Changing the Mormon Conversation on Homosexuality

This is from a Mormon Bishop in San Francisco. Very touching. Bridget

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/changing-the-mormon-conversation-on-homosexuality/2012/06/25/gJQAjV1X2V_story.html

Certainly, another encouraging sign. But these efforts (such as this and Bishop Kloosterman’s amazing talk) are in the category of ‘plausible deniability’ — they get press, but are not officially sanctioned by the church.

As long as the church fails to repudiate the policy of discrimination against gays, members in it will continue their discriminatory behavior. Recently, I implored the head moderator on LDS.net to not post quotes by church leaders encouraging discrimination (GBH has some classic quotes in this genre). The result was me being banned from LDS.net after three posts. And the head mod says she has two gay sons…how screwed up is that?

It think from the 60s onward, the church tried the plausible deniability regarding blacks. it took a lot of years, the threatened expulsion of BYU from the NCAA, and the threatened withdrawal of tax exempt status for the church to change the policy on blacks. Since race is unambiguously ‘not chosen’, it probably seems much more justified to give blacks the priesthood, than to allow gays to fully be themselves, including marriage and all things that go with it. After all, ‘nobody is born gay’ – and we don’t go with so-called science and the so-called APA and the so-called DSM-IV…

While I don’t think it likely in my lifetime, I can still hope that someone will understand the formal repudiation is the only thing that will change pubic perception on this issue.

So long as Church doctrine on sexuality remains as it is (i.e., that homosexual conduct is sinful), how much progress can be made on this front? The Church has the same issues that the military had with DADT, which basically boiled down to “it’s okay to be gay, you just can’t act gay.” In a sense, that’s an improvement from the position that “it’s not okay to be gay, period.” But ultimately it will not satisfy the vast majority of gay LDS members, just as DADT didn’t satisfy the vast majority of gay service members.

And I don’t think the comparison between homosexuality and the ban on blacks and the priesthood is as relevant as it might seem. The ban on blacks was based wholly on “modern revelation.” There is no OT, NT or BoM basis for it. I think that gave the Big 15 more room to maneuver, doctrinally, on the repeal. However, there is explicit condemnation of homosexuality in ancient scripture. One might quibble or debate the meaning and continuing relevance of the passages from Leviticus and St. Paul, but one can’t argue that they aren’t there. I think this takes away some of the wiggle room for the Big 15 to operate in, other than to say “love the sinner, hate the sin,” which is essentially what they’ve already done. Considering the prominent place the Law of Chastity occupies both in the temple and in Church teaching, I don’t see it slipping any time soon.

Please don’t take this post as an indication of my position, one way or another, on this issue. I’m simply noting that I think the repeal of the ban was much more defensible doctrinally than a change in the policy on homosexuality (and marriage in particular) would be. I just don’t see where the Big 15 have the room to maneuver on that one.

Frankly, I think there are multiple ways the Church could continue to alter its stance on homosexuality without having to alter its core theology in the slightest. I admit, that’s one area where my beliefs are radically heterodox, but I really do believe it.

Yeah, cwald, the irony is rich, ain’t it?

Frankly, I think there are multiple ways the Church could continue to alter its stance on homosexuality without having to alter its core theology in the slightest. I admit, that’s one area where my beliefs are radically heterodox, but I really do believe it.

What alterations could be made? I don’t see how any homosexual activity could be condoned in light of all that has been said about it.

Are you familar with the 14 F’s of the prophet?

Are you familar with the 14 F’s of the prophet?

Yes, I actually read it yesterday (wasn’t the first time).

I should clarify what I mean by “I don’t see how any homosexual activity could be condoned in light of all that has been said about it.” I am thinking of all scriptures, like Adam and Eve and references to man lying with man. I am thinking of the temple ordinances, the proclamation on the family (I see it as official even though it has not been voted on by the whole membership), Heavenly Father and Mother, the law of chastity, etc. I wonder what alterations could be made without altering core theology.

I understand and agree with you Shawn on the complexities of making such a change.

I also remember when GBH was being interviewed by Larry King and Larry asked what it might take for women to receive the priesthood in our church. GBH’s answer surprised me in that he said it would take a revelation from God to the president of the church on the matter.

Now, this may be the same as saying that it would take an “act of God” – but if we really believe that God leads this church through his Prophet then what is so difficult to understand about an act of God taking us in different and unexpected directions? I believe that this flexibility is one of the advantages of the LDS church. Yes it is hierarchical and led by predominantly conservative elderly leadership, yes it is self promoting and justifying, yes it is stuck in its ways and slow to change – but there is an escape hatch…and that escape hatch is called revelation.

Thank you all for your comments. I really enjoy reading them. Particularly because I also belong to an lds ex-gay type forum that is bashing this article and the lds bishop and people who wrote the new lds acceptance project phamplet. Here is the link to it: http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/LDS-booklet To read it you do have to put in your email address and zip code. It is excellent and written by strong lds scientists and doctors, yet these ex-gay lds forums bash these men. Ticks me off.