Doctrine will remain the same, but we’ll see a pretty radical shift in the culture of the church in how we relate both to the issue of same-sex attraction and to those who experience homosexual feelings. I believe that masturbation-origin claims were last made in 1980 (in Spencer W. However, we cannot condone immoral practices on your part any more than we can condone immoral practices on the part of others.”  Jeffrey R.
We’ve made some significant strides over the last few years, and I think this is only the beginning.” — [Note: I moved a few cites, and my supras all went to hell. It’s not that hard to locate the supra notes.]  Some of the points I note here were mentioned in an earlier blog post at Doves and Serpents. Kimball, “President Kimball Speaks out on Morality.”)  See “Hope for Transgressors,” copy available here. Holland, Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction, Ensign October 2007. Uchtdorf, comments at the 24 October, 2010 Tooele/West Salt Lake Regional Conference.
For instance, the New Horizons pamphlet repeatedly endorsed criminal laws against homosexual acts.
And it asserted that gay men would abandon their partners once they were no longer young and attractive. Also, in 1976, apostle Boyd K.
By 1992, a new teaching suggested that biological factors could be at work. The lives of others should not be damaged by entering a marriage where such concerns exist.”  Packer, To the One, supra note **  New Horizons, supra note **  Boyd K. As I have discussed previously on blog, the meaning of the talk is controversial, and there are other potential interpretations. What Packer leaves unclear is the circumstances in which this kind of behavior would be permissible. Elder Oaks stated that “our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called “gay bashing”–physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior.”  Hinckley, supra note **  See God Loveth His Children, supra note **  I discussed this in a prior blog post.  LDS Newsroom, “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” August 13, 2008.
It is clear that we are seeing evolving LDS views on homosexuality. The official church position is that the changes were clarifications.  See Jennifer Dobner, “Salt Lake City Oks Gay Rights Laws with Mormon Backing,” Huffington Post, November 11, 2009. Hinckley, Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World, Ensign, November 1995.
Packer gave a talk which [EDIT] contained an ambiguous anecdote endorsing violent reactions under some (unclear) circumstances. The talk was reprinted as a pamphlet and was distributed widely.
The church has absolutely moved away from that stance.
The history of LDS views on homosexuality is complicated, and I can’t fully do it justice in a relatively short post, but I’ll at least try to hit the highlights.Here’s a sketch of some of the ways in which LDS views on homosexuality have changed over the past 50 years — in very positive ways, I believe. Church views have changed substantially regarding causes of homosexuality. Oaks stated that “Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of “nature and nurture.” All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.” Elder Packer gave a talk in 2010 suggesting that God would not let individuals be born gay, but the print version retracted that claim. Meanwhile, attitudes about homosexual thoughts, as well as “therapy” to cure gayness, are also notable.In 1969, then-apostle and future prophet Spencer W. As Joanna Brooks has discussed in her post about the church handbook, homosexual thoughts are no longer considered sinful.in a 2006 interview between the LDS Newsroom and Elders Dallin H. Wickman which was explicitly intended to”help clarify the Church’s stand”, Elder Wickman vocally opposed domestic partner rights for same-sex couples, stating that “If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage.That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, ‘That is not right.Seemingly aimed at young people, the statement gently counsels individuals who feel attraction to and love for same-gender people to trust in God’s plan and not act upon the transitory desires of mortal life — a period of “probation during which we face a variety of temptations and challenges.” It repeatedly warns against feelings of guilt: “Attractions alone do not make you unworthy.