carlimac

"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? 😕

I think he was talking in general about anyone-not just David Archleta who doesn’t marry and spend the next 20-30 years of their life raising a family. That extra time NOT spent raising the kids can be used in productive and happy ways. Life doesn’t need to be considered a failure if they don’t marry! 
 I’m sure it’s not easy. The desire to be loved and to love is obviously very powerful. Archuleta has done pretty darn well filling his life with music up till lately (till COVID put the damper on public performances). For whatever reason he’s gone public lately with all this about his sexuality and whatnot. So either he’s had a setback in dealing with it, or he’s a late bloomer who has just recently decided to deal with his lack of success in dating women- and has gone so very very public with it. Because when you’re famous you can and you’ll get an avalanche of response. And if you come out of the closet to announce you’re gay and in your mind your Church has oppressed you, what you’ll mostly get is sympathy and atta boys because that’s just how things are these days. 
When you say the Church’s response is “off” what do you mean? Can you elaborate?

I have not seen the video - but I do not believe I would tell him anything different than I would tell anyone else about their life.  The first thing I would tell anyone is that we are all children of G-d and as such we all face a mortal "fallen" from grace trial(s) throughout our entire mortal existence.  And we are intelligent beings and intelligent beings as capable of learning - which means that we can learn and make intelligent choices.  The only reason any choice seem hard is because we make them so.
The final thing I would tell anyone is that I am a proponent of Agency - that regardless of their choice (exercise of agency) - I will exercise my choice to love them and respect their choice according to my agency and covenants with G-d.
 
The Traveler

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 did in a way. Not that directly. I don’t want the “feel bads” when everyone tells me off. BTDT!! But I found one comment that said “the doctrine on eternal families isn’t going to change but I still hope you can find peace and happiness. “ That was one of the most honest comments. 

Doesn’t need to say it in the scriptures. It’s painfully obvious! We saw some naked women with painted on flags in Times Square. Clearly naked! 😬

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? 😕

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? 😕

The problem with this example is there have been a couple of editions that they were naked and the swimsuits were painted on.

I think this needs to be reconciled with: 
"wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center."

Yeah, the Tribune had an article in the last week or two about it, I think.  (I’d heard about Archuleta and Harley, though Tom Christofferson’s alleged backsliding is a new one to me.)  One wonders what the difference would be between a chaste gay “dating” relationship, versus two straight people who happen to be best friends.
In some ways, the bigger issue is this mentality  of “how far can I indulge these appetites before it becomes a sin?”.  Whether in matters of chastity or honesty or anger or any number of other moral standards—this just isn’t a space we want to be living in. 

Has anyone seen David Archuleta’s emotional, more than 45 minute video he posted a couple days ago on Instagram and You Tube about his struggle to reconcile his disinterest in women/being more into guys and his 31 years of being devoted to the church. He’s apparently on the edge of suicidal about it. 
 
I feel for him. That’s tough. I still have no answers. But the thing that’s more frustrating than anything is that in the comments there are more encouraging him to leave the church, be his authentic self and know that God made him that way. Most claim to be  former members. There is a lot of the typical “ just love who you’re attracted to”. Why is it that almost no one is getting on there to encourage him to hang onto the truth and weather the storms and stay with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
 
What would you tell him to do?

One of the things about marriage is to be happy with oneself whether or not one is married or not.
If one is NOT happy because they are single, or because they are not married, it is very probable that being married is NOT going to be the cure for making them happy.  It may, instead, be a way to make others UNHAPPY.
One needs to be able to be content with themselves before incorporating others into a relationship...at least in my opinion.
In that light, whether one is gay or not, it should not matter on whether one can be happy or not.  If they are unhappy because they feel attraction to the same gender instead of the opposite gender, perhaps they are focusing on the WRONG things in life. 
My advice in that situation, regardless of who it is, is to focus on other things that make life worthwhile.  Perhaps, work on serving others, or improving oneself, rather than trying to get others to be the crutch to do it for you.
The way I'd suggest is to seek first the Kingdom of God, seek to be the ideal son or daughter of your Father first, and then seek other things (such as self improvement, etc). 
That may not be the way everyone wants to go.  Find something else rather than lust, or greed, or pride, to sate one's desires, and seek instead for things that can improve yourself and others instead.  Find a hobby or reading history or books, become passionate about music, study nature and science.  There is SO much in this world where you can focus on things to find wonder and excitement rather than focusing on our base desires.  Find ways to make one happy beyond the basic focus of the world (so lust, hunger, alcohol, and other base things should not be what we try to seek out for happiness, but rather things that increase our knowledge and ability or things that help others increase their knowledge and ability).
I find too often people define themselves by their base desires.  I do not think this is a path to happiness, and those who think this is how to define their relationships will find less fulfilling lives from them than those who find happiness within themselves and seek to spread that happiness to others.  Those who share happiness, in my opinion, will do better and have more fulfilling lives than those who try to derive it from others.
Unfortunately, when trying to convince someone that they should seek to be happy on their own (especially, when they are so deep into the idea that the only way to be happy is if they are able to get another person, sometimes specifically a certain person, other times a certain gender or sexuality) to make them happy, they are unwilling to listen.  Nothing one would say will convince them at that point, and sometimes telling them this will only drive them deeper into depression. 
It can be difficult, and the situation people find themselves in is a difficult one.  If they GET what they THINK they want, at times it will bring a reprieve, though this happiness may be fleeting and is HIGHLY dependent on someone else (which means, they can make you lose it just as easily) rather than being in control of yourself.  The more permanent solution is NOT to make it so that others are your source of happiness, but to be a source of happiness for yourself and for others. 
Two individuals that are founts of happiness will not only find happiness within themselves, but also in turn will make their partners and friends much happier by default.  It is a thing which aids not only you, but others as well.

Has anyone seen David Archuleta’s emotional, more than 45 minute video he posted a couple days ago on Instagram and You Tube about his struggle to reconcile his disinterest in women/being more into guys and his 31 years of being devoted to the church. He’s apparently on the edge of suicidal about it. 
 
I feel for him. That’s tough. I still have no answers. But the thing that’s more frustrating than anything is that in the comments there are more encouraging him to leave the church, be his authentic self and know that God made him that way. Most claim to be  former members. There is a lot of the typical “ just love who you’re attracted to”. Why is it that almost no one is getting on there to encourage him to hang onto the truth and weather the storms and stay with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
 
What would you tell him to do?

He hasn't accepted the fact that marriage and a family, within the gospel, is likely not going to happen in this life. That's a tough pill to swallow but it's one that not just people with same sex attraction have had to accept. I know some women who for various health reasons are likely to not find a spouse willing to deal with the challenges they face. As a result they are pursuing other rewarding paths in life. Is it still tough? YES. But they don't feel without hope and that seems exactly like where he is at this point, without hope. We must have faith to not just accept THE plan but also His specific plan for us whatever that may be. I feel for the guy but it sure sounds like he is not looking for help to endure but reasons to give in. I don't know what anyone, especially strangers, can say to help in this situation. We generally only see what we are looking for.

Has anyone seen David Archuleta’s emotional, more than 45 minute video he posted a couple days ago on Instagram and You Tube about his struggle to reconcile his disinterest in women/being more into guys and his 31 years of being devoted to the church. He’s apparently on the edge of suicidal about it. 
 
I feel for him. That’s tough. I still have no answers. But the thing that’s more frustrating than anything is that in the comments there are more encouraging him to leave the church, be his authentic self and know that God made him that way. Most claim to be  former members. There is a lot of the typical “ just love who you’re attracted to”. Why is it that almost no one is getting on there to encourage him to hang onto the truth and weather the storms and stay with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
 
What would you tell him to do?

I believe in the idea of the "customised curriculum" as taught most noticeably, but not exclusively, by Elder Neal Maxwell. I believe it is quite likely that we were closely involved in deciding what trials we would encounter in this life and that the manner in which each of us has been made is not random. David, and you, and I, may well have made an informed, perhaps even calculated, decision as to what trials we would be given the opportunity to endure in this life, we just don't remember it making that decision. This may be a viewpoint that might not be particularly helpful to David or one that is unlikely to attract his interest or attention, but that's what I believe and how I see things.
One thing that has helped me through difficulties is to have faith in my pre-existance self that I made very good decisions, and that I made decisions on matters that would test and stretch me, but not overcome me. The pre-mortal thinking is something like "I want to grow as much as I can in mortality, or I need to grow in certain areas, therefore I will choose such and such a trial in mortality, knowing that it will provide the growth that I seek and need." And the mortal thinking, here and now, when enduring the trial is, " I believe I chose this trial for good and wise reasons, and that I can have trust in that decision, therefore I will seek for whatever it is that I believed I could learn from this trial at the time I chose to be subject to it." Summarised, it boils down to, I signed up for this, so lets make the most of it."  

I don’t think David and the many many other LGBTQ saints are looking for doctrinal explanations for what they ought to do. It seems to me that they are in immense pain, have tried everything they can to get through it, and haven’t seen the light. 
 
It seems more to be a cry for help. David himself said that his post was more about getting things off his chest.
I know what the prescribed doctrinal answers are… but I don’t know how to help David, and others in his situation, overcome these immense feelings he is facing. I think the best thing one can do is mourn with those that more and comfort those that stand in need of comfort.