Of course, we were discrete — as I would have been, even, were I with a woman. Public grooming is just not appropriate (though holding hands is fine by me).

@26… Chris… Um, I’m sorry to inform you that my being gay and the feelings I have for men are no more a temptation than the feelings you have for women. Your porn problem or Tom’s smoking problem are not comparable to my being gay. I’m not sure what it might be comparable to, because I’m not entirely sure what will happen to my attractions post-resurrection. I am fairly confident that it’s not an eternal condition, but there you go. Assuming it’s not an eternal condition, then perhaps comparing it to congenital blindness or deafness might be appropriate.

@28… Mark B… I can square it just fine. Families are still central to God’s plan. And my not making babies will in no way change that… nor will the barren straight couple two pews back.

@44… Jjohnsen… I wouldn’t be so quick on the draw, there, cowboy. I’m out in my ward and stake (both in Utah), and even have a meaningful calling. Prejudice isn’t as deeply ingrained or as pervasive as some might think.

@78… Steven B… The missionary/mormon fetish is pretty strong, actually. Latter-days was a recent movie that got wide play about a sexual relationship with a LDS missionary; Angels in America a play and movie won many awards and is still considered a must-see by many gays… it focuses part of its story on the extramarital homosexual affair of a gay mormon; there were the photos of gay “missionaries” at Salt Lake Community College which caused a big stir a couple years back… just sayin’.

@115… GST… ROFLOL.

———-

So, I know that I’ve come to the table after it’s already been cleared… but that hasn’t stopped me in the past. For those who don’t know me, I’m a regular commenter in these parts, an active and faithful latter-day saint, gay, and out. I think this post warrants the attention it’s gotten because this is a looming issue for the Church. And wards are at the forefront of the discussion.

On PDA in general: I think it’s largely inappropriate in any context – moreso in a place people are gathered together — and moreso, yet, in a worship service. That said, I don’t think that back scratching can be construed, on its face, as anything but “nit picking”. It’s an innocuous act of intra-species bonding. And it feels nice. I’ve scratched and been scratched… and I have no problem with it.

On back-scratching among gay men at church… while there is no difference, per se, between hetero and queer back scratching, I do believe that a certain amount decorum is expected of members. And care should be taken to avoid making a stir when one can. I just don’t think that worship services are an appropriate venue for distracting behavior in general (except by really anerable children, they get a pass).

On this being an earnest of days to come… I dunno. I certainly yearn for a day when I am encouraged to find a life partner and settle into the very real soul building that comes from being in a committed relationship. But, barring that, I would hope that the silliness derived from the notions that gayness is “caught” or otherwise spread like a virus passes the way of the silly notions about blacks in the pre-existence. Which would mean that, as a gay man, my motives wouldn’t be impugned every time I made a gesture of any sort towards another man.

I agree with Rex in saying that such reactions are more a sign of a dirty mind than anything else. To paraphrase Paul: “to the righteous, all things are righteous”.

So there you go… too late to the party, but them’s my two cents.

And that as a practical matter that a home teacher, visiting teacher, friend, fellow ward member or bishop, whose first interaction with a gay person was to remind gays of the Churches (the Lord’s) position on homosexuality, was probably not helping the gay person. The highest priority is to establish a relationship based on love, and that extended listening was probably necessary for that to happen.

Actually it might be helpful to start with letting the gay person know of part of the Churches position on gays, the part about loving them, welcoming them into the ward and showing the same respect and compassion we want to be shown.

How is a Bishop calling someone to repentance different from helping them return to Father in Heaven? I can understand that the manner in which said calling is done may encourage or discourage a sinner (which we all are), but to say that a Bishop has some other, higher responsibility than calling someone to repentance is to ignore what repentance means. Repentance means turning to God, coming into closer communion with Him. There is no higher calling. (OK, that said, I don’t think CW was saying anything different. . . Like I said, offender for a word.)

“You can’t show forth an increase in love after reproving somebody, if you haven’t established a loving relationship beforehand.”

No truer words have been spoken anywhere.

As far as extending callings I do agree that worthiness affects which callings we can extend, but doesn’t generally prevent us from finding some calling appropriate to the individual. For example a practicing lesbian, or heterosexual adulterer could be the Relief Society chorister, but probably not the Relief Society president.

I should clarify that this would apply to gays, or adulterers who value their Church membership and want to be a part of the ward. If we are willing to talk frankly and lovingly, there is a way for them to be involved.

I agree that it is part of the Bishop’s job to call members to repentance, but a higher responsibility is to help them return to be with Heavenly Father. Members may have needs that are of more importance than being called to repentance.

I have found that the most important thing I can do with most ward members is to listen to them. When I understand their story, their fears and concerns, the injustices they have suffered, their side of the story, so to speak, they generally call themselves to repentance. When you truly listen long enough that you understand them they usually begin to talk about the things they need to change. At that point your offer to help is much more effective than calling people to repentance who feel bitter and angry and view you as an enemy.

If you listen long enough, you become their ally. And that is more important than calling somebody to repentance who is not receptive. You can’t show forth an increase in love after reproving somebody, if you haven’t established a loving relationship beforehand. And establishing that relationship is of greater importance than calling members to repentance and is exactly why we need to love all ward members and find calling that are appropriate for them.

You’re assuming much in my comment that isn’t there. I’m really only saying two things. First, bishops are to call their flocks to repentance. Second, bishops generally don’t issue callings to those who have no intention of keeping the law of chastity. So if there is a knowingly “committed” homosexual couple in a bishop’s ward, and that couple has no intention of even trying to keep the law of chastity, then the bishop may be doing serious harm both to the sinner and the church by extending callings.

And as far as their membership in the Church, they pretty much have to elect to leave the Church. To excommunicate a gay, or anyone else, requires a confession from the guilty party, and the guilty parties consent to use their confession against them, or two witnesses who have seen the offense being committed. Of course there are other exceptions to this such as a legal conviction in a court of law. But people aren’t convicted of “homosexuality” so that wouldn’t really apply to this discussion.

Hence any gay who wants to stay a member of the Church, can do so. (If they were to go out and get married in California or Massachusetts, I suppose that could be the basis for an excommunication.) You can’t excommunicate people for having a same gender room mate. Unless they elect to allow you to use their own confession in a disciplinary council, or two people witness the sex act itself, and are willing to testify in the disciplinary council, there are no grounds for an excommunication.

And as far as your comment: “but if it’s just because he (the bishop) wants to live in an “I’m okay, you’re okay” kind of world, then he’s ignoring his mandate.” I would characterize it more as “I’m a sinner, your a sinner,” lets see if we can help each other out in this mortal trial we are both going through, because this is my mandate.