carlimac

This past Sunday, I gave an Easter message, which is shocking they trusted me with that.  Additionally, I was also playing the "rest hymn" from my phone.  Jesu, The Very Thought Is Sweet, nice song.  You can guess what happened.  I got so wrapped up in giving the talk that I forgot I had to get my phone ready, like, airplane mode.  As it would happen, one of my daughters called and the ring went over the sound system, very loud, in the middle of a spiritual song.  Thank goodness I stick with phone rings and not "Baby Got Back" or something. It really was comedy gold.
So I was thinking that I could not be the only one to contribute to the sometimes comedy routine called Sacrament Meeting.  Go ahead, what's your story or what have you witnessed?
I will confess I used my phone to record my talk.  Wanted to see what I sounded like, which is close to a chain smoking dock worker.  But still, airplane mode, DUH!

Imagine the misery of going through life after rejecting the true gospel you once loved.
I was explaining to my daughter the other day that, for me, there is no alternative to the Restored Gospel.  If the Book of Mormon and Church weren't true, I couldn't find answers in any other faith; they have similar or greater flaws and fewer answers.  On the other hand, disbelieving God exists would make life a meaningless pursuit of pleasures, at which point, I might as well choose to believe; if I die and cease to exist, I have lost nothing and am none the wiser, yet gospel structured living blessed me with family, hope, redemption, and personal growth through my mortal sojourn.  In myriad ways, the opportunity cost of living without the gospel is far greater than that of living with it, hence, there is no satisfactory alternative.
I'm so grateful to know that Christ is my Savior and to have His true Restored Gospel in my life.

"It is what it is." This is usually said with such a profound undertone, when it actually means nothing. Perhaps it means we should just accept things as they are, but if so, how defeatist is that?
Ah well...I guess it's good enough for government work (another gem).

Lots of science fiction literature on the subject.
I personally like Frank Herbert’s solution in Dune written back in Aug ‘65

Has there ever been war in a city where there is a standing temple?

Jerusalem, A.D. 70.  The temple there didn’t come off too well.
(A little less tongue-in-cheek:  I think that maybe there was some gang street-fighting that resulted in some bullets striking the door of a temple—maybe in Nigeria?  But in terms of a modern nation-state with an LDS temple losing a war and being occupied by a hostile power:  I think there is no modern precedent for that.)

I don’t think he is actively trying to create a war.  But I think he’s hoping that we will think there is about to be a war.  It’s a distraction from other bad news; and if war doesn’t happen, he can claim it was due to his statesmanship. Whereas if it does, it’s a twofer for him—he can claim to have predicted it, and hopefully a few errant bombs destroy whatever repository is holding the papers/servers that could get Hunter convicted.

1.  But here I have to come back to the pedophilia counterexample--as always, not because homosexuality is on par in terms of grievousness; but because the logic you use to defend the one case is so easily applied to the other.  If exceptions to the Law of Chastity are the birthright of anyone who can claim a biological basis thereto, then why don't we give the moral greenlight to any pedophile (or for that matter, necrophiles or zoophiles, whose crimes have no human victims) to act out on their desires so long as they claim a revelatory justification for their predilection? 
2.  If you'll pardon my saying so, you seem perilously close to adopting a sort of iconoclastic nihilism here.  Even if your arguments were sound (and I don't think they are--as I'll address in a moment)--I think we may quickly be approaching a moment where it may be appropriate to step back, take a breath and say "Okay, folks:  no revelation through scriptures, no revelation through ecclesiastical channels, no individualized process that we can objectively justify and defend to third parties as being 'revelation' in the first place--do we even know that there's a Lawgiver at all; and if we can justify x, then what can't we justify--and, why?"
But back to the argument at hand--a couple of issues I see in this reasoning are: 
a) You're taking a view of morality generally that is particular to your own culture and remains in a certain state of flux (for example, lots of BLM folks are now openly stating that integration has failed and that re-imposition of racial segregation is the way to go);
b) Your examples to some degree depend on fundamentalist/historical readings of scripture and/or don't necessarily allow for extreme circumstances faced by the peoples involved that we could never contemplate today. 
(I'm thinking particularly of your claims of "genocide" here, and to that end I would ask:
Can we be sure about how much of the Conquest narrative is historical versus how much is a bunch of enslaved 5th century  BC Jews needing to believe that at some past point they were just as powerful as their Assyrian/Babylonian captors and/or bitterly lamenting that "we should have killed them all when we have the chance"?  We know, from the books of Judges and Kings and Chronicles, that the Israelites didn't actually wipe out all of the Canaanites; whatever boasts the Book of Joshua may have included to the contrary. And even if we do take those narratives at face value--what kind of extenuating circumstances, if any, might justify such a step?  What if the entire societies were groomed, from toddlerhood on up, to be child rapists/child killers (which Baal/Moloch worshippers frequently were)?  What if those peoples were rife with incurable physiological diseases, or some form of ingrained sociopathy induced by early childhood trauma?  You can't imprison them, you can't cure them, there are no therapists or social workers to process their trauma with them and help them put their lives back together . . . what now?  Have we, in the 21st century USA, ever truly been in a "it's them or us" situation?  If not, can we even begin to pass judgment on people three thousand years ago who *were* in such a situation, or the God who helped them navigate through it by adopting what may well have been the lesser of multiple evils?) c)  There has always been an expectation that regardless of what tomfoolery goes on in the here-and-now, that these injustices will eventually be fixed and that Heaven will be unquestionably "moral" according to God's perfect morality.  Even if we argue that God's past toleration of temporal slavery means God can/would/should tolerate temporal gay sex/marriage in the present--that's not really an argument for eternal gay sex/marriage, unless we are also conceding the argument to those who would advocate for the propriety of eternal slavery.  It's just an argument for kicking the can of repentance down the road and into the Resurrection--which is something a plethora of scriptures warn against.
3.  I think the Church itself would agree with you that it does not represent the only path that leads back to salvation (except to the extent that salvation entails, at least posthumously, receiving priesthood ordinances that can be administered only via priesthood authority). 
But, as far as exaltation goes - the Church is the only path that acknowledges exaltation is even possible; and the theology it has built up around this topic a) has zero precedent for same-sex God-unit-pairs, and b) effectively monopolizes the doctrine since it states that exaltation can only be achieved through liturgical rites that are only valid if performed under the auspices of the Church's priesthood authority.  Unless or until the Church leadership actually switches course, any theology that contemplates gay "sealings" is by its very terms, outside the scope of Mormonism.  
In one respect, you're right that we should probably pay closer attention to what the official statements of the Church on the matter do say, versus what they don't say.  That's fair.
It's also fair to observe that the Church has a surfeit of people in "authority", and we have a penchant for writing down the statements of those individuals, and in so doing we've assembled a massive corpus of statements including material that could be used directly or indirectly to justify pretty much anything under the sun (up to and including Elder Amasa Lyman's suggestion that the Atonement of Christ was extraneous and maybe didn't happen at all).
It's also fair to note that as a Church, we often don't parse President Woodruff's assurance about not leading the Church astray, quite as closely as we should.  What we find, per the additional material accompanying OD-1, is that 
The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.
When Woodruff talks about "leading [the Church] astray", he talks specifically about leading astray from the oracles of God (ie, from their own ability to receive revelation), and from their duty (in other words, he will not incite them to actions or inactions that are contrary to what God wants them to be doing).  The focus of this statement is on priesthood infallibility as to the "whats", not the "whys" (and really, as Latter-day Saints we should be well aware that we don't always get the "whys"--Isaiah 55:8-9 was a scripture mastery when I was growing up). 
In this context, I fear that some of your posts go out of their way to create confusion where there really needn't be any.  While the Church has acknowledged errors in some of the explanations given for the ban by individuals, it has never said that the priesthood ban itself was the result of an inappropriate error or improper usurpation by the combined Church leadership.  The united statements of the First Presidency regarding the priesthood ban (1949, 1969) were very circumspect as to the "whys", and really don't make any doctrinal justifications for the policy that the modern Church has rejected.  So, comparing individualized statements of various highly-ranked Church leaders (even presidents of the Church) to the Proclamation on the Family bearing the collective imprimatur of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, in order either to impugn the priesthood ban or suggest a precedent for this kind of unified collective error, is quite simply an apples-to-oranges comparison. 
In fact, upthread you yourself acknowledge the existence of sources claiming that God "owned" the ban under President McKay.  I presume you're aware of the backstory of these sources, as cited both in Ed Kimball's article and in Prince's biography of President McKay; so I won't go into those more except to suggest that at this point asserting that "the priesthood ban never had divine sanction, ergo, the LGBTQ policies are likely also uninspired" would have to be based on either an ignorance of those sources or else a not-too-subtle inference that President McKay lied (not misunderstood, but lied) on multiple occasions.
But fundamentally, I think the issue comes back to the nature of the testimony that one has (or doesn't have) of those prophets themselves and of their calling and authority (if not their inerrancy).  If one wishes, one can certainly reject their authority and go on encouraging others to disregard some or all of the Church's behavioral standards.  It's just that after a certain point as determined by one's own local priesthood leadership, one can't openly do it and continue to call oneself a Latter-day Saint.  

[Some of this may be stale given subsequent replies; I started drafting this a couple days ago and then had to shut down my laptop and didn't get back to the thread until just now]
1.  I would acknowledge the possibility--even probability--that the priesthood ban came from God at least in part as a result of broader social conditions. 
But, the operative phrase here is, came from God. 
I have yet to find an LGBTQ apologist who is willing to concede that divine origin played any role at all in the Church's current teachings and policy.  
Additionally, there's a difference between "we're doing this now because God told us to, and someday it will change" (Church on priesthood ban) versus "what you're proposing is contrary to the eternal order of heaven and it will never change" (Church on LGBTQ issues).
2.  What are we to do with those who plant the seeds of accepting and acting on their predilection for pornography, or illicit drug use, or spousal abuse or sex with children, or tax evasion, or bank robbery, or serial murder, and claim that it has brought goodness into their life?  As a non-pedophile/non-drug addict/non-spouse-beater/full taxpayer/non-bank-robber/not-yet-serial-murderer, I cannot (or, will not) plant and test the seeds of these behaviors; so I can only rely on others' experiences.  Most of these behaviors have even more participants than does gay sex; and the fact that people keep doing these things indicate that they must find such behaviors very rewarding indeed.  It seems that, in a large number of cases, those who follow an Alma 32 type model find that the behaviors I mention above brings goodness into their lives.
The million-dollar question, of course, is "how do we define a 'good tree' or 'good fruit'?"  Do we define it narrowly according to what benefits the self, or do we look at the effects on third-parties as individuals and as society as a whole?  And, do we define it only by what we see in the here-and-now; or do we take an eternal view?  And, if we do take an eternal view, then how do we square up what prophets and scripture tell us the eternal view actually is, versus what we strongly desire and/or logically calculate what the eternal view ought to be?
It seems your post above defines "good" as "sexual release, and the particularized type of emotional intimacy that is often experienced between sexual partners".  I recognize your personal experience in this area, as you've alluded to above.  But frankly, I am suspicious of the moral relativism on this topic to which your experience seems to have led you.
3.  This is an interesting conundrum.  Because, yeah, you want to love others and be open and "safe".  But on the other hand:  In light of everything we know, sometimes people can be pretty darned stupid.  What do a bunch of geophysicists do when someone crashes into their internet forum and tries to argue that the world is flat based on his experience that "I've been to Australia, and I wasn't hanging upside down!"?  You try to be patient, you try to teach better; but when there's an obvious willful refusal to take counsel and even doubling-down on behaviors that one knows will be counterproductive . . . at what point do we say "Brother, I love you; but everyone here is a little dumber for your antics, some people are actually listening to you and starting to deny the existence of gravity, and it's time for you to knock it off or take your circus elsewhere?"  The Lord absolutely calls us to succor the weak; but what do we do when the weak keep narcissistically insisting that they are the strong and whole ones, and that it is only the folks who disagree with them (including pretty much every prophet and apostle in the history of ever) who are weak or broken in any way that requires repentance?
I'm sorry some folks were apparently unkind to Brother Archuleta.  But frankly, pretty much anyone who's ever experienced sexual attraction could have told him that if he started dating men, sooner or later he'd be powerfully inclined to have sex with them.  One can love and respect him deeply while also pointing out that the course of action he proposed was foolish, reckless, and from the get-go likely to be the cause of additional conflict and spiritual pain.  
We don't believe God does lead every individual.  We believe He can lead them, if they let Him.  But we also believe that there's such a thing as absolute truth, and that people are capable of disregarding it and acting like darned jack-donkeys once absolute truth seemingly comes into conflict with whatever our limbic systems are telling us we need.  And I say this as perhaps the king of the darned jack-donkeys myself. 

It is a matter of faith and testimony, which are forms of knowledge. In this sense we know that sexual relations outside of marriage is sin, that marriage is gender-specific, and that homosexual relations fall outside of marriage. I don't think the level of certainty is as important as progress in keeping the covenants and learning from the Holy Ghost.

As it turns out we can speak with a great deal of certainty concerning the Law, the Ordinances and the Covenants that have been given through revelations from G-d.  We also know that all of G-d's children that come to earth come with the certainty of G-d's love - even those (who ever they are) that rebel in the full "light of day" against G-d to fulfill their intent to covenant with Satan (something I have great difficulty understanding why and I have never met anyone that has done so).  We do know that Agency is the single most divinely guarded principle and we each determine our destiny via our Agency.   In the Book of Mormon there is a grand revelation given by revelation called "The Tree of Life".
The most often term used by Jesus Christ that was a title of his followers was the term disciples.  The term disciple has the same root as the term discipline.  The scriptures warn repeatedly that to become a disciple of Christ one must put off "the Natural Man" and become a disciplined Saint of G-d.  Nothing in this life is ever accomplished without discipline.  Even in the secular world - no one becomes expert in any craft without training and discipline.  We have also been told that Satan is a slanderer and intends to beguile all humans unprotected by obedience to covenants - to wander into "forbidden" paths to become lost from the light of truth.
I made a career in the field of automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.  Scientifically we define intelligence as the ABILITY to learn and alter behavior.  There are decades of scientific study that indicate that human attractions (including sexual behaviors) are learned.  I know of no study - not a single actual scientific study that indicates human sexual behavior is not learned.  However, I have also personally observed and I am aware that in scientific studies; that physical pleasure responses in human anatomy is the single strongest driver of human addictions.  I have my personal opinions about human behavior relating to the proclivity of the LGBTQ+ community but I see no reason at this point of this post to include opinion unbacked by scientific research that I can reference if questioned.
But I would reference also that very few human achievements in excellence comes without not only learning but also with the teachings from a "mentor".  In fact in scientific studies the most common denominator of genus is that geneses have mentors.  I believe it is part of our covenant with G-d to "Mentor" others in the light of G-d - mostly by example.  I have never heard a prophet of G-d speak that the Saints of G-d are to be divine examples of LGBTQ+ behavior.  If I have overlooked something I would be most appreciative of help in discovering something I have missed.  I do understand that we must exercise what ever divine love we have acquired towards all of G-d children.  I also understand that it is contrary to the pure love of Christ to "Condemn" anyone - regardless of whatever path they acquire through their G-d given agency.  I know for myself I have seen where the path of LBGTQ+ leads and have determined and chosen for myself to walk a different path or way.
 
The Traveler

During our time on earth...yes. He tolerates all number of sins so that we may have time to repent. 
Personally in His presence...no. No unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God.
This thread, and another one currently active, have amazed me more than once. The seeking for loopholes to justify immoral behavior must stop. The apologetics for sin in the church must stop. As is the case with other sins, there will be no homosexual relations in the Celestial Kingdom of God, period.
Gays, just like everyone else, must learn to bridle their passions and overcome their temptations. We do not give sins an exception just because there may be emotional ties to them.
I am all for learning how to better understand and empathize with others, and know the issue is painfully difficult for those involved, but at the end of the day the practice is sin. It is not, and never will be acceptable in the eyes of God.

The question as you pose it is a toughie, but the question as I’ve modified it represents the scenario we actually face.
And I would agree that from a perspective of evolutionary psychology, it can’t feel right—certainly not in matters of sex, anyways.  The fight/feed/mate responses are governed by the most ancient parts of our brain stem, and if those instincts aren’t being sated there’s likely going to be some measure of discomfort even at the best of times.  But I’ve seen the multigenerational fallout of individual apostasy in my own family; and I’m not about to uproot my entire life (not to mention that of my children and my children’s children) just because my freakin’ amygdala tells me that that’s what I ought to do.
Postmodernism has given “repression” a bad rap, but “repression” is what separates us from the beasts.  And I was reading just the other day that, contra much of 20th Century psychological theory—the latest research so who isn’t that expressing (as opposed to repressing) emotions does not moderate them.  Their very expression allows them to feed into themselves in a way that makes them get stronger and harder to control over time.

Please allow me to explain my question - for this I will use another topic or choice but I think the basic principles are still the same.  Before I get into the deep part of this - I would reference a discussion I had with a friend and police detective.  We were talking about the "criminal mind" and he told me that humans are social animals and the so called criminal mind (with the exception of individuals with severe mental issues) will not continue or continue behaviors without being enabled by others.  Even the most atrocious behavior will not continue unless there is a some kind of support for that behavior.   In essence, intelligent species learn behaviors - both by individual experience (like touching something hot) and the reaction of others (like smelling so badly that others will shun or pull away).
So for my example: let us take a single young man and a single young lady, both returned missionaries that are at the very beginning of establishing a "social" relationship - both looking for a compatible eternal partner (spouse).   But during their "dating" process the young man realizes that the young lady that he dearly likes and respects is into faction and likes wearing classy outfits that are not compatible with the wearing of temple garments.  The young man does want to continue to develop their relationship but how does he deal with the lady's fashion trend realizing that handled improperly - it could be a relationship breaker.  In short how can he deal with what he believes is disrespect for temple covenants without alienating the young lady?  Also keeping in mind that each individual has their Agency.  We can also apply this issue across many relationships both in families and friends - how can we maintain loving relationships when there are conflicts with sacred covenants without encouraging the offending party that their behavior is not okay.  Where is the line that someone crosses before we are willing to say - you should not be doing whatever it is that is not okay.
For myself - I tend to lack what my wife calls filters and indicate that I am uncomfortable with their attitudes towards that which makes me uncomfortable.  In other words I have difficulty with dishonesty with my own feelings and it is hard for me to hide my impressions - even if I am trying not to offend.
 
The Traveler

1.  I think there are two possible contexts for your argument; and in one context it makes sense but in the other it’s less applicable.
Certainly, when we are taking about “what is it that actually makes the relationship sinful”—the analogy between pedophilia and homosexuality breaks down, because of the factors you mention.  Whatever it is that makes gay sex sinful, is certainly more nuanced than mere issues of consent.  (Although there are some pretty disturbing inroads being made that, unopposed, have the effect of undercutting a lot of what we have long taken for granted concerning “consent”; and it takes some measure of willpower for people naturally inclined towards pedophilia not to get caught up in that nonsense.  People who build their lives around the proposition that “love is love!” have remarkable capacity to rationalize whatever else needs to be rationalized.)
On the other hand—looking at it from the perspective of a person whose behavior is being restricted by doctrinal fiat:  fulfillment denied is fulfillment denied.  Solitude is solitude, loneliness is loneliness.  Moreover, most of the modern gay marriage argument is predicated on a version of companionate/romantic love that has existed for barely 200 of the 6000+ years of recorded human history; and it’s noteworthy that until about 30 years ago the only societies that even tolerated gay sex almost universally agreed that one’s indulgence in such practices ought not to take center stage in defining one’s role and responsibilities in the domestic and civic arenas.  So, to the extent that many LDS LGBTQ apologists say “look, God wouldn’t ask anyone to live like this”—pedophiles are material evidence that “yes, He most certainly does; He always has; and while you, Brother Gay Guy, are unique and valued and loved as a son of God with eternal potential—you are, to be perfectly frank, not THAT special.”
I would also be careful about using the term “coercing” (and I realize you were probably riffing off my earlier use of “compelled”, which probably wasn’t very thoughtful of me).  Because obviously, God “coerces” no one.  But He does impose conditions for exaltation; sometimes, very onerous and even painful ones.  Might God lighten those requirements to at times to accommodate those who live amongst increasingly degenerate social mores?  Perhaps—after all, He once tolerated child slavery and forced marriage; and I suppose it’s not inconceivable that He may do so again as our cultural decline continues. But even if it does, I think it becomes a “it must come, but woe to him by whom it cometh” thing.  Our role as Saints is to stand for truth and righteousness as long as we are called upon to do so, not to give aid and comfort to the Satanic forces conspiring to muzzle us and send us off into exile (or worse).  If we aren’t going to teach, promote, and normalize a celestial law at least within the confines of the Church—frankly, we may as well disband the Church and go off and join the Methodists (or for that matter, re-establish an ancient Phoenician sex cult); ‘cause we won’t be getting people exalted either way.
2). This is one of those things that sounds innocuous and appealing, until I really try to think about how it would be applied in practice; whereupon it seems to breed more questions than it answers.  What does “tolerate” mean?  What does “fellowship” mean?  And is it fair to say that the Church doesn’t have the answer, when the truth is really that (as you seem to acknowledge) our society has increasingly become one that doesn’t like the fact that God’s been giving the same answer for the last six thousand years?  What boundaries (if any) should exist to the Church’s efforts to tailor its message in a culture that is increasingly unwilling to hear (and live) sound doctrine?  Is it in principle bound to condone behaviors that prior prophets found damnably abhorrent, once a critical mass of profligates becomes unable or unwilling to cope with criticism and the broader culture takes their side?  Where, if anywhere, can the Church draw the line and say “no, this behavior is just plain wrong and it will always be wrong come hell or high water”?
I mean—if the APA and the AMA and the 1619 Project found the name of Christ to be traumatizing to people of color due to historical colonialism, and a few Ivy League universities generated a corpus of research focusing on the suicides of hapless Muslim and Buddhist teenagers living in western societies—surely we as a Church wouldn’t knuckle under and issue a proclamation denying the Christ.
(Would we?  I mean, why not, really?  Shouldn’t we think of the children?  We’re not monsters, after all . . .)

So I’ll repeat my original motive for posting. I haven’t been active on this or any church forum for a few years. It seems the response to these LGBTQ ( what is Q anyway and how is it different from L?) posts are sooooo overwhelmingly huggy and supportive of these people. More so than it used to be. We seem to be treating them not only with kid-gloves but raining down rose petals on them.  This is even coming from very strong members (one gushy “love-you David” note came from an outwardly incredibly spiritual seminary teacher in our ward.) It took me by surprise. I understand we’re trying very hard to mitigate the rash of suicides among this group. And let them know of their value as individuals. That’s all good. But the praise and adoration heaped on them seems like it could be misinterpreted pretty easily that they simply get a pass on having to resist delving wholly into the culture and acting on it. 
 
Since when is it ok to not deny all ungodliness? Is it now illegal among Church members to denounce same sex intimate relationships? I haven’t seen even one person in the comments say, “ if you choose to live in a gay relationship you will have to live with the consequences which may not be pleasant.” Not one!! It’s only coddling and sympathy with blame squarely on the Brethren and all the unsupportive members for his unhappiness.  Have we gone soft! Is this now what being Christ-like looks like? 😕

Doesn’t matter to me, not being African American or homosexual. That the church members are even having the discussion shows how times have changed. The future will be very interesting. 

"appears" to be according to what...?
FWIW I fully and completely reject this idea. I do not believe it to be biological. I believe there are biological traits that might incline one towards things that relate, but...
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that it were fully biological, unchangeable, etc. Then still...
...this is still not an apples to apples comparison. It's comparing a persons, due to their skin color, being unable to have the priesthood to a person, due to their tastes, being unable to indulge in their tastes while remaining faithful and in good standing in the church. The need to not indulge in tastes that are sinful is common to ALL people in the church. It is not exclusive to homosexuals. Some people have tastes that are further out of bounds than others. But we all have out of bounds tastes. I've been "punished" in the same way throughout my life by having to repress my nastier urges to stay in good standing in the church. Though I would think it should be obvious that calling that a "punishment" is kind of flawed.
FWIW, mere "skin color" was not the issue at hand in the priesthood restriction. Lineage was. But I digress. There was nothing they could refrain from to get the priesthood. Everyone has to refrain from certain things to qualify for blessings. Everyone. But even a perfect, sinless man, were that possible, could not have the priesthood prior to 1978 if he was of black African descent.
And, for consideration also, women still cannot by virtue of being a woman. That, at least, would indeed be a legitimate comparison of ideas.

But that difficulty is a choice. Blacks not being given the priesthood was not their choice. Someone choosing to believe the Church is wrong in homosexuality is something they can choose to not believe and the conflict is resolved.  No more difficulty in that regard. 

Why don't they have access to the high blessings? 
Belief is a choice. 

I’m getting a little confused about these discussions of the natural man and this is the way God created me. I thought that the man that God created in the garden of Eden was a perfect man, and only became a natural man after he fell. This suggests that he became a natural man as a result of his own actions and not as a result of anything that God did. Did God make something that has faults, that is less than perfect? That sounds like a strange thought to me. I suspect that in creating us, God worked with whatever we brought to the table. His part of the process was probably perfect but He was perhaps working with spirit material that was not. I'm not sure if its fair or correct to put the blame on God for being who or what we are. 

I hope I’m not inappropriately gatecrashing on your discussion with @carlimac, but my thought on the above is:
We know—the scriptures are abundantly clear—that people can claim spurious, self-serving revelations; either of their own or of satanic invention.  I would submit that such “revelations” are especially common in matters of sexual practice, because sex is such an emotionally fraught topic and so intimately bound up with issues of self-worth and self-justification and so on.  That, I think, is precisely why we are counseled to go to priesthood leaders when we find ourselves entangled in these sorts of issues—because we need that cross-check, that priesthood line of revelation that is relatively immune from the personal drama that we ourselves can’t help but being to the table.
And where homosexuality is concerned, the challenge hasn’t been a lack of clarity from the Church; it’s been thirty years of LGBTQ activists telling us “we don’t like that, tell us something new”.  “We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.”

So I’ll repeat my original motive for posting. I haven’t been active on this or any church forum for a few years. It seems the response to these LGBTQ ( what is Q anyway and how is it different from L?) posts are sooooo overwhelmingly huggy and supportive of these people. More so than it used to be. We seem to be treating them not only with kid-gloves but raining down rose petals on them.  This is even coming from very strong members (one gushy “love-you David” note came from an outwardly incredibly spiritual seminary teacher in our ward.) It took me by surprise. I understand we’re trying very hard to mitigate the rash of suicides among this group. And let them know of their value as individuals. That’s all good. But the praise and adoration heaped on them seems like it could be misinterpreted pretty easily that they simply get a pass on having to resist delving wholly into the culture and acting on it. 
 
Since when is it ok to not deny all ungodliness? Is it now illegal among Church members to denounce same sex intimate relationships? I haven’t seen even one person in the comments say, “ if you choose to live in a gay relationship you will have to live with the consequences which may not be pleasant.” Not one!! It’s only coddling and sympathy with blame squarely on the Brethren and all the unsupportive members for his unhappiness.  Have we gone soft! Is this now what being Christ-like looks like? 😕

I think it’s interesting how so many claim God made him that way and loves him just as he is.  1-No one knows if God made him that way or not. We haven’t received any revelation on that yet (have we? Did I miss something?)  2- God would want us to overcome the natural man rather than giving in and claiming no ability to control it. 
 
Most disappointing was a comment from someone- - former leader who has spoken in General Conference who said she loves him just as he is. No qualifier that he should keep trying to make good choices or encouragement to stay clean and free from sin. 
 
Maybe I’m over thinking this. I need to just let it roll off my back but in just feels like the church is caving to public sentiment. 
 
 

So I’ll repeat my original motive for posting. I haven’t been active on this or any church forum for a few years. It seems the response to these LGBTQ ( what is Q anyway and how is it different from L?) posts are sooooo overwhelmingly huggy and supportive of these people. More so than it used to be. We seem to be treating them not only with kid-gloves but raining down rose petals on them.  This is even coming from very strong members (one gushy “love-you David” note came from an outwardly incredibly spiritual seminary teacher in our ward.) It took me by surprise. I understand we’re trying very hard to mitigate the rash of suicides among this group. And let them know of their value as individuals. That’s all good. But the praise and adoration heaped on them seems like it could be misinterpreted pretty easily that they simply get a pass on having to resist delving wholly into the culture and acting on it. 
 
Since when is it ok to not deny all ungodliness? Is it now illegal among Church members to denounce same sex intimate relationships? I haven’t seen even one person in the comments say, “ if you choose to live in a gay relationship you will have to live with the consequences which may not be pleasant.” Not one!! It’s only coddling and sympathy with blame squarely on the Brethren and all the unsupportive members for his unhappiness.  Have we gone soft! Is this now what being Christ-like looks like? 😕