Jim Henderson wrote:
> It'll be interesting to observe how this plays out and at what point we 
> start hearing "well, Gays are equal, but it hadn't been revealed to us 
> when that would happen".  From the outside looking in, there seems to be 
> a fair amount of revisionist history in the Church.  As you've studied it 
> and are apparently a former member, I wonder what your perspective on 
> that is?

I can see how you view it as revisionist, and it certainly can appear to 
be that way.  However, there are some subtle distinctions between 
allowing black men to hold the Priesthood, and allowing homosexuals to.

First of all, Blacks weren't excluded because of anything they 
themselves did, but because they happened to be born in a certain 
family.  As such, they weren't considered responsible for their 
condition, and weren't considered sinners because of their skin color. 
It was always understood that, at some future point, they would be 
allowed to hold the Priesthood.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, are called sinners solely because of 
their actions.  Whatever physical urges you might feel or experience, 
the Church teaches that you are in control of your body, and not the 
other way around.

As such, I have a hard time believing that the Church will ever condone 
homosexual activity.

IMNSHO, however, I would be seriously annoyed if someone tried to tell 
me to stop being attracted to women, and to go have sex with men 
instead.  In light of that, I think it would be highly hypocritical of 
me to suggest that homosexuals change their orientation.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message