Some years ago, as an exercise in rhetoric/argument and in an effort to explore the ramifications of my thoughts on this issue, I tried to draft a theoretical PR news statement for the church that would change its position on homosexuality while persuasively defending its leaders’ credibility to prospectively speak on behalf of God on other moral issues. I spent half a day on it, and the final result was trash.
Like @Vort, I never want to box myself into the corner of seeing that “if the church leadership does x, I will leave.” I always want to leave an opening for receiving further light and knowledge through personal revelation. But at the same time, I will freely admit: I don’t know how to square that circle. The church has entrenched itself on the issue of gay marriage far more deeply, and in a way that leaves far less room for future reversal, than it ever did on other issues like polygamy or the priesthood/temple ban on black people. The old standbys of “well, they always said that might change later“ or “well, it was only one prophet who said that; it wasn’t the united voice of the Q15 speaking in an official capacity and other prophets and apostles were saying this instead“ are not available to us here.
I think, if I stayed at all in such a contingency, the “natural JAG” would be far less willing to inconvenience myself for the church’s sake. I’d have a hard time teaching; if I slept in on a Sunday If have a hard time hustling to get to church on time (or at all); I’d be sorely tempted to suspend tithing until some other financial priorities had been met. So . . . yeah.