I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me…

The thing is that, for me, as I’ve said before, the gay lifestyle doesn’t make sense for eternal life. The plan of salvation doesn’t feel right, it changes drastically if gay eternal companionships exist. It’s almost so totally a contradiction as to just wipe it all out, like a black hole.

I know it exists, I know that LDS men and women suffer and struggle with it.

Beyond that, I have no answers. I think we’ve had a really good discussion, thank you, thank you, all of you, for being civil.

I’m going to close this thread to further comment because I feel there is much to learn and study and glean, looking at it in many ways. I want to keep it that way.

As far as Jensen not being able to see the LDS church ever changing its position, I’m willing to bet he would say that was his opinion, rather than an authoritative statement. Surely the general authorities are all well aware that dramatic changes can occur in a church that believes in continuing revelation. Elder McConkie once insisted that the priesthood would never be given to persons of African descent, yet he was wrong–and he was man enough to admit it.

Porter

Of course, we live in a pluralistic society, where not everyone accepts the doctrines of the LDS church. Those who are not under LDS covenants certainly are not bound to obey them.

Potaytoe, pataatoe

Is it possible for someone to consider themselves gay/lesbian and choose not to participate in homosexual activity?

Yeap, way to go! But pay for two hookers together -more value for money! ( Sorry :) I apologize)

87. Nick Literski ..Ahh? dude its the first presidency who teaches this, that is that members who break the law of chastity to this extreme (ie adultery, forni, gay sex, etc) should not be allowed to offer prayers in church until they repent.

anngb: You don’t watch the Simpsons? u don’t know what you’re missing girl!
By active gay, I meant to say someone who is in a gay lifestyle relationship ie man sleep with man. I don’t know how to say this more politely. I do think though that we need to distinguish between the SSA only to the practicing/active/sleeping with man gay man who is just breaking the Law of Chastity. The SSA hasn’t committed any sin at all.
Anyway, I’m going to give this thread a miss now because for me this is more black&white issue, either you sin or you don’t. The rest is psycho babble.(my apologies again)

1) The official stance of the church is that expression of same-sex love is a sin just one notch down in severity from murder. Yet, people who have any real-life contact with gay folks don’t smell the stench of evil. Gay people seem pretty wholesome and decent up close. And this is not the case with other “near-murderers” like rapists, child abusers, wife beaters, etc. Something just doesn’t click.

2) Our culture has shifted toward seeing homosexuality as benign. A recent poll showed that Christians are seen as needlessly “anti-homosexual” by 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers. This is not political correctness driven by media elites; this is a sea change in public opinion.

The official stance of the church has not stood still in the face of social change. The church has evolved to understand that gay people are not moral reprobates. The church now views homosexual orientation as morally neutral. It is now officially a “challenge.” BYU recently amended its honor code so that coming out (as a celibate homosexual) is now permitted. BYU students are now often quite open about their sexual orientation.

(Note that in 1976 the criterion for excommunication was lowered so that homosexual orientation itself was excommunicable, where previously a sexual act was required for excommunication. The church has significantly reversed itself since then.)

3) The church is reeling from a huge legacy of failed and troubled marriages that have resulted from its earlier advice that gay people should enter into mixed-orientation marriages (a straight spouse plus a homosexual spouse). A few of these marriages have achieved some kind of accommodation, but– not surprisingly– the majority have not. As the impatient General Authority bellowed to my father during his meeting about my situation: “It’s unbelievable how much trouble this causes!”

The epidemic of broken homes, suicides and misery arising from the church’s past encouragement of mixed-orientation marriage has been one of the big motivators for the church’s current recommendation that marriage not be used as homosexual change therapy. (Unfortunately, not everyone got the memo, and many young gay people in the church aspire to mixed-orientation marriage as a goal.)

4) Increasingly, gay people are less willing to hide in the shadows. As more gay people come out, more straight people get to know them (and no longer fear them), and this creates a cycle of increased openness. Approximately 4% to 6% of men and 3% to 5% of women are strongly (that is, nearly exclusively) homosexual in orientation. This cycle of increased visibility and acceptance shows no sign of stopping.

So now the cognitive dissonance: many of us have experienced items 1 – 4 above and can at least imagine a more progressive stance by the church, for example, where same-sex civil unions, domestic partnerships or civil marriages are tolerated “for time” as are civil marriages of heterosexuals. But that day is not here and may never arrive. What are we supposed to do?

Personally I see some parallels to the turmoil in the church in the 1960s and 70s with the civil rights movement. Many members of the church were intensely uncomfortable to see their church oppose civil rights for blacks in the early sixties. Later, as the sea change of public opinion became apparent, the tension became almost intolerable. (I was there; I saw this first hand because I was a Mormon in the Deep South.)

What would you have done in 1975 if a black person you loved asked you why he or she would never be worthy of going to the temple? Basically, you would have had two possible approaches: 1) a strong doctrinal defense of the policy (“mark of Cain,” etc.) or a softer God-will-fix-it-in-the-Millenium approach. Seriously, think about the bind you would have been in. You would feel tremendous sympathy for your friend, but doctrine is seemingly immutable. Your natural sense of fair play and human dignity would have made you very uncomfortable unless you were able to suppress it by appeals to authority or your own racist impulses. If blogs had existed in 1975 there would have been long threads arguing back and forth. You can just imagine the debate.

That’s pretty much where we are today with homosexuality. It’s not a good place to be, and quoting Leviticus won’t make the problem go away.

If you don’t know any gay people, I am going introduce you to three by way of their blogs. Read them and try to see the world from where they sit.

The first is a man from a Mormon heritage who is currently raising young two boys in Utah with his male partner. They are a delightful, wholesome family. His blog is http://utahcog.blogspot.com.

The second is Chris Williams, whom some of you may know. His previous blog has an astonishingly powerful personal account of his coming out. I have a summary of it on http://mohohawaii.blogspot.com/2007/03/chris-aka-hurricane.html as a starting point. Chris’ current blog is http://family-blend.blogspot.com.

Finally, there is a very interesting case of a gay man who, despite being partnered for many years with another man, has gone back to the LDS church and attends faithfully, even though he doesn’t have the standing to give prayers, lessons, etc. His blog is http://youngstranger.blogspot.com. He is a man of real spirituality and humility.

Okay, I have spoken my peace. My advice is to step back a bit from the turmoil we feel on this issue, regardless of which side we’re on. Yes, it is a sensitive topic. Yes, there are some differences of opinion among believing Latter-day Saints. Yes, the policy of the church seems in the process of a transition. Yes, it’s hard for gay people and the straight spouses in mixed-orientation marriages. Yes, the church is against gay sex.

What we need now is compassion, empathy and listening on all sides, including mine. In my opinion.