FAITH: Will The LDS Church Ever Condone Homosexuality?
As we continue to strive to bring our readers opinions from all sides and all speakers, we at Rhombus value strong writing (even on seemingly controversial topics) from any and all sources. The following article by McKay Coppins is just that. We trust that our readers appreciate mature discussion of important topics and possess the capacity to think and decide for themselves regarding even the toughest debates of our generation. Please enjoy McKay’s column and don’t be shy about sharing your thoughts in the comment space below. As always, thanks for reading. — Steve Pierce, Editor
Last fall, at the height of the Proposition 8 controversy, I found a rather provocative question anonymously written on a whiteboard in a BYU classroom. The question read:
“After the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 70s, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gave blacks the priesthood. Do you think the church will eventually condone homosexuality as a result of the current civil rights movement?”
I think the question made the students in my lab too uncomfortable to spark any kind of meaningful conversation, and eventually my TA erased the board, dubbing the idea “ridiculous.”
But believe it or not, that wasn’t the last time I heard that thought expressed on BYU campus.
Now, there are several potential points of contention in the phrasing of that original whiteboard question. For example, it implies that the church extended the priesthood to all worthy males simply due to social pressure. It also equates the agenda of the gay community with the black civil rights movement — always a shaky comparison.
But rather than respond to these details, I’d like to use this article to answer the main question at hand: Will the church eventually recant its position on homosexuality and allow “practicing” homosexuals to enjoy all gospel blessings?
Before I tell you my thoughts, I want to say something about which I feel strongly. As someone who has close LDS friends who are dealing with same-sex attraction, I don’t think it does anyone any good to rant about how homosexuality is an abomination. Yes, as a Mormon, I believe that romantic same-sex relationships violate the law of chastity and offend God, but when we dwell on the sinfulness of the offenders, I think we do little more than alienate them.
Inspired priesthood leaders may feel prompted to remind those within their stewardship of their sins, but when it comes to addressing this issue, we should all take a cue from the brethren, and do so with love, compassion and understanding.
That said, I believe the answer to this controversial question is no.
No, the church will not eventually “come around” or “rid itself of its antiquated social ideals.” No, it will not fall in line as other Christian churches begin ordaining gay ministers. Even as the world’s laws become increasingly more sympathetic to the homosexual agenda, I believe the church will retain a strong stance on this issue, firm in the knowledge that it is led not by any flawed man, but by a perfect Christ.
Many of the more “progressive” Mormons I’ve met have cautioned me against being so narrow-minded in my views. And believe me, rarely do I take such an unequivocal stance on an oft-debated issue like this one. Usually I can see the merits of all sides, preventing me from so blatantly rejecting another’s opinion.
But then again, usually God doesn’t get so involved.
Most of the arguments by these progressive Mormons are founded on the idea that God changed his mind with the whole “blacks and the priesthood” issue; why can’t He change His mind on this?
The comparison is flawed, and it seems that most of the people who make this argument fail to understand the difference between church policy and church doctrine.
When the church only extended the priesthood to certain males, it was a matter of policy, subject to change. If you read the Bible, you’ll see that throughout history the Lord has always selected certain groups of people to withhold his priesthood from. In the times of Moses, it was everyone except the males in the tribe of Levi. During Christ’s ministry, it was the Gentiles. When the Lord revealed to His prophet that all worthy males could hold the priesthood, He was simply changing the policy of His church as He had done before.
On the other hand, the church’s position on homosexuality stems from its divinely inspired understanding of the Plan of Salvation. In the Old and New Testaments, the Lord was very clear that He did not condone homosexual relations. More recently, He has revealed to his prophets that gender is an eternal part of our souls and that marriage between man and woman is ordained of Him. This is not a matter of policy; it is doctrine.
I’m well aware that certain high-profile general authorities in our church once shared their theories that blacks would never receive the priesthood. But these were nothing more than doctrinal interpretations and opinions.
Of course, I don’t know what God will do in the future. I don’t know His mind and I don’t share His infinite wisdom. But I do know that God doesn’t change the foundational doctrine of His gospel, and I think we would all do well to remember that.
McKay Coppins is the news editor of the Daily Universe and a columnist for the Deseret News. He occasionally contributes to Rhombus. You can follow him on Twitter @mckaycoppins.
I believe that it will become harder and harder for the church to defend it’s stance on homosexuality. This is because the science of gender will become more and more apparent. Just the thought that gender is completely black and white is a flawed one. Every child born into the world is not clearly male or female. Sometimes there has to be a choice by a parent at birth as to the sex of the child. We also have seen the story in the media about Caster Semenya. Would this be someone you could/couldn’t give the priesthood? Would Caster be considered homosexual for dating a man?
There is also more and more evidence showing that homosexuality is not a choice. Along with this there is also large amounts of evidence to show that sexuality isn’t black and white either. Everyone lies on a spectrum between homosexuality and heterosexuality.
The church may not change their stance on homosexuality right away, but they will have to answer some hard questions concerning it in the near future.
Excellent article. I’m concur one hundred per cent. Those who continue to confuse the issue are not doing so with a clear understanding of the nature of the Church or its position.
I also believe that many of us still fail to see what the future is going to look like for Church and its members as the Church remains unmoved. This might be the first truly polarizing issue we face–it will push an incredible number of people away, but it will also draw a great many toward us. No one’s going to sit the fence with this thing.
Controversial? Seems pretty straightforward to me… Well stated.
Mckay, this a well written article. I agree with you and wish more people could see the issue from this standpoint with love and compassion but with a firm understanding of the gospel.
Great article. It’s a shame it was considered “too controversial” for publication, because it is an issue which more church members should be considering and discussing. I think within the coming decade, this will be an issue which people will have to have a very firm testimony on, one way or the other, because it will become increasingly publicized and increasingly polarizing.
@Dean – the fact that there are people born into the world not clearly male nor female doesn’t mean the church is going to have to drastically reconsider its views on the family. People have trials which they don’t deserve. Hundreds of genetic conditions exist that trouble people all of their lives. It is part of the human experience. The fact that it does happen is an unfortunate part of the plan, and one we can learn from, but it does not mean revelation on the subject of family is invalidated. So bringing up the fact that there are gender ambiguous births is not an effective argument to make to try to explain why the church reassess its stance on the family.
Great article Mckay. I can’t believe the Deseret News deemed this too controversial to publish. Keep up the good fight and don’t let the D-News dictate to you on what articles you should or shouldn’t write. Thanks
Thank you for sharing this article. Honestly, I have been thinking a lot about this issue and about how the church seems to be alienating itself from the rest of the world by fighting same- sex marriage. For a time I wondered if we have the right to tell other people how to live. However, I have never felt that homosexuality is right and everything about it feels wrong. I am grateful to you for stating very clearly what it is we do believe and how the issue is not clouded in gray, but truly is a black and white issue. Marriage is ordained of God to be between a man and a woman. End of story. Thanks again!
Excellent work! Thank you, Rhombus, for picking this one up. I’m glad McKay’s well formed and well written opinion saw the light of day. Definitely one worth RTing.
Mckay,
The truth is that your articles have been drawing much attention and comments over at the Deseret News. You are probably going to see a lot of scrutiny on what you give them to publish from here on out. Don’t let them change or censor your articles, please.
Excellent clarification on policies and doctrines. I enjoyed the article and agree with the author.
Richard, are you somehow associated with the Deseret News? How do you know my articles have been drawing so much attention?
To McKay,
My wife works at the Deseret News.
While McKay makes some very good points about the difference in policy and doctrine, there is no mention of one very important, inherently Mormon doctrine- continued revelation. The church has changed its doctrine through continued revelation several times, and will continue to do so. The church has even changed its doctrine through continued revelation on its concept of chastity and family, look no further than polygamy. Furthermore, McKay’s points that high level general authorities had differing views about blacks in the priesthood is a bit false. It was not high level general authorities only, it was several members of the quorum of twelve apostles, and it was written and published in the book ‘Mormon Doctrine’ by Bruce R. McKonkie, that blacks were neutral fence sitters in the pre-earth life, and because of there lack of valiance in the the pre-earth life God was punishing them by not allowing them to have the priesthood. This book was a book about doctrine, so truthfully, the church did change its doctrine about blacks and the priesthood. If you desire to look up in the book Mormon Doctrine to which I refer, you must look at earlier publications, as it was changed in later publications due to the revelations about blacks and the priesthood. I write this only that it is important for people to understand how the church can and will function. At any time the church can change it’s view on anything- doctrine, policy, or otherwise, due to it’s very important doctrine of continued revelation that Joseph Smith brought to the church. – These are facts that were not presented in this article that should have been in order for the reader to be fully informed.
I agree that the church will most likely never support homosexuality but I agree that members of the church need to come a long way in opening up their minds and being more sensitive to the issues regarding gay rights. Although the church doesn’t support gay marriage Utah, members of the church in Utah still are fine about denying other basic rights to homosexuals. House Bill 267 was for ending the law that employers could fire employees based on sexual orientation, and House Bill 160 was for health care access to a partner those in a civil union. Both did not pass.
This isn’t what the church teaches and people in Utah need to come to a greater understanding of this issue.
I really enjoyed this article. The church being actively involved in this issue sometimes leads to members to turn people away from Christ with their own intolerance. I believe the church has its reasons (and right) to do so but sometimes the members need to be held in check when they get caught up in the very unChristian-like sentiments of the American religious right.
Regarding the question, never say never. Many jews never thought circumcision would be abolished. After all, it was scriptural. It was doctrine. Then in Acts 10, that completely changed. Blacks and the priesthood was, as you said, more policy than doctrine because it is a tough argument to make scripturally. Homosexuality, however, is explicitly discussed in the scriptures but so was the overturned law of circumcision (a heck of a lot more too!). That being said, I have faith and confidence that should there be a shift, it will have a loving, accepting, tolerant, Christ-like tone. It will still follow the Gospel. It might offend some members. I just can’t imagine the celestial kingdom closing its gates to all gay people.
Michael,
It seems that you misunderstand the role of continued revelation. Revelation from God does not and never will change His doctrine. It changes policies, practices, and other things that many members THINK are doctrines. But He does not change actual doctrines. In fact, LDS.org defines “doctrine” as, “the four standard works of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.”
So here’s where your argument really falls apart. You said, “It was not high level general authorities only, it was several members of the quorum of twelve apostles, and it was written and published in the book ‘Mormon Doctrine’ by Bruce R. McKonkie.” First of all, I’m pretty sure apostles qualify as high level general authorities. You seem to think they are two different groups? Strange.
Actually, I was specifically thinking of Elder McKonkie when I wrote the sentence you responded to. The church has repeatedly and consistently said that McKonkie’s book, though it offers some valuable insights, is NOT DOCTRINE. The church has said that from the very beginning.
The Mormon position concerning blacks was clearly stated in a letter written by the First Presidency on July 17, 1947: “From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel” (Letter from the … Read moreFirst Presidency, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, by John J. Stewart and William E. Berrett, pp.46-47).
Interesting article but McKay Coppins did not do his homework.
To clear things up, McConkie was not an apostle at the time he wrote “Mormon Doctrine,” so any assertion that the book could possibly be doctrine because it was written by an apostle is false. Along those lines, McKay is correct. However, McConkie and many other apostles (and even David O. McKay) did state that there was never any doctrine regarding blacks and the priesthood. They stressed repeatedly that it was a policy, not a doctrine in many public statements. However, Damian also produced a letter (in his comment) from the First Presidency stating that it was a doctrine. So there is much contradiction on this matter and it seems difficult for anyone to speak authoritatively on the matter.
Regardless, I would personally take issue with McKay’s assertion that doctrines are never changed by continuing revelation and would refer you to Will’s previous comment. It is my belief that anything can be changed whenever the Lord sees fit to change it, regardless of previous statements or beliefs. He is God after all. That being said, it doesn’t look likely from the present situation that any such change will happen, but I think it is probably somewhat presumptuous to say “never,” as McKay somewhat alludes to in his conclusion. None of us can know the mind of God, so while it is enjoyable to postulate about such things on the internet, it is ultimately fruitless. We’ll all just have to sit back and watch.
I could give you approximately a dozen letters from the church (even ones that predate yours) that say the exact opposite. Not to mention the fact that when the priesthood was first restored, blacks DID receive it. Go ahead and do some more research before accusing me of not doing my homework.
Also, I agree with Steve that nobody can ultimately know the mind of God. However, we are instructed to follow the current counsel of the current prophets. Even if things do change in the future, it doesn’t change what God is currently commanding. I prefer not to guess at God’s future will and subscribe to that.
Personally, I do not care what members of the LDS organization believe. They are welcome to call themselves Christians and to believe in Jesus. They are welcome to believe that the Tooth Fairy really does leave money under your pillow in exchange for a lost tooth. They are welcome to believe WHATEVER about homosexuality and gender preference.
On the other hand, I strongly protest the political activity of the LDS organization and its leaders and politically active members who donated millions of dollars and uncounted hours of volunteer time to strip their fellow citizens of the secular benefits associated with a government-issued marriage license.
Here in Utardia—The Pretty Hate State (a.k.a. Utah), religious leaders and their political lap dogs believe that “liberty and justice for all” really means “liberty and justice for all the people who are just like me.”
If you stated in your article that the church stance was both that of it being doctrine and that of it being policy then I would not have said anything. I know that some blacks recieved the priesthood but I dont think you can say something is just a policy and not doctrine when church leaders have said both. Here is one that you have probably seen before where Brigham Young claimed that marriage to an African should be punished by death on the spot. Sounds like more than just policy to me.
http://www.utlm.org/images/changingworld/chwp297jofd.gif
The policy-doctrine-revelation-practice-whatever of the LDS organization toward racial (in)equality is deeply rooted in the racial bigotry of Brigham Young. See for example, Young (speaking as governor of what would become Utah) in a joint session of the legislature, Feb. 5, 1852. Examples of Young’s bigotry in semi-offical publications like The Journal of Discourses and similar remarks by other individuals in positions of leadership in the LDS organization are too numerous to post in this brief comment (but are widely available on the internet).
With a social record that includes decades of racial inequality, no reasonable person would expect the LDS organization to adopt a policy of equality for members of the GLBTQ community (including secular equality for all law-abiding adult citizens in our secular governemtal institutions) anytime soon.
Why would it be more than a policy simply because it carries a heavy punishment? There have been plenty of church policies that have required serious penalties if they were violated. We are punished for sinning against God’s commandments, and God can certainly give commandments without making them eternal doctrines.
Church policy that should be punished by death on the spot. Sounds extreme even for the LDS church. Really my only area of contention with your article is when you say that “it was a matter of policy, subject to change.” Yes there are plenty of church documents that say that it was only policy but there are also plenty that say it was doctrine.
Mckay,
Regardless of any past facts that anybody can bring up that inevitably will contradict the other, this is my final statement on the issue in quick bullet point format:
-An apostle can be considered a high level general authority, but apostles are considered to have more authority, so it is a difficult thing describing level of authority when just stating ‘high level general authority’
-Black men not allowed to receive the priesthood was considered doctrine at one point.
-while some issues of doctrine and policy in the church are easy to distinguish, some are not, and in many cases depending on the era of church history, doctrine is switched to policy for political gain in the church. (again, look into the church’s list of changes in policy/doctrine when it comes to polygamy.)
-in the end the difference between policy and doctrine is an argument about semantics because of the following bullet point.
-policy or doctrine come from the prophet, and whatever the prophet currently states on any issue, weather it is considered policy or doctrine, the church members are expected to follow it.
-there are some policies/doctrines that are treated less relevant than others. It is a doctrine that you should not take the Lord’s name in vain or swear, but you can still enter the temple after having done so earlier in the day. It is doctrine that you should not have pre-marital sex, and you cannot enter the temple after having done so.
-The church gospel does believe in continued revelation about both policy and doctrine. There are countless examples in both ancient scripture and church history for both.
-As a member of the church, you are supposed to follow current prophetic counsel. That does not mean speculation is wrong, but it is considered a slipery slope, which is why this article was probably denied publication in the Deseret News.
My overall point is that this article’s main thesis is flawed in that in states that doctrine will never change, but policy can change. The truth is that both have, and both will continued to do so. It is the responsibilities of the members of the church to follow the current counsel of the prophet because they have been promised if they do so that they will never be lead astray.
I do appreciate you McKay for having the courage to write such an article and have it published because I think there needs to be more questioning and discussion of hard issues in the culture of the church.
Michael
I understand your reasons for disagreeing, but I just find it hard to believe that whitholding the priesthood from blacks was doctrine considering all the biblical and historical evidence available (some of which I presented in the column). God has frequently selected different groups of people from whom to withold the priesthood. You can’t tell me that all of a sudden it’s doctrine when it’s done in this dispensation.
And as for Michael’s comment, there are far too many unsubstantiated claims and cynical statements to respond to. Eternal doctrines do not change. If you disagree, then you are adopting an alternative belief system to that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That’s fine, but my column was written with faithful, believing Mormons in mind.
I appreciate all your comments and hope you continue to discuss this important issue.
Doctrine is a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, by a religion. The doctrine of the church is now that black men can have the priesthood but that was not always the doctrine pre civil rights movement. Doctrines have changed in the bible and they have changed in this so called “dispensation.”
I think I just told you.
“It implies that the church extended the priesthood to all worthy males simply due to social pressure”
I don’t think this is the only interpretation. I think it has to do with God working with humankind according to what we are ready for as a group.
“[I]t is not always wise to relate all the truth. Even Jesus, the Son of God, had to refrain from doing so, and had to restrain His feelings many times for the safety of Himself and His followers, and had to conceal the righteous purposes of His heart in relation to many things pertaining to His Father’s kingdom.”
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 392
Why didn’t God simply just reveal all of the teachings that Jesus came and taught to the people of the Old Testament?
The answer seems to be that they simply were not ready.
Joseph Smith talks about this, saying that even the early saints, many who gave their lives for the belief, weren’t ready for all of the truth of God, and that they would kill him if he told them all of what he knew:
“Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.” Brigham arose and said, ‘Don’t tell me anything that I can’t bear, for I don’t want to apostatize.’ ”
(As recalled by Parley P. Pratt in MS 55 (September 4, 1893): 585.)
We have to have milk before we can have meat, the problem is we think that we already have the meat.
I’m pretty sure society and the members of the church have a long way to go before they even begin to see things as God does, and to think we are even close knowing that we do not even live the law of consecration seems somewhat naive.
Initially, God only gave certain people the priesthood, then it was expanded.
Was it because God thought that only some people should have the priesthood or was it because at that time in the progression of human culture, he was working with imperfect, people who in general only were capable of following a very simpleminded and base law?
What was the attitude about blacks during that time? Do you really think the people in the church could have handled having ’slaves’ equal to them?
Especially with their respected leaders like Brigham Young preaching this perspective?
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).
Maybe God realized that humanity had not progressed to the point where they would be able to handle that gem.
Our prophets were and are fallible human beings with imperfect perspectives, God loves us and takes us where we are and for what benefit we can have to his kingdom and for our future potential.
It appears to me, that God is slowly leading humanity along, revealing truths as much as we are able to handle.
It is entirely possible that God will some day see that we, as a society, are finally ready to see each other as humans, regardless of insignificant details such as skin pigmentation or sexual preference, and hand down a revelation to such an effect.
Obviously none of us know the mind of God, but I disagree with your take on how likely it is, or how out of character it would be for him.
“Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive; and at the same time more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of His punishments, and more ready to detect in every false way, than we are apt to suppose Him to be…”
The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 509
Perhaps we just haven’t been ready yet.
There is a clear difference between blacks not receiving the priesthood and the church’s position on homosexuality. This article points out one good and important difference: the former was a church policy; the latter is an eternal doctrine referenced in the old and new testaments. Those who keep saying that doctrines change have failed to bring up a single shred of scriptural evidence besides circumcision. Of course, circumcision was part of the law of Moses, which Old Testament prophets like Isaiah as well as Book of Mormon prophets continually prophesied would eventually be fulfilled by the coming of Christ.
Homosexual relations are in violation of the eternal law of chastity, as well as gender roles determined by Heavenly Father.
And, in response to those who say doctrines change, I’ll direct you to President Packer’s 1989 talk, “Revelation in a Changing World.”
“Changes in organization or procedures are a testimony that revelation is ongoing. While doctrines remain fixed, the methods or procedures do not.”
I think this is a great comment that further illustrates that the church is influenced by societal norms.
“religious institutions and societies change/evolve with time. The things that were once tolerated are not tolerated today because the institution (in this case the LDS Church) is placed in a situation where it has to make a very public decision as to how to deal with the issue. The Church went in a very similar direction as the rest of society during the 1950’s (during the McCarthy era) when homosexuality tended to be looked upon as something that is extremely “perverse”, “evil”, etc. and people were made more aware of it. Now that society is evolving yet again (because gay people’s real stories are out in the open in film, t.v., the media, etc. and many families are talking about the issue typically in a far more accepting way) the Church has had to make accommodations; though doctrinally it has definitely dug its feet in deep for fear of the coming paradigm shift that is occuring throughout our society. Their current views (in Quinn’s book) are not about hypocrisy but about honest ignorance (otherwise they would never have admonished gay people to get married to an opposite sex partner to cure their homosexuality) and about their response to various changes in society and the extremely difficult challenge this is for the Church.”
http://www.amazon.com/review/RP9RPYSMN5CZ0/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=025202205X&nodeID=#wasThisHelpful
God may be unchanging, but the church does not equal God, seeing the changing views of the prophets and the church through time is enough for me to realize that they are imperfect, and God can only communicate so much through them because of their imperfection and our own imperfections.
I find it perfectly consistent that God would give us the best rules that he could get us to handle while patiently waiting for us to progress as a society to be able to handle greater truth.
Please tell me what claims I made that were unsubstaniated? Maybe about polygamy? Everything else is pretty much common knowledge within the church, isn’t it? If it is what I said about polygamy, fine, I didn’t reference anything, but I was pretty sure that most of the readers of this article were aware that the church practiced polygamy at one point, and does not any longer. I actually am having a hard time understanding why my comments come across as cynical. I was trying to be positive and inclusive.
To be fair it could be stated that polygamy is an eternal doctrine that is still true, like the law of consecration, but the practice of it has been suspended.
As far as I know the church hasn’t renounced either doctrine.
What’s the Desert News?
Sorry to hash the same topic over and over. But in Genesis 17, Abraham was given the “everlasting” covenant of circumcision. It was not part of the law of Moses (he being born hundreds of years before Moses). It was eternal doctrine (eternal meaning from God not eternal as in never changing) that was changed to accommodate new members, address pressing social issues, and increase tolerance.
I really like some of the quotes and points that have been brought up. This is a good discussion.
Deseret News is a local newspaper here in Utah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_News
From another Deseret News “insider” — just wanted to say, great column, and I’m glad you’re standing by it McKay, even if it never sees the light of day in the pages of the DesNews. I’m so disappointed in the DesNews for balking on this one (yet one more example in a series of disappointments). I don’t personally agree with your take on things here, but a column is about a personal OPINION, and *that’s* what I respect in your writing, and that’s what I want to see more of. You’ve got an important voice. Keep up the good work!
I just want to clarify after I read Genesis 17 again under closer scrutiny. The “Everlasting” covenant was the Abrahamic covenant. Circumcision was its sign. However, the context does make it seem that circumcision would be around forever and it was changed.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is the only church that preaches it holds the true keys to full forgiveness. Since homosexuality will always be considered immoral and painful, it is healable and solvable by the church only. How can I seek heaven and eternity with a God who is completely perfect. Conscience states that I must go and find a faith that is led by the Saviour who leads the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.
I think you are making two very large assumptions.
1. The church is the only one that preaches it has the keys to full forgiveness. (the Catholic church also claims this authority.)
2. Homosexuality will always be considered a sin. (many of God’s laws were given for a short amount of time in response to the specific circumstances of humanity and his followers. Specifically bans in the old testament against eating shellfish, pigmeat, etc. These were given not because they were inherently bad, but because at that time they did not have the technology to ensure that the meat was prooerly prepared and wouldn’t make them sick. Once this circumsatnce changed, the law was repealed. I’m not sure of the reasons why there would be a ban on acting on ones homosexual tendencies. I would guess it has to do with the initial need for the society to grow, and it is possible that, like the issue of racism in the society around the church in America, allowing practicing homosexuals into the church would hamper its growth because of homophobia. Now that homosexuality is gaining broader societal acceptance, allowing homosexuality to be practiced in the church will not damage its opportunity to grow.)
I have a simple response–WHO CARES! The Mormon Church always has someone to hate–blacks, people in other religions, ‘homosexuals, feminists and intellectuals’. Why on earth remain in an organization that has no more to do with Christ than Chevron does? Any homosexual person will be infinitely happier to leave Mormonism once and for all. No organization is more dedicated to our destruction than the Mormon Church. Once we have won our battle for equal protection under the law, I for one will be happy to have nothing further to do with Mormons ever. Once we achieve full equality, I will not be remotely concerned how much Mormons hate me or whether or not they have moved on to a new ‘enemy’.
@Michael-”there are some policies/doctrines that are treated less relevant than others. It is a doctrine that you should not take the Lord’s name in vain or swear, but you can still enter the temple after having done so earlier in the day. It is doctrine that you should not have pre-marital sex, and you cannot enter the temple after having done so.”
This is not true, I currently hold a temple recommend but had premarital sex starting at 15 yrs old and my first child was conceived out of wedlock. There is repentance. Nobody follows you around to see if you’re swearing then prohibits your entrance. You need to be working on obedience, not proving to be perfect.