I do not believe I said that. What I do believe is that one cannot be a faithful LDS if one elevates science above scriptures and prophets. Science has a role in advancing knowledge, but provides nothing in regards to wisdom and morality.

Your statement in (62) indicated that unless Church leaders could cite studies supporting their position, then their rejection of SSM is just baseless homophobia. As I said, we will not agree so I just want to clarify – it seems to me that I am unwilling to accept the current state of worldly wisdom and you are unwilling to accept the scriptures and prophets (on this issue).

I did my best to try and follow the link. Dozens of typos made it rather difficult. I joined the Church in 1979, so have no insight to the dynamics at play prior the Declaration. I do not know the reasons for the prior Church teachings, beyond the common lore and speculation. Your statement that the scriptures have been used for nefarious purposes means to me that living prophets are vital to avoid being led astray. That is what I see happening with this issue.

Physical and psychological attributes we are born with are not necessarily eternal.

Would it be right for the church to endorse or support SSM’s suspecting or possibly knowing full well that such actions would prove damaging throughout the eternities?

-Yes, the only options for gay members who want to get sealed is to be sealed to a member of the opposite sex, because that is what sealing is.

-Yes, gay members must give up hope for gay romances. They probably have to give up hope for straight romances, as well. (Not many people have gone broke betting on science to solve problems, and for a gay Latter-day Saint their homosexuality is, indeed, a problem, but as I mentioned our society will probably not produce a sexual orientation-changing drug. I don’t think most people here would be opposed to a gay drug on principle. Straight drug, yes, because that implies homosexuality is pathological, but a gay drug would be merely recreational. They would probably work on the same principle.)

-Giving up hope for romance is not the worst thing in the world.

-Giving up hope for romance is not the worst thing in the world.

-Living the Gospel is really, really hard, and it’s harder for some people than it is for others, and this has always been so.

-Facing trials makes us stronger. Facing harder trials makes us stronger than that.

-God’s perspective is not ours.

-Many things that seem eternal and significant in the cloud of mortality will seem trifling in eternity.

-Claiming that exaltation is not offered to gays implies homosexuality is intrinsic to our eternal spirits, which themselves we know little about.

-There are many things more unjust about life than the inability of faithful homosexuals to experience romantic love in it.

Do we agree that the only options for gay members is either marry a person of the opposite sex (which has not proven to be successful,) can you imagine agreeing to spend your life in a gay relationship, if you are not gay?

Or give up all notions of romance, for ever, and the only hope for the eternities is…?

We really don’t have anything to offer gay people in the church. We offer hetro people family, and exaltation. We don’t offer these to gay people do we?

For gay non members, we oppose them getting married (marriage is the preferred option for others because it is better for a stable society to have families rather than promiscuous singles, or for that matter lonely singles).

Why is marriage not the preferred option for gay people?

I guess you are correct if you revere science in general and modernity in particular. I do not, and far more trust scriptures and latter day prophets to provide wisdom. Obviously we will continue to disagree on this, so it is important to clarify just why we disagree.

Not so.

We try to teach people not to act on those urges, for doing so would be sin. We try to teach people to choose to be holy and to more fully follow the way of our God. Some would call this perspective “cultural biases and traditional superstitions” in an attempt to de-legitimize the perspective. But that perspective is honorable and should have a place in the public square.

In terms of inquiring of the Lord, they must be exasperated at this suggestion. They have tried to restate the result of their inquiry a dozen different ways, and some people still don’t like the answer.

The notion that mutually falling in love with and marrying the person one is attracted to physically, mentally, spiritually, etc. should, in this era of greater knowledge and understanding, equate with a predisposition to do the “inappropriate” or to bowing to a “carnal nature” totally baffles me.

Have our prophets really ever inquired of the Lord and addressed the question in such a context yet?

The idea that if homosexuality is not a choice, then we must be accepting has always puzzled me. I think it can be argued that a predisposition to do many inappropriate things is innate to certain people. We all have some cross to bear. It seems to me a basic gospel principle is that we are called upon to rise above our carnal natures. That this might me more difficult for some is a reason for heightened compassion, but does not change our underlying position.

The lingering difficulty for many people is whether homosexuality is merely a choice or whether it is something that has roots in human biology. If, as most evidence suggests, it is biological and that a sexual identity is imprinted on certain people in the womb, then we might be in for a future of continued soul searching.

Or, if you prefer a different perspective based on the Savior’s own words in Matthew 25, the only difference between those who end up on his right hand (the sheep) and those who end up on the left (the goats) is how they treat the poor and disadvantaged. The greatest sin here seems to be a lack of compassion. It’s possible that Alma’s reaction to his son’s little fling with Isabel has deflected many a Mormon from what the Savior views as the most important criterion for salvation. We do tend to have a sex-fixated culture in the Church. Blame Alma?