Thank you for your thoughtful alternative perspective on the issue.

I don’t have an answer for the evolution of the Church’s position on homosexuality. Not to be lazy, but I would have liked links to the examples you cited.

I do think, however, that comparing the Church’s views on homosexuality to its views on other churches ordinances is not fair. I think you would agree that the temporal integrity and eternal progression of the family are the Church’s main concerns. Other faiths may not possess the priesthood power to make possible the eternal goal, but they do focus on the teachings of God and/or Christ, and moral living, which reinforce the former objective. The gay movement insinuating itself into the family structure dangerously compromises its integrity. Acknowledging the same-sex partnership– or any other union other than an adult man and woman– as falling under the definition of marriage dramatically alters marriages design. To accept homosexual marriage as viable, equal and proper is to open the floodgates of its commonness, which can and will weaken the family structure and society.

The arguments that marriage is already a mockery with its oft-times silly rituals, out-of-wedlock childbearing and high divorce rates are certainly warranted; our society is hurting and the institution is in critical need of rehabilitation. But it’s no excuse to further damage marriage through reinvention, ripping it apart to accommodate all carnal persuasions. To say such alterations are right is the same as saying that marriage is a secular invention and not a holy one.

No one is speaking of their rights to benefits, wills, etc. A same-sex domestic partnership in California can enjoy every benefit a married couple can. Don’t presume, though, that this legitimizes their entitlement to marriage, not if you believe the family structure came from celestial origins.

I wish we could just accept the legality of gay rights in the same spirit we accept the existence of other churches. If gays being married is a mockery of the institution of marriage, isn’t baptism and the laying on of hands without proper authority a mockery of those ordinances? Aren’t they a “threat” to true priesthood authority? Why aren’t we lobbying to outlaw other churches who immitate our ordinances? Are those ordinances any less sacred than marriage? I would say not. But we have learned to accept that and simply tell those who are interested that we have something else to offer.

If the church is going to align itself (safely, I might add, or it wouldn’t have done it) with the Religious Right with this issue, I wish it would be a leader, and not a follower, regarding the obvious: what do gays do now? Do the brethren think gays can change? Do they think they were born that way? Will living the gospel turn them straight or give them the strength to live celibately for their entire lives? Why can’t they really give an answer beyond “We dont know” when asked about these things. Here is where being the spokesmen for the Lord would come in handy and help a lot of people. Read what James E. Faust said in 1995, where he was adamant that gays aren’t born that way, to what Oaks said not long after that there is evidence that indicates that they might. Then listen to what President Hinckley said in the 2000s. It is clear that what they believe about this issue evolves based on what science is telling us, not God.

I hope you’re not suggesting that that acceptance of civil rights will reach the extent of allowing temple marriages to gay couple. I don’t think that’s what you meant, but if you did, in my most open of minds I can’t behind that prediction.

I think part of this tremendous push for the passage of Prop 8 was for the church to tell the world that it was for traditional marriage, and a way to distance itself from its polygamist past.

Emphasize “part,” and a smaller one at that. I wouldn’t presume to second-guess the possibility of divine influence, regardless of the position’s unpopularity– within the church or without.

To really get a grasp that the Lord never banned the priesthood from Blacks — humans influenced by U.S. culture did, read Lester Bush’s 1973 article in Dialogue on the history of that policy. It was church leaders, not intellectuals and secularists, that came up with all the justifications behind it, such as blacks not being valiant in the pre-existence, being under the curse of Cain, and then conveniently forgetting that Blacks did hold the priesthood in Joseph Smith’s day. Here, the theology created as a justification fo the policy did tremendous damage. The secularists and intellectuals were saying what the mainstream church says today. It was leaders who were behind the times, clinging to an outdated theology and just plain stupid folklore.

Keep in mind also, that the “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach to Gays in the church is relatively new. Read what the brethren said in the 60s and 70s. Again, it is just a matter of time before compassion emerges as acceptance of civil rights in this area. I guarantee that.

Over all of the above, sprinkle the fact that the entire time the church practiced and performed polygamy (1841-1904), the only time it was legal was from 1847-1862 in Utah Territory. We broke the law to practice and encourage an alternate form of marriage that many saints still believe will either come back (which it never will, I can guarantee you), or will at least be practiced in the hereafter. I think part of this tremendous push for the passage of Prop 8 was for the church to tell the world that it was for traditional marriage, and a way to distance itself from its polygamist past.

It isn’t always easy to be a church historian, but one thing it has taught me is that past is prologue.

I think it’s too easy a temptation to look at this as another example of the Church discriminating against and persecuting a group. That’s secular thinking. The focus, IMHO, should be on marriage as a God-created institution. We don’t ban gays from church or the Gospel, we don’t exclude them from our circles of friends, but we can, should and do try to protect marriage from losing its original meaning.

Centuries ago the only ones the Lord allowed in the temple were Levites. How does the secular mind wrap around that?

Judging by the attitudes you expressed in this post you may not care about this, but the term “homosexuals” is really an inappropriate term to use. It is better to refer to the community at large as GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) or LBGT not has “homosexuals.”

The church has been on the wrong side of history before, and time will show that they are this time as well. I suspect one day they will react as they have in the past: let enough time pass, and then play down the fact that they ever taught anything but civil equality for gays. If our history tells us anything, it is that we can sanitize our past pretty easily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stand:_Captain_Trips