormon groups and individuals that should be refused their temple recommends for championing what the Church has now stated is apostate.

All this confusion is occurring within the church membership because the Church has softened on homosexuality, bit by bit, over the last 20 years. LDS leaders have most currently been saying same-sex attraction is not sinful. In essence they have been saying homosexualism itself is not a sin, with the strange caveat that it suddenly becomes sinful when you act on it, which actions are not in any way defined. (Experts agree that merely coming out publicly as same-sex attracted is itself a form of homosexual activity and expression.) They have most recently stated in essence that members, including highly public and influential members, can be pro-gay marriage, which means all for same-sex sexual behaviors including sodomy, and remain in good standing. How does that policy not contradict the revised handbook stating that gay marriage, which obviously indicates the practice of sodomy, etc., constitutes apostasy and must be disciplined?

The wording in the new handbook may be the first firm thing the Church has said against homosexuality in years, perhaps since 1995 when it presented The Proclamation on the Family (which actually doesn't mention homosexuality directly). But while everybody argues about the fairness or wisdom or compassion of this new dictate we at SoL have additional concerns.

We're concerned about the inclusiveness of homosexuality in principle. What is fine in principle must be fine in practice. When people accept an idea, the practice of that idea will follow. No matter what any  laws or written policies state, it's the public sentiment that will play out. All the bold pro-gay activism and contradiction occurring within the Church membership is one result of the failure to perceive and pronounce homosexuality as a sin in all its forms. The truth is that the very idea of homosexuality is rotten to the core. It is immoral as a principle and as a practice; it hurts people.

Second, how is this new rule respectful and welcoming? We've been told by top Church leaders to accept the gay identity as not sinful or harmful or dangerous or sick (seemormonsandgays.org), and to respect all opinions and be gracious  to people who claim this identity or sympathize with it. Apparently there are no boundaries to this instruction, which could extend even to respecting those who flaunt and push this and any other Godless ideology and behavior on everyone else in any forum they can get. Making a rule for local leaders to follow stating that members living together as a legally married same-sex couple are to be considered apostates and require mandatory disciplinary counsel doesn't sound respectful or gracious at all. And another rule that says their children are not to receive baby blessings/christenings, or be baptized until adulthood, (so they won't be entered on Church records) sounds extremely harsh in light of what has been said recently about how we all have to accept as perfectly fine someone's self-determined gay (or transgender?) identity. Most people don't want to think about the physical practice of homosexuality.  They don't even want to think about what that means. They just know they're supposed to accept gay people and what they see them doing. And now they're apostates? No wonder people are confused.

If homosexuality is wrong, it has to be wrong across the board, just as President Spencer W. Kimball described it in his day, just as the scriptures describe it for all time, just as God does not look on sin with the least degree of allowance.

Our third concern is the practicality of this contradictory dictate. How does it look in real life? Will it make any difference? Will it discourage homosexuality in our congregations? We think not. The truth is, if you give wickedness an inch, it will take a mile, and more. This particular iniquity has been given many an inch. It has been given audience. It has been coddled and excused and accommodated, and is even paraded by Mormons on the Salt Lake City streets. The homosexual juggernaut is patient. Activists have accomplished their goals step by step. Indefatigable Mormon gay activists won't be deterred by this new setback. Think about it. Church discipline and excommunication is conducted locally on a case-by-case basis. Many local leaders would rather look the other way, others are outspokenly pro-gay, and everything in between. Church headquarters is known to leave such things to local leaders. So, it seems likely that many gays and both their public and private behaviors are and will be allowed, even given special attention and accommodation. Also, just because a gay couple is excommunicated doesn't mean they can't attend church meetings and flaunt their romantic and familial relationships and make comments (filibuster) in classes and talk to people and be popular and influence others. Just because a young person (child of gay parents) is denied baptism or paper church membership or ordination in the priesthood doesn't mean they can't or won't go to church meetings and youth activities and be outspoken in favor of the homosexuality of their parents.

In addition, we not only have individual homosexuals in our congregations but a larger group we call homosexualists;  as Romans 1:32 says, not just those who do it, but those who have pleasure in those that do it.  As one homosexualist said to fellow homosexualists on the pro-gay Mormons Building Bridges facebook page in response to the handbook declaration, "Don't leave. We need accepting people in the Church to provide a loving place for everyone! I am glad I'm Relief Society president now and can tell my sisters that I love them ALL." Mormon homosexualist activists are not about being quiet; they are about changing the Church to include homosexuality in all its forms, in principle and practice. As such, the Church's refreshing sentiment to"protect its members" from gay marriage doesn't seem to hold much water when it comes to activist homosexualists and their pawns who also are actively serving in leadership and teaching callings (such as the RS president mentioned above), or open homosexuals and gay couples and their children participating in church meetings and activities, in other words, mingling with the general membership in the context of any church gathering. A handbook meant only to be seen by local leaders, some of whom are homosexualists themselves, and many of whom would rather not face this unpleasant and contentious issue at all, is not nearly as influential as what top leaders and the people around us are actually saying and doing or not saying and not doing.  We have been instructed to be accepting and gracious regarding all things homosexual, which translates to include gay marriage and gay parenting, whatever may go on in people's homes or behind the ecclesiastical disciplinary curtain. What good is a handbook for leaders when people's neighbors and fellow church-goers and their children's neighbors and church friends are homosexualists, openly gay, or belong to a gay-parented family, church discipline or not? It's the public sentiment that holds sway. And that has gone overwhelmingly sympathetic towards homosexuality.


This all translates, in our experience, to thinking-conservatives shutting up and the complacent members, and/or the emboldened homosexualists, taking over. In church. In fact, a local bishop told us that he would do nothing about a lesbian married couple talking up homosexuality from the pulpit. (Anyone may be invited to preach and teach in Mormon meetings.) We wonder if he will do an about-face and abide by the new handbook? Who knows. But as we've said, any discipline would take place behind the scenes and wouldn't matter to the general congregation if the gays continued to make themselves part of the church community.  Disciplinary actions against members are not announced to the congregation anymore. And if found out, the way things are going, the excommunicated gay couple would most likely be treated to an emotional outpouring of sympathy and attention from members rather than any sort of encouragement to repent and be forgiven through Christ. This is actually already happening; you can see it online. Most people don't think homosexuality is a sin anymore, remember?


And there's a lot  more. There are endless kinds of of situations and questions that arise when you include children of gays in the policy. One young man whose gay father, divorced from the mother, has decided he would rather give up his lifelong plan to serve a mission than denounce his father's homosexuality as wrong.  There will be no end to these situations. Plus, all it takes is one lawsuit. True, the Church has documented its policy about how to treat gay marrieds, but the way things are going in the courts, sexual liberty is trumping religious freedom these days, as the late Richard Wilkins told us it would years ago. Churches everywhere may soon be forced to treat their gay couples the exact same way they treat their heterosexual couples, or face all sorts of punitive damages, treatment church leaders may not be willing to endure. We can always pray they will at least draw that line, come what may.

 Strong as these new dictates are, whether they have come too late, whether they are just, whether they are too harsh, whether they are consistent, whether they are legal insurance, we submit that when it comes to real life nothing's changed. The devil's vengeful agenda marches on, using the prideful, the vulnerable, the damaged, and the ignorant as his unfortunate pawns. 

Yes, it's true: The triumph of sin comes with our failure to perceive it.  And, predictably, the failure to call out homosexuality as an abominable sexual sin both in principle and practice is affecting the popular perception regarding all types of sexual sins as increasingly less sinful or not sinful at all. One of our daughters told us of a married couple she knows who were aghast at being invited by another couple in their LDS neighborhood to swingers' parties held on a certain weeknight each week. (Swinging is spouse trading for sex.) At our recent conference we learned that sodomy is becoming very popular among heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, having been modeled and promoted by gays. This triumph of sin should not be surprising to anyone, given churches' and mainstream society's failure to perceive it as such.