Jump to content


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


Gay Christians Choosing Celibacy

Recommended Posts




Here’s chapter and verse on a more-or-less comprehensive list of things banned in the Leviticus book of the bible. A decent number of them are punishable by death.

Unless you’ve never done any of them (and 54 to 56 are particularly tricky), perhaps it’s time to lay off quoting 18:22 for a while?

1.       Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)

2.       Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13)

3.       Eating fat (3:17)

4.       Eating blood (3:17)

5.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1)

6.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1)

7.       Touching an unclean animal (5:2)

8.       Carelessly making an oath (5:4)

9.       Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2)

10.   Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3)

11.   Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1)

12.   Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)

13.   Tearing your clothes (10:6)

14.   Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this ‘un) (10:9)

15.   Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)

16.   Touching the carcass of any of the above (problems here for rugby) (11: 8)

17.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)

18.   Eating – or touching the carcass of - eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19)

19.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)

20.   Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (good news for cats) (11:27)

21.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)

22.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)

23.   Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)

24.   Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)

25.   Having sex with your mother (18:7)

26.   Having sex with your father’s wife (18: 8)

27.   Having sex with your sister (18:9)

28.   Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)

29.   Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)

30.   Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)

31.   Having sex with your uncle’s wife (18:14)

32.   Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)

33.   Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)

34.   Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (bad news for Alan Clark) (18:17)

35.   Marrying your wife’s sister while your wife still lives (18:18)

36.   Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)

37.   Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20)

38.   Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21)

39.   Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman” (18:22)

40.   Having sex with an animal (18:23)

41.   Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4)

42.   Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)

43.   Picking up grapes that have fallen in your  vineyard (19:10)

44.   Stealing (19:11)

45.   Lying (19:11)

46.   Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12)

47.   Defrauding your neighbour (19:13)

48.   Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (not well observed these days) (19:13)

49.   Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)

50.   Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15)

51.   Spreading slander (19:16)

52.   Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16)

53.   Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18)

54.   Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)

55.   Cross-breeding animals (19:19)

56.   Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19)

57.   Sleeping with another man’s slave (19:20)

58.   Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)

59.   Practising divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26)

60.   Trimming your beard (19:27)

61.   Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)

62.   Getting tattoos (19:28)

63.   Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29)

64.   Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31)

65.   Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)

66.   Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born”  (19:33-34)

67.   Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36)

68.   Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9)

69.   Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13)

70.   Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11)

71.   Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28)

72.   Working on the Sabbath (23:3)

73.   Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14)

74.   Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22)

75.   Selling land permanently (25:23)

76.   Selling an Israelite as a slave (foreigners are fine) (25:42)



All I did was to share my view on this subject matter using scriptures as my foundation. I was not attacking anyone or promoting hate or wrong behavior as a believer. I think my post was well in acceptable realms as so many others are I have read. So I see no reason to back off anything at this time when it comes to what I post and what I use as the foundations of my post. If you got offended by anything I posted, I am sorry for that and perhaps you would feel better to report any offense you have gotten from me. Thanks.

Share this post

Link to post

All I did was to share my view on this subject matter using scriptures as my foundation. I was not attacking anyone or promoting hate or wrong behavior as a believer. I think my post was well in acceptable realms as so many others are I have read. So I see no reason to back off anything at this time when it comes to what I post and what I use as the foundations of my post. If you got offended by anything I posted, I am sorry for that and perhaps you would feel better to report any offense you have gotten from me. Thanks.

Lostone, we just don't see things the same, I just wanted to show that in Leviticus it has the old laws, the scripture you quoted was lumped in with all these insane rules. So the old laws that Jesus outlawed or gave his life to get rid of, IMHO. I wasn't offended, just sharing this since it came up with a Google search.

Also, I didn't say any of that intro, if you go to the link, it was someone saying it to someone else, most likely to gay bashers using the scriptures to condemn them for living a gay lifestyle, I'm guessing.

Share this post

Link to post

This is so strange to me given that the push for acceptance of different lifestyles is most often presented as it is only fair to allow everyone to have the same ability to choose how they want to live because only then can they live authentically…but then this perception is one has to choose as expected to choose (and that isn't celibacy for many) or it really isn't authentic.  How is this any different than making someone feel pressured to hide they have homosexual feelings because that is unacceptable?

Often those who are no aquatinted with homosexuality think that being Gay is a choice...it is not. We cannot help how we feel, but we can all chose how we act. In the religious world there of many examples where persons live celibate lives in connection with there faith. Priests and Nuns within the Catholic Church, it is expected that they live lives that are against there nature. Almost every religion on the earth expects members remain celebrate until marriage, and in some cases marriage never comes. Yet many of these persons live celibate lives for there entire lives. The commandments of God are the same for all, not just for those who think they can. Commandments are "Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all Saints, who are or can be called Saints". (D&C 89: 3). The Apostle Paul taught that some are eunicks for the faith. It is a very difficult to live our convictions, but the rewards that we shall have as a result can outshine the dimly lighted world in which we live. Every young man who waits to marry in the Temple are living against the nature of the natural man, and keeping out thoughts in check when it comes to attraction again goes against our nature. So we all struggle to put of the natural man to obtain the reward of becoming the "Spiritual Man".

It is heartbreaking at times in the physical sense, and darn near impossible at times. But only "darn near"; "For in Christ are all things possible". I know the suffering and pain that homosexuals face, it hits home...my home. If there is any price to be paid for my child who is Gay...I pray that I be allowed to pay it for my baby girl. Well not a little girl anymore. I am just using you post Calmoriah to extend the point I am trying to make.

Share this post

Link to post
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By TOmNossor
      I enjoy reading Catholic thought and I wanted to share.  I believe the call for SSM and many other criticisms of the CoJCoLDS (primarily from those who still hold to some sense of its being “true”) is a product of lack of rigorous thought.  An emotionalism where we substitute how we feel about things for sound principles derived by seeking God with faith and reason.
      First two links:
      Article by Archbishop of Philadelphia:
      Faith and Reason by JPII:
      I will admit that I have only read parts of Faith and Reason, but I hope to rectify this.
      I think the Catholic Church is in crisis partially because its highest leaders have left behind sound thinking on issues for a hoped pastoral love of all.  This is from First Things:

      More poignantly from an interview with Bishop Chaput:

      It is my opinion that there are many very concerning things coming for the Pope and the leadership around him.  I fear he has forgotten (and I think it likely that many around him have forgotten) the second half of: “Truth without love is imperious self-righteousness. Love without truth is cowardly self-indulgence.” With an organization so committed to preserving the “truth once delivered,” how (with or without God’s supernatural guidance) can such a thing happen.  How can it happen to the CoJCoLDS?
      Somebody who wrestles with issues like advocating for or against SSM will become a general authority (not me).  In my personal life, I feel the desire to embrace love without the restraining influence of truth.  In the name of love sometime not just self love, I can stray from God’s path.  As my attempt at my best self online, I feel the desire to embrace love without mentioning truth to those with whom I dialogue even though I do not face the same issues they do (I like to not speak of their sin or emphasize that I too am a sinner to eliminate or soften the truth).  How much tougher will this be for the future bishop who can clearly see the pain in those he loves and knows that speaking truth to them will make him a lone voice in a world that has ceased to care about truth.
      There are two things about the difficult and recent declaration concerning children of same sex couples.  First, is that it would be somewhat cruel to ask a child to explain the reason his/her parents have embraced a way of living out of alignment with God’s teaching.  The second is having not been cruel, those who likely believe that SSM is a wonderful institution that has blessed their lives will continue to grow and learn and progress in the church.  
      As I said in a recent thread, I think it quite possible that one day our church will embrace SSM in many and perhaps all ways.  IMO today this would be the love without truth result.  If this happens in the future, it will not be the end of the church, but too much of this love without truth could be (I have faith that God is in control and can steer away from this).  But, one of the ways God steers away from this is by calling us to THINK correctly.
      I believe that wrong thinking after Vatican II has lead to the place where the Catholic Church is today and while some of the things Pope Francis is doing may briefly increase the number of folks in the pews, I believe ultimately it will further water down truth and lead to more indifference to the things of God.
      I do not think the highest leaders of the CoJCoLDS have succumbed to the thinking Pope Francis has embraced.  And I believe that the highest leaders of the CoJCoLDS receive revelation and inspiration to guide God’s church.  That being said, I have little doubt that Bishops and Stake Presidents struggle with these issues.  Without a commitment to have both TRUTH and LOVE, I think errors can happen.  As these error permeate the church AND society, there may be one day when our God (who I think is pragmatic) will recognize that it does more harm than good to continue to teach the truth in certain ways.  Someday, the pain caused by the truth and the prevalence of societies tolerant arms willing to offer an ultimately cold loveless embrace, could make it better for the church to water down the gospel in certain areas (no more United Order comes to mind).  Alternatively, if the gospel understanding of these issues is correct and discussion and dialogue helps folks to find ways to love in truth, perhaps pragmatic solution will not be required.  
      Anyway, there is great value in learning from wise folks like JPII and Arch Bishop Chaput.  I believe God is in charge.  I believe the CoJCoLDS passed through its first 200 years in a way far more remarkable than the years 33-233AD were for New Testament Christians and evidence God’s continuing inspiration and revelation for the whole body of the church.  That being said, God’s hand is occasionally the wise and intelligent council of our brothers and sisters.  The society into which President Nelson held his first press conference is hostile to God’s truths.  I believe that the church is guided by God through President Nelson, but ALL of us imbibe inappropriately of the ideas evidenced in this press conference hostility (in the name of love or in the name of self-indulgence or in the name of …but we imbibe).  May right reasoning and truth from God provide a counter force to societies pull!  
      Charity, TOm  
      P.S.  In case it is somehow veiled by what I say above, I do not think I am superior in my thinking to all others.  I offer the above because it is what seems true to me.  If it didn’t seem true to me, my best self, would find something else to embrace that I think is true.  I desire to align my beliefs with what God believes to be true!  
      This also means I want to read and discuss thoughts about the above.
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I want to respond to a couple of statements made by Julianne from the now closed "Weed" thread, because she absolutely nails it. She is spot on and I think the discussion at this level needs to occur before any progress can be made on the SSM issue.
      She wrote...
      Speaking as a straight, white, man, I recognize that I come to the traditional church teachings of priesthood, sealing, polygamy/polyandry, and SSM from a certain privileged position. The church's teachings and practices benefit me and they always have. Even though there is little to no evidence for how celestial families will actually be organized and function in the CK I used to think I had it all figured out. Obviously, I thought, marriage is essential to have legal physical intimacy which is necessary for creating offspring with one or multiple wives. Yet there is no firm teaching about how spirits are created. Are they born like a baby is born into mortality? There is no evidence or teaching for that, but it is widely assumed. That assumption then justifies polygamy while discrediting polyandry and even SSM. After all, if the entire purpose is to create spirit offspring and it is thought that it happens in a way similar to creating biological offspring, then it makes sense. But that is ALL based on assumptions.
      Based on these assumptions many are willing to condemn others to lives (and possibly even an eternity) of loneliness.
      So (we) don't even know what the afterlife looks like. It is unknown. Yet we think (we) have enough information to condemn and judge others, and since most of us come at it from positions of privilege, we are in the position to enforce our dogma upon the less privileged. The church is not unique in behaving this way. It is how society has always worked. But recognizing the assumptions for what they are and being humble about how much we really don't know, can help society improve.
      Julianne also stated...
      How can one categorically dismiss SSM when there is little to nothing known about family organization in the next life, even regarding a variety of heterosexual family organizations. Which sealings will be valid? Polygamy/polyandry? Only those which benefit men? Who are the children sealed to? There is a lot of "The Lord will work it out" mentality, which is fine because it acknowledges a lack of understanding and knowledge. The problem comes when one then loses all humility and attempts to define how family relationships will or will not work for other people. I agree with Julianne that the polygamy/polyandry topic is closely tied to the SSM topic and must be ironed out.
      So maybe this can be a thread that can be commented on instead of derailing other threads when this subject comes up.
      *Julianne, I hope I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent you. I really appreciated where you were trying to take the discussion.
    • By cinepro
      First, let me say that the press conference was perhaps the first time I've ever heard President Nelson speak off-the-cuff (i.e. not reading prepared remarks), and I was not instilled with confidence.  I enjoyed listening to the first presentation where the First Presidency was introduced, but my heart sank when listening to the Press Conference afterward.
      Specifically, the first question and response, heard at 2:05:10 here:
      I listened to this driving in to work today, and I just couldn't believe it.  The question was "how do you plan to approach LGBT issues?"
      The response doesn't appear to be in the same universe as the question, other than them both being in English.  They don't mention "LGBT issues", or homosexuality, or same-sex attraction, or anything specific to the question.  They respond using highly coded and contextualized words that someone familiar with LDS doctrines might be able to interpret, but how is that the proper response in a press conference?
      My interpretation of President Nelson's and Oaks' response is that they said this:
      "Thanks Brady.  No changes expected.  Homosexual actions are still considered a sin, and members of the Church will still be expected to resist those impulses.  We also still oppose same-sex marriage.  We believe this is how God's plan works, and will lead them to happiness in the eternities even though it may be painful here on Earth.  We love and pray for all those with same-sex attractions, but there won't be any changes on this."
      Why couldn't they just say something clear and unambiguous?  Was the question that unexpected that it caught them off-guard?
    • By Daniel2
      While it’s content offers little or nothing that will strike most here as anything new, it’s worth noting anything like this that appears in the mainstream media.... I imagine it’s content WILL be new(s) to many of its non-LDS viewers, so it’s worth taking note if nothing else to stay informed as to what members of other Faiths (or of no Faith at all) are hearing about Mormonism. 
    • By Daniel2
      In the video above, The University of Utah hosted noted LDS scientific (peer-reviewed-published) researcher, founder of the SARS vaccine, and biographer of David O. McKay, Gregory A. Prince.  He's introduced here:

  • Create New...