This week the LDS church launched a new website that is an attempt at rapprochement to the gay community, and perhaps their own little attempt at penance for the Prop 8 PR fiasco in California.

According to an interviewed official on KSL-TV, “…the site has been under development for more than two years”. [Personal aside: I could have put it together in a day; it must have been getting buy-in from Boyd K. Packer that took the other 729 days.]

Here are a few quotes from the site that stood out for me (all emphasis is mine):

This official website does not offer a comprehensive explanation of everything related to same-sex attraction, but it does reflect the feelings of Church leaders as to how we should treat each other as part of the human family. The site offers a place where the people whose lives are impacted by attraction to the same sex can find inspiration to work through difficult challenges while remaining faithful to Church teachings.

The Church’s approach to this issue stands apart from society in many ways. And that’s alright. Reasonable people can and do differ. From a public relations perspective it would be easier for the Church to simply accept homosexual behavior. That we cannot do, for God’s law is not ours to change. There is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right. But what is changing — and what needs to change — is to help Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere.

(more…)

Two words: Lyndon Lamborn

Descriptive LINK and his BOOK

The Salt Lake Tribune published an article over the weekend that detailed an LGBT event for LDS-oriented people. Apparently one self-invited speaker–Bishop Kevin Kloosterman–gave an inspiring talk that the Trib has titled “Mormon bishop says church responsible for gays’ emotional wounds“.

Some commentators are saying that the Trib is making too much of this and has missed the gist of his comments. To those, I submit a transcript of his remarks.

For me, these were the most confirming:

And as I read these stories and as I learned more about these issues, I began to see the emotional wounds and the scars that many of you still have today. And I seem to ask the question, “Where did you get these wounds?” and unfortunately the answer was, “In the house of my friends.”

A new friend-of-a-friend on Facebook has posted a couple of photos of himself dressed in female temple clothes: white robe, veil and green fig leaf-embroidered apron.

He did this in protest to his recent excommunication from the Mormon church. In June of this year, he wrote a letter to his local authorities requesting to have his name removed from the church rolls. They responded by inviting him to a church court, wherein he was excommunicated in absentia within days for “apostasy”.

And yet, the 2010 edition of Church Handbook of Instructions specifically states:

6.14.1 Name Removal and Suspected Transgression

A request for name removal should be acted upon whether or not priesthood leaders suspect or have evidence of transgression. Any allegations or evidence of unresolved transgressions are noted on the Report of Administrative Action form so priesthood leaders may resolve such matters in the future if the individual applies for readmission into the Church.

So here we have a young man and returned missionary, who clearly stated that he wanted to resign his membership and they disregarded church policy and said effectively, “You can’t quit; you’re fired”.

Não mexe com o ex-Élder Dias

Chatting with a friend this week and I noted a couple of interesting things: I always remember the date of my baptism (08 September 1973), but barely the date of my excommunication (sometime in early 2001). One was significant in my life and the other, not so much.

I guess by that time in my life, I was pretty much done and the fight had gone out of me.

Being rejected for being myself is more a badge of honor than a symbol of shame.