There are plenty of “Gay” Mormons out there, and I happen to be one of them. However, we don’t refer to ourselves as “Gay”, as that is really a social / lifestyle designation. 3 to 5% of the population is estimated to be homosexual, and that statistic is true whether we’re talking about Mormons or non-Mormons. None of us chose to be homosexual any more than you chose to be straight. Whatever the reason – born that way or a combination of factors – we are what we are. Not all of us have left the Church to pursue a Gay life-style. There are many of us who are faithful members of the Church. About 60% of us are married and have children. We bless the sacrament, attend the Temple, teach your kids in Primary, and even serve missions. I currently teach the High Priest Group in our Ward, but I have served previously in 7 Bishoprics, the High Council and in the Stake Presidency. And yes, my local Church leaders know of my homosexuality. Sexual orientation does not preclude one from service in the Kingdom, the blessings of the Gospel, or the love of the Savior.

If you would like to become more informed about the teachings of the Church on homosexuality, I suggest you pick up a copy of the October 2007 Ensign and read the article by Elder Holland on the subject. There is also a new Church pamphlet titled “God Loveth His Children” that addresses this issue and how members of the Church should respond to it. I hope you will take the time to read these materials.

Homosexual members of the Church face many daunting challenges, but one we should not have to face is cruelty and bigotry from Church members. Its sad to see many who have made solemn covenants to love as Christ would love lay aside their Christianity when it comes to this subject. I hope and pray that will change, for all our sakes.

Regards,

Neal

http://www.abc4.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?articleID=88962

I could ignore that comment, but I’ll bite. Your comment was uncharitable and out of line with what the brethren are teaching about homosexual tendencies among members. Please remember that we’re talking about actual people here, some of whom may be friends in your own ward. The “church vs. the gays” storyline is a gay rights community perspective but not the church’s way of looking at these issues. (No, REALLY!) Please think twice before tossing hand grenades on the bloggernacle. It’s called troll behavior, even if you think you represent the church’s perspective.

Wade Nelson,

“If public perception of the Church doe not matter then why is Church organization littered with P.R. personnel and callings?”

There is a slight misunderstanding because I didn’t mean to express that and I can agree with your view of P.R and that public perception is important to the church. They never will call a controversial figure as a general authority, for example.

But in this same sex marriage issue (while they do try to draw a delicate line) they actually want the world to know about our beliefs and what is just simply unacceptable. Its an issue were it is worthwhile to take a public stance even when all those gays and gay supporters become more hateful to the church. I doubt anyway that these people will one day be mormons, unless they change as much as, say, Michael Glatze did(

…………

About Hinkley, he would have done exactly the same, as that leaked memo from shows

“If public perception of the Church doe not matter then why is Church organization littered with P.R. personnel and callings?”

There is a slight misunderstanding because I didn’t mean to express that and I can agree with your view of P.R and that public perception is important to the church. They never will call a controversial figure as a general authority, for example.

But in this same sex marriage issue (while they do try to draw a delicate line) they actually want the world to know about our beliefs and what is just simply unacceptable. Its an issue were it is worthwhile to take a public stance even when all those gays and gay supporters become more hateful to the church. I doubt anyway that these people will one day be mormons, unless they change as much as, say, Michael Glatze did(http://www.massresistance.org/docs/events07/Michael_Glatze/index.html).

………………

About Hinkley, he would have done exactly the same, as that leaked memo from shows (http://www.massresistance.org/docs/events07/Michael_Glatze/index.html)

The Church participated in essentially the same way (though *maybe* not to the same degree) in the 2000 Prop. 22 campaign. So yes, President Hinckley would have and did choose this course of action.

I do think that because of President Hinckley’s expertise in PR he would have been more under the radar on supporting the Proposition.

Just an opinion, but I suspect the man who wrote most of the words in the Proclamation on the Family and also the book “Standing for Something” would have done the same thing as his successors. With his PR expertise he might have nuanced things differently, but I’m gussing that the differences had he been living would have been more in terms of style than in substance.

I am not well versed on the Church’s actions, but I am pretty sure that the Church participated in other state and federal actions to define marriage between a man and woman during Gordon B. Hinckley’s time as Prophet. I recall in once case a specific letter signed by many clergy that included an apostle’s signature – Elder Nelson, I believe. Maybe someone else can fill in the details and sources.

Your point is well taken I wonder whether GBH would have chosen this battle. Just a question.

Again, I don’t relish or enjoy the bad PR we get and will get. But I’d rather go to church with thick-skinned, calloused-kneed saints than with a bunch of folks who crave the popularity of the world. Wherever you stand on Prop 8 or other topics, I’m hoping we respond to bad press vigorously and humbly. And I hope the bad PR causes us to care more about being popular with God and to care less about what others may think.

We do not control the Mormon Brand.

I think this is a perfectly acceptable position for the LDS Church to take on gay marriage. I think it only confuses gay identified youth who are brought up in Mormon homes that there is a place for them in the Church. I wish the Church would just come out and say: We do not accept the concept of a gay identity, now go away. The Church approved alternatives of living a celibate life alone or to enter a mixed orientation marriage are not acceptable to most sane individuals. Such alternatives have led to depression and in some cases suicide.

They are actually saying that it isn’t fair that gays compare themselves to the blacks slaves and are going after ‘white’ churches only since some 70 of blacks voted against gay marriage.

Interesting that the Red Eye crew start now to criticize the gay protests. If they do I wonder how many of the silent majority are getting sick of gay protest now and are secretly saying ‘go away’. If it is a silent majority then the church as the more visible institution against this gay marriage, have certainly hit the mark in being the leaders against gay marriage. Again the first presidency was inspired in what they did -it also got the message out to the Mormon bloggers as to where our doctrine actually sits in this matter.

But your conclusion:

“Who are the Mormons? The come from Utah and used to marry more than one wife and used to deny blacks full participation in their temples. They are also the ones who fought against same sex marriage in California because their prophet told them to.

That might lack perspective but where would the falsehood lie?”

I’d say is spot on and correct. Of course its simplistic but there isn’t a falsehood in it. And remember that God gives the doctrine and God changes it, as He did with polygamy in 1880′s (I think 1880?) Plus the revelations and even the bible was clear on the backs issue: First the Jews would here the gospel and hold the priesthood, and reject it, then the Gentiles ie europeans, asians; and then finally the Heathen, before Jesus shows himself to the Jews and they will finally believe in him. Simple matter of first this group, then the other group, before going back to the first group, ie Religious Group Theory!

Anyway, I’d also point out that the ‘gay group’ has never been included in any prophesy saying that one day they will hold the priesthood or reach the highest level of the celestial kingdom. They may not be ‘sons of perdition’ off course but there is no promise that gay actions will one day not be considered just sinful. Unless Pt Monson shows up with a new revelations saying that gays can also be exalted, then the matter completely changes.

If people want to read a good rational response to the pro-gay marriage arguments similar to #11, I suggest the preceding link.

I agree that we need to question decision by those in leadership position. How we do this is important though. If we want to keep the Spirit in our lives we need to question in the Lords way. That is a whole different discussion.

My point regarding the 11th Article of Faith is that it was written, and has been used, to my knowledge, by the apostles and prophets to promote understanding and tolerance for views held by other religions. I don’t recall that it has ever been used to settle differences on important doctrine points for members who hold different views.

In his personal history, Hyrum Dayton (ancestor, baptized by Joseph Smith) wrote that he was driven from his home 5 times for the Gospel’s sake and ‘never felt to murmur’. I am fascinated by the reaction of modern members to this issue.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191