How can LDS accommodate gays?

[MikeWaters]

The fundamental problem here is why God would "create" someone who is gay.

There are two responses to this by mullahs:
1) being gay is a choice, not an involuntary condition.
2) if it was not a choice, then it is merely a challenge like unto being born with cerebral palsy, or a predilection towards using drugs.

Of course, there is a general trend away from #1, and I think an increasing awareness that sexuality really is a fundamental part of the human condition that is hard to "erase" from a person's existence.

Does the church currently have an official explanation on why some people are gay? Based on talks in GC recently, no, I don't think so. And I believe there is some acknowledgment, at least implied, that it is a mystery.

The most accommodating thing I can see in the near future, is for the church to come forward and say what a lot of LDS relatives of gays believe: that why people are gay is a mystery, and what will happen in the afterlife to them is also a mystery, but we trust in a God that is merciful, and we believe all will be ok eventually.

This is in contrast to the current belief of what happens to someone who leaves the church and sexually transgresses.

The thing that would prevent this is that it represents a fundamental sea-change in the gospel--that active membership and good-standing in the church for someone that knows of the gospel, is not necessarily required.

So I suspect that idea that gays in sexual relationships will go to the Mormon version of hell (whether that is Terrestrial, Telestial or Outer Darkness) will continue, without any real theological explanation.

Where the church does not provide guidance, it is up to each member to find their own peace certainly.

[Archaea]

This post makes sense.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This post makes sense.

I think the church has come pretty close to saying it's #2. Maybe not in bold, as I put it, but pretty close.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...31&postcount=1

Nice analysis, MW.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The fundamental problem here is why God would "create" someone who is gay.

There are two responses to this by mullahs:
1) being gay is a choice, not an involuntary condition.
2) if it was not a choice, then it is merely a challenge like unto being born with cerebral palsy, or a predilection towards using drugs.

Of course, there is a general trend away from #1, and I think an increasing awareness that sexuality really is a fundamental part of the human condition that is hard to "erase" from a person's existence.

Does the church currently have an official explanation on why some people are gay? Based on talks in GC recently, no, I don't think so. And I believe there is some acknowledgment, at least implied, that it is a mystery.

The most accommodating thing I can see in the near future, is for the church to come forward and say what a lot of LDS relatives of gays believe: that why people are gay is a mystery, and what will happen in the afterlife to them is also a mystery, but we trust in a God that is merciful, and we believe all will be ok eventually.

This is in contrast to the current belief of what happens to someone who leaves the church and sexually transgresses.

The thing that would prevent this is that it represents a fundamental sea-change in the gospel--that active membership and good-standing in the church for someone that knows of the gospel, is not necessarily required.

So I suspect that idea that gays in sexual relationships will go to the Mormon version of hell (whether that is Terrestrial, Telestial or Outer Darkness) will continue, without any real theological explanation.

Where the church does not provide guidance, it is up to each member to find their own peace certainly.

I probably agree with #2. Maybe with more understanding I'll think differently, but right now I don't look at being gay as anything materially different than someone with drug addiction, physical handicap, mental health issues, difficult family situations, etc. as far as being a major trial in life to overcome. And I believe we all struggle with incredibly difficult private trials.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I also would transfer that same sentiment to all "sinners". We need to focus less on works and judging others and ourselves and more on coming to Christ.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I probably agree with #2. Maybe with more understanding I'll think differently, but right now I don't look at being gay as anything materially different than someone with drug addiction, physical handicap, mental health issues, difficult family situations, etc. as far as being a major trial in life to overcome. And I believe we all struggle with incredibly difficult private trials.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I also would transfer that same sentiment to all "sinners". We need to focus less on works and judging others and ourselves and more on coming to Christ.

Not all of us believe that a gay person having an intimate relationship is a sin.

That's the difference.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Not all of us believe that a gay person having an intimate relationship is a sin.

That's the difference.

I know. I'm not a hard-liner on the subject, but I do believe it is a sin.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Not all of us believe that a gay person having an intimate relationship is a sin.

That's the difference.

How about two single heterosexuals having an intimate relationship. Are there some of you who believe that isn't a sin.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Adam

The church can accommodate gays in the following ways:

1. Stop fighting purely political fights to prevent civil rights from being extended to them.

2. Apologize for attaching electric shock probes to their genitals, showing them gay porn, and then frying their penis when they got aroused.

3. Do a documentary about the non-practicing, openly gay EQP serving in his BYU ward, the non-practicing, openly lesbian RSP serving in her California ward, etc. and show it during a world-wide leadership broadcast and have President Packer give a tearful account of how he overcame his homophobia and give a directive to local church leaders to do the same.

4. Allow homosexuals in a committed in a civil marriage to hold callings and serve in the church. I'm not saying drop the law of chastity's prohibition against gay sex, but rather allow a homosexual couple to teach sunday school or be the choir director or run the ward newsletter. There is no doctrinal reason to ban sinners from serving.

Elder Christofferson's brother is a homosexual and lives with his life-partner in New York. There is hope that Elder Christofferson will help nudge the church in the right direction on this issue. We can only hope.

3 and 4 are good ideas.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

2. Apologize for attaching electric shock probes to their genitals, showing them gay porn, and then frying their penis when they got aroused.

I'm truly sorry you had to go through that Adam.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by jay santos

3 and 4 are good ideas.

I like 3, but am definitely opposed to 4. If we are going to have a law of chastity, we have to have a law of chastity.

I have been a divorced man for 25 years now. I understand the concept of chastity. I understand to fully participate in my culture, I have to obey that law. Should I choose not to, I don't expect anyone in the church to grant me an exception.

I certainly think I have as much grounds to claim I should be treated as everyone else in the ward as someone who wants to have a homosexual relationship. It is my contention that neither I or they have such claim. Rules are rules.