Gay Student Panel At Byu

[Buzzard]

You need to read scripture for what it says and NOT how it reads. The OT and NT do NOT condemn homosexuality. How we define the word abomination today is NOT the same as the Hebrew word to'ebah, translated as abomination, in the Leviticus narrative. It would do many well to recognize this.

As for the NT, malakoi and arsenokoitai are NOT words used to describe homosexuals (Romans 1:28 and 1 Cor 6:9). The word that was used IN CIRCULATION at that time to define a person who had attraction for the same sex was paiderasste. That is the word Paul would have used.

Furthermore, as far as Paul's supposed condemnation goes...Paul would be unfamiliar with the physiological basis of homosexuality. If you pay closer attention to the Romans narrative he is talking about heterosexual men and women who gave up their natural attraction in order to perform homosexual acts as a form of pagan temple worship. What Paul DID NOT say was that homosexuals gave up their natural attraction in favor of heterosexuality as form of pagan temple worship.

Personally, the idea of sexual reorientation is ridiculous but I will not discount the stories, however realistic they are, that some have 'changed' or 'been cured'.

Luckily for us, we don't have to quibble on what's in the OT and NT, we have the words of modern prophets to guide us. And they have been fairly clear on this subject.

[TruthSeeker24]

What Buzzard said. lol.

This is a thread about the BYU Panel. It is not an opportunity to preach against or mock those on that panel. Derailers will be removed if they persist,

[Jaybear]

Luckily for us, we don't have to quibble on what's in the OT and NT, we have the words of modern prophets to guide us. And they have been fairly clear on this subject.

What Buzzard said. lol.

Valenitnus raises an interesting point about the important distinction between natural and unnatural carnal desires.

If you are going to reject his point out of hand, relying on "the thinking has been done" don't you first want to know if your leaders have actually either (1) thought about it; or (2) approached God and received further revelation.

I would think that would be especially be the case here where for the most part, LDS GAs are business men, not biblical scholars, and they don't seem to have firm grasp on the subject matter, especially since the LDS Church for along time counseled gay men that thier gayness would go away if they married women and were faithful. .

[TruthSeeker24]

Oh no don't get me wrong Jaybear. I wasn't trying to just dismiss what was said. I was serious when I said it would take to much time for me to look in to. I'm just not much for getting THAT deep into a controversial matter is all. I honestly meant no disrespect. And to the moderator (s) here (not sure how it works), I seriously didn't mean to say anything mean or even imply it. I'm honestly confused. I'll watch what I say though. I apologize.

[Damien the Leper]

Luckily for us, we don't have to quibble on what's in the OT and NT, we have the words of modern prophets to guide us. And they have been fairly clear on this subject.

And where would those prophets be if we didn't have scripture or theological writings on history? The foundation which you stand becomes a sinkhole.

[Buzzard]

What Buzzard said. lol.

This is a thread about the BYU Panel. It is not an opportunity to preach against or mock those on that panel. Derailers will be removed if they persist,

Not my intent to mock the panel or denegrate those who grapple personally with this issue. Merely to point out that the LDS proscription against homosexual acts is not dependent on interpreting scripture, since we have the words of those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. And they have spoken out and clearly about the subject.

[TruthSeeker24]

Well, I guess I would have to disagree with that statement. Does anyone know the quote or reference where Brigham Young said in the presence of Joseph Smith Jr. that he didn't give a "fig" about the scriptures when compared to modern day prophets? And Joseph told him and the congregation that what he said was truth? I know I've read it somewhere.

[TruthSeeker24]

Yea I was honestly agreeing with you Buzzard.

[Buzzard]

And where would those prophets be if we didn't have scripture or theological writings on history? The foundation which you stand becomes a sinkhole.

Your point is valid in dealing with religions that declare the Canon and the heavens closed. We don't, so arguing over the meaning of greek words is less important than reading what was said in conference. And yes, sometimes the guidance recieved in conference changes over time. That's why we have them every six months. I'm guessing the students at BYU who were on that panel got more out of conference, since they are trying to live the gospel, than certain other people did who are kicking against the pricks, regardless of that the Lords annointed have said.

[Damien the Leper]

Valenitnus raises an interesting point about the important distinction between natural and unnatural carnal desires.

If you are going to reject his point out of hand, relying on "the thinking has been done" don't you first want to know if your leaders have actually either (1) thought about it; or (2) approached God and received further revelation.

I would think that would be especially be the case here where for the most part, LDS GAs are business men, not biblical scholars, and they don't seem to have firm grasp on the subject matter, especially since the LDS Church for along time counseled gay men that thier gayness would go away if they married women and were faithful. .

This is where I fear idolatry rears its ugly and disgusting head. In the 2010 General Conference, a Seventy spoke on obedience to the prophets. When the Seventy stated that the prophets and apostles need no biblical or theological training to interpret scriptue...a HUGE red flag when up for me and countless others. If one is ignorant (not meant in offense) of historical context, linguistics, and anthropology of an ancient culture then one has no ability give authoritative statements on such difficult matters. "For the Bible tells me so" and "Because the prophets said so" is not a logical argument.

[Jaybear]

You're welcome

And to Cinepro, I'm not sure what the punishment is, or even if the scriptures DO give a punishment. I guess I'll have to go find out sometime.

Here you go: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13 (KJV).

[TruthSeeker24]

Does that apply if God actually TOLD the prophet Himself?

[Damien the Leper]

Your point is valid in dealing with religions that declare the Canon and the heavens closed. We don't, so arguing over the meaning of greek words is less important than reading what was said in conference. And yes, sometimes the guidance recieved in conference changes over time. That's why we have them every six months. I'm guessing the students at BYU who were on that panel got more out of conference, since they are trying to live the gospel, than certain other people did who are kicking against the pricks, regardless of that the Lords annointed have said.

But this still doesn't address the fact that without scripture and historical writings, there would be no LDS church and no modern day prophets. To say that the LDS church does not rely on the authority of scripture and boasts its non-scriptural General Conference talks as more important shows that there are bigger problems here than morality.

I'm not kicking against any pricks. My relationship with the Lord feels stronger now than it ever has. Regardless of what the LDS church proclaims, as a Christian face amongst thousands, I know where Heavenly Father and I stand. He affirms His love and shows that the direction I'm going is the direction in which HE is leading me.

[Jaybear]

This is where I fear idolatry rears its ugly and disgusting head. In the 2010 General Conference, a Seventy spoke on obedience to the prophets. When the Seventy stated that the prophets and apostles need no biblical or theological training to interpret scriptue...a HUGE red flag when up for me and countless others. If one is ignorant (not meant in offense) of historical context, linguistics, and anthropology of an ancient culture then one has no ability give authoritative statements on such difficult matters. "For the Bible tells me so" and "Because the prophets said so" is not a logical argument.

I would like to think that if I believed that the Bible was really the word of God, and was trying not only only live according to his word, but to rely on His words condemn the behavior of others, I would make an effort to understand what God was saying. Especially here where the offense is considered so grave, that death is warranted.

Sometimes I wonder if people are just using the "Bible says so" or the "prophets say so" to justify their own preexisting beliefs and prejudices.

[Damien the Leper]

Does that apply if God actually TOLD the prophet Himself?

Good question if we consider that Moses may have not written Leviticus and that he did not dictate the story to a scribe.

[Damien the Leper]

I would like to think that if I believed that the Bible was really the word of God, and was trying not only only live according to his word, but to rely on His words condemn the behavior of others, I would make an effort to understand what God was saying. Especially here where the offense is considered so grave, that death is warranted.

Sometimes I wonder if people are just using the "Bible says so" or the "prophets say so" to justify their own preexisting beliefs and prejudices.

The issue we must face is that in Jewish tradition, the Law did NOT apply to anyone who was not Jewish. Hence the reason why they do not seek converts. The Law is applied to a specific community of believers. This is affirmed when Jesus, a Jew himself, said that he came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. But that must still remain in context of the Jewish community. Essentially, some may argue that Jesus wasn't trying to start a new world religion superior to other worldviews but was trying to FIX an already existing one.

[TruthSeeker24]

I like your views Valentinus. Naturally I disagree, but we agree to disagree .

[Buzzard]

This is where I fear idolatry rears its ugly and disgusting head. In the 2010 General Conference, a Seventy spoke on obedience to the prophets. When the Seventy stated that the prophets and apostles need no biblical or theological training to interpret scriptue...a HUGE red flag when up for me and countless others. If one is ignorant (not meant in offense) of historical context, linguistics, and anthropology of an ancient culture then one has no ability give authoritative statements on such difficult matters. "For the Bible tells me so" and "Because the prophets said so" is not a logical argument.

I used to teach early morning seminary. Our "boss" was the head of the local university Institute of Religion. He related to us a story when he was at BYU getting an advanced degree in ancient scripture. Conference was the week before, and the prophet had expounded on scripture. In class the next day, one of the students went off and stated that the scripture didn't mean that, and that if the prophet spoke any ancient Greek at all, he would have known that. For our boss, it was a moment of clarity, where he said he had do decide what was the higher priority, his avocation as an expert on ancient Greek, or his religion. As you might guess, he chose his religion. And that, Mr. Valuntinus, is in a nutshell, one of the major differences between us and other religions. We embrace scholarship, but we don't idolize it. I threw that idolatry reference in there just for you.

[BlueDreams]

This is where I fear idolatry rears its ugly and disgusting head. In the 2010 General Conference, a Seventy spoke on obedience to the prophets. When the Seventy stated that the prophets and apostles need no biblical or theological training to interpret scriptue...a HUGE red flag when up for me and countless others. If one is ignorant (not meant in offense) of historical context, linguistics, and anthropology of an ancient culture then one has no ability give authoritative statements on such difficult matters. "For the Bible tells me so" and "Because the prophets said so" is not a logical argument.

That is simply not how God works. Learning is good, but not pinnacle or necessary. Christ, after all, did not pick a bunch of scribes and pharisees (probably the most technically learned people of their day in jewish scripture) to be His Apostles. Intellectual knowledg is a perk, but it's useless if not grounded within the Gospel, seeking His Spirit, and humility. Biblical scholarship cannot be a litmus test of authority....not for LDS....that is not our church. It is not God's way, period.

Besides, scholarly biblical learning isn't some magically unbiased event; it's not the silver bullet of finding Truth. The Truth is only grounded in learning of Christ experientially as He's set forth. There is no other way.

With luv,

BD

Edited April 10, 2012 by BlueDreams

[Damien the Leper]

I used to teach early morning seminary. Our "boss" was the head of the local university Institute of Religion. He related to us a story when he was at BYU getting an advanced degree in ancient scripture. Conference was the week before, and the prophet had expounded on scripture. In class the next day, one of the students went off and stated that the scripture didn't mean that, and that if the prophet spoke any ancient Greek at all, he would have known that. For our boss, it was a moment of clarity, where he said he had do decide what was the higher priority, his avocation as an expert on ancient Greek, or his religion. As you might guess, he chose his religion. And that, Mr. Valuntinus, is in a nutshell, one of the major differences between us and other religions. We embrace scholarship, but we don't idolize it. I threw that idolatry reference in there just for you.

I don't idolize scholarship. I embrace it as a relevant and reasoned discipline that has provided more insight into theological matters and scriptural matters than any other avenue. Through scholarship I have come closer to God.

[Damien the Leper]

That is simply not how God works. Learning is good, but not pinnacle or necessary. Christ, after all, did not pick a bunch of scribes and pharisees (probably the most technically learned people of their day in jewish scripture) to be His Apostles. Intellectual knowledg is a perk, but it's useless if not grounded within the Gospel, seeking His Spirit, and humility. Biblical scholarship cannot be a litmus test of authority....not for LDS....that is not our church. It is not God's way, period.

Besides, scholarly biblical learning isn't some magically unbiased event; it's not the silver bullet of finding Truth. The Truth is only grounded in learning of Christ experientially as He's set forth. There is no other way.

With luv,

BD

I respect your postion. However, through great scholars such as N.T. Wright, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and others a new and refreshing avenue by which we can discern and reason with scripture has been provided. And still no one has been able to address that without scripture the LDS church would not exist nor would it have its prophets and apostles. Scripture should never be relegated to a low tier position.

Christ may not have picked learned individuals but he did pick individuals who were susceptable to learning truths. The fact that Christ taught his disciples by quoting and citing portions of the OT is telling. I also agree that experience is important. Every story matters. My faith isn't grounded solely in scriptural authority or inspiration but also in how I experience God in my everyday life.

[BlueDreams]

I respect your postion. However, through great scholars such as N.T. Wright, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and others a new and refreshing avenue by which we can discern and reason with scripture has been provided.

I honestly have no idea who those guys are...And though they probably have interesting insights (I have no idea....wouldn't be able to point them out from Adam....Adam would probably have a better shot, he'd be the resurrected one ) I'm fine the way I'm going. Scholars are like supplemental vitamins in my mind: They can increase your spiritual "health," they can be too much of a good thing, or they can be pretty useless. But either way, they're not apart of my "main diet."

And still no one has been able to address that without scripture the LDS church would not exist nor would it have its prophets and apostles. Scripture should never be relegated to a low tier position.

Easy enough: The LDS Church would not exist in its current form without revelation. The BoM wouldn't be here without revelation from God....and since it's desrcibed as the keystone that would be pretty essential to the church's existance. The D&C are direct revelations. PoGP also came from revelation. All scripture in the end came originally from revelation (or people recording God's immediate dealings with man (usually through prophets/apostles)) and all scripture unique to LDS faith is directly linked to revelation from prophets. So I have no problem tiering scripture. It's great. It's founded much of my faith. It is a means to receiving revelation from God. But the end is not scripture, revelation is....or a direct relationship with God in the now. Scripture is one instrument in a tool chest meant to allign are heart and minds with God through receiving revelation.

Christ may not have picked learned individuals but he did pick individuals who were susceptable to learning truths. The fact that Christ taught his disciples by quoting and citing portions of the OT is telling. I also agree that experience is important. Every story matters. My faith isn't grounded solely in scriptural authority or inspiration but also in how I experience God in my everyday life.

Nor were the apostles insisting that the GA's shouldn't be well read in the scriptures and know the stories well. There's a difference between knowing your scriptures and being a biblical scholar.

With luv,

BD

Edited April 10, 2012 by BlueDreams

[Damien the Leper]

I honestly have no idea who those guys are...And though they probably have interesting insights (I have no idea....wouldn't be able to point them out from Adam....Adam would probably have a better shot, he'd be the resurrected one ) I'm fine the way I'm going. Scholars are like supplemental vitamins in my mind: They can increase your spiritual "health," they can be too much of a good thing, or they can be pretty useless. But either way, they're not apart of my "main diet."

Easy enough: The LDS Church would not exist in its current form without revelation. The BoM wouldn't be here without revelation from God....and since it's desrcibed as the keystone that would be pretty essential to the church's existance. The D&C are direct revelations. PoGP also came from revelation. All scripture in the end came originally from revelation (or people recording God's immediate dealings with man (usually through prophets/apostles)) and all scripture unique to LDS faith is directly linked to revelation from prophets. So I have no problem tiering scripture. It's great. It's founded much of my faith. It is a means to receiving revelation from God. But the end is not scripture, revelation is....or a direct relationship with God in the now. Scripture is one instrument in a tool chest meant to allign are heart and minds with God through receiving revelation.

Nor were the apostles insisting that the GA's shouldn't be well read in the scriptures and know the stories well. There's a difference between knowing your scriptures and being a biblical scholar.

With luv,

BD

Fair enough. I approach my faith through reason, logical arguments, anthropological study, etymological study, hermeneutics, soteriology, linguistics, etc. that consistently allow Heavenly Father to fully reveal Himself.

I don't believe either way is better than another. Otherwise, I would be on a witch hunt to put an end to the charismatic movement.

[BlueDreams]

Fair enough. I approach my faith through reason, logical arguments, anthropological study, etymological study, hermeneutics, soteriology, linguistics, etc. that consistently allow Heavenly Father to fully reveal Himself.

I don't believe either way is better than another. Otherwise, I would be on a witch hunt to put an end to the charismatic movement.

Then agree to disagree. Though just because one thinks another is better doesn't mean you have to sign up for the next witch hunt. Especially if you are lazy, not a fan of burnings at the stake, and should really be paying attention to studying physical science for your exam.

With luv,

BD

[Cobalt-70]

Here you go: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13 (KJV).

As a point of order, there is nothing here about homosexuality. This passage only refers to gay sex. Heterosex was also punishable by death, unless the woman was either unmarried or married to the man.