A:

Dear Karl,

Two points before I give you my opinion:

1. Many Christians, including those in our tradition, have historically appealed to the scriptural curses of Cain (and Ham) to "prove" that the inferiority of black people was ordained by God. Two centuries ago, that legal and social inferiority was the settled conclusion of virtually all orthodox scientific, sociological, and religious inquiry. Brigham Young, Charles Darwin, and Abraham Lincoln are just a few famous historical figures who held to views we would consider unacceptably and unquestionably racist today. It's all well and good to argue that there are no convincing passages of scripture vis-a-vis racist behavior now, but that's not how the scriptures were commonly read in the past (despite the Book of Mormon's crystal clarity on the topic).

2. My answer to the question you linked focuses on the same distinction you make with respect to status/identity and behavior. To be brief, I do think that it means the two situations can't really be compared, at least not directly, because of that. While I do take some issue with your framing of the question of race, I happen to agree that, properly understood, the gospel has never glamorized, promoted, or advocated racism. The Book of Mormon has been explicitly teaching that all are alike unto God for nearly two hundred years now--and even within the generation of those words being written, Nephi's brother Jacob is recorded rebuking his fellow Nephites for reviling their Lamanite brethren because of the darkness of their skins, because the only thing God cares about is personal righteousness relative to the circumstances in which we are placed. Thousands of years later, religious people are still falling into the same trap. It seems the easier path has always been to believe that the out-group is somehow lesser than we are in God's eyes.

You're right that one is fundamentally behavioral, while the other is not. I don't expect change to come, if it does, for the same reasons. guppy of doom raises some good examples of the doctrinal questions that naturally result from upending what we currently understand with respect to gender and sexuality in the plan of salvation. With that said, an open canon means those questions, should they be raised, have answers that would come as needed.

I'm not sure what to make of LGBTQ+ issues in the current climate, to be perfectly frank. I think it's clear that the Church has lost the culture war on the question of marriage. I'm heartened to see the Church recognize some of the problems in previous messaging as it takes the Christlike approach in advocating for charitable treatment of LGBTQ+ people, as well as advocating for their rights wherever it feels it can do so without jeopardizing freedom of religious belief and practice. We certainly can do that much, at least. But it is true, no matter how we slice it, that marriage in the Church--bound up as it inextricably is with exaltation and apotheosis--is an incredibly difficult burden to bear for people who, through no fault of their own, have no desire whatever to marry someone of the opposite sex.

What does the way forward look like? I don't know. I don't believe it is impossible for the Church to change. The ninth Article of Faith is a constant reminder to me that God's revelation to us is constantly accommodating our limited capacity for light and knowledge, and there will never be a point where we can cry out to Him that we have received, and need no more. I see no theological reason why marriage could not be changed, given that we believe in an open, continuing canon that never definitively closes. But with that said, I don't get the sense that the doctrine will change. The Church has tried to be an advocate for LGBTQ+ rights while simultaneously holding its ground doctrinally on the question of marriage. Could we be living through another situation where God is waiting for the right time to reveal something that will radically change the way we conceive of the plan of salvation and of priesthood ordination? Perhaps. But then again, perhaps not. If what we currently know is, simply and in the last analysis, in accordance with God's will, then there's really nothing more to do than to support those who struggle, wherever their journey to reconcile their faith and their sexuality takes them.

So I don't have a definitive answer for you. I do not, at this time, believe the doctrine will change. But I don't think necessarily that the doctrine cannot change.

I do want to say that whether you hope the Church's doctrine will "come around" eventually or you feel it's critical that the Church hold its ground theologically, every one of us has a serious responsibility to treat one another with kindness and love, not with moral indignation or arrogance. I have spoken to far too many friends, coworkers, and mission companions who think that repeated messaging about the eternal nature of "the doctrine" is more important than simply providing emotional support for people who are suffering and often feel that there is no place for them in the Church. If someone came to you in tears with virtually any other personal struggle and asked you for empathy and support, would you give them a doctrinal primer on the nature of their sin first, or would you simply try to help them? I don't know why our dialogue about same-sex attraction has become so confused, sometimes even hysterical, about whether or not we look like we're "supporting their lifestyle," or however one wants to describe it. The gospel life, for someone with same-sex attraction, is already inconceivably difficult. We ought to be trying to bear that burden with them regardless of what they choose to do, whether their struggle with identity leads to fruitful activity in the Church or not. The difficulty of the burden they bear, and responsibility for what they choose to do in response to it, lies with them alone, and God will be the only fair and merciful judge. Mourning with those that mourn and comforting those in need of comfort is of far more importance.

Genuinely,

9S