I also am not familiar with that list of organizations, but if you’re trying to convince me of anything by appealing to the APA and the NEA, then you’re making your task harder than it needs to be. The NEA talks a nice talk, but their actions seem specifically designed to make our kids dumb and turn the US into a third-world dictatorship.

As for peer-review, again, I don’t see how appealing to that helps add credibility to your argument. If you’ve been following the ClimateGate scandal lately, then you know we’ve seen the virtual destruction of any credibility the peer-review process ever had. Everything that has ever come from the peer-review process has now been called into question. Evidently large groups of scientists and doctors can be corrupted.

MQ_2 – “Let them practice in monogamous relationships. Make up a new temple ceremony for eternal gay marriage. Start having gay and lesbian singles wards.” But why stop there? Why not allow members to practice polygamy again? Why not create a new temple ceremony where any number of men and women can be married to each other? Why not have wards for adulterers? If the only qualification for creating new ordinances and wards is that it be for consenting adults who have hurt feelings, why not?

Your point of view only makes sense if you take as given that the LDS Church is false, and that there is no direct communication between President Monson and God. If someone assumes that’s the case, then why would anyone care how the LDS Church treats gay people? That would be like me caring what the stance of Scientology is on homosexuality. If someone believes the LDS Church is true and President Monson does directly communicate with God, then why would they try to get the Church to change its doctrine?

I don’t think that’s what David is trying to do with his letter. I don’t think he’s saying the doctrine is wrong, but rather that the Church’s handling of the issue leaves something to be desired. I think that’s fine for him to share his experience and suggestions (although privately, rather than publicly), and I would guess the leaders of the church would take seriously his input and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re working on figuring out better ways to handle the issue of homosexuality amongst church members without betraying the doctrines of the church. But establishing gay wards or having gay temple ceremonies would be a major doctrinal change, perhaps equivalent to saying that adultery is no longer a sin.

In the case of the priesthood and blacks, there was no doctrine to change. There was a policy that started over 100 years ago (nobody seems to know exactly when or how), and it took until 1978 for it to be changed. It did not change due to external or internal pressure. If that were true, then why didn’t the church change the policy in the 60′s, when the pressure was stronger than it was in 1978? And why did President David O. McKay express interest in changing the policy decades earlier, when many other Christian denominations had similar policies in place and there was no external pressure? Again, if you take as your premise that the LDS Church is false, then there seems to be no explanation other than external pressure. But if you accept that the LDS Church may be true, then a host of other possible explanations present themselves.

I have just one thing to say about your response and observations.. and that is “WOW!!!”
Talk about hitting the nail on the head.

I will give you my answer: Stop treating them like second class members. Let them practice in monogomous relationships. Make up a new temple ceremony for eternal gay marriage. Start having gay and lesbian singles wards. Thats the simple answer. Kinda like letting those less valiant spirit children hold the priesthood. Instead of waiting for society to force the mormon church to do the right thing they could lead the way on just one civil rights issue. Monson could pretend to be a prophet and actually recieve some revelation for the first time since 1978 and the church could lead the way in the ethical treatment of homosexuals.

I believe that David Eccles Hardy summed up the churches answer to this solution when he said:

“…perhaps my son is simply a casualty of war – acceptable “collateral damage” in an eternal plan and struggle in which by the luck of the draw he has no relevance or place.”

They will do nothing until membership begins to drop over this issue and then the revelation will come. Until then Gay and lesbians will continue to be acceptable collateral damage.

The following organizations oppose portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation and mental health and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based in ignorance or unfounded beliefs about sexual orientation.

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association of School Administrators
American Counseling Association
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American School Counselor Association
American School Health Association
Interfaith Alliance Foundation
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Association of SocialWorkers
National Education Association
School SocialWork Association of America