Time For Same-Sex Lds Marriages--Sl Tribune

[mikwut]

Gutarist:

So according to this, God gives them over to "shameful lusts". Women stop having "natural" sexual relations with men, and start having "unnatural" ones, strongly implying sexual relations with women. Men also abandon natural relations with women, and start lusting over each other. You say that these are only "shameful" because they are not loving, committed relationships, but appear to be one night stands, or the like. While that is likely true (that they are one night stands or the like) I disagree, I think that what Paul is calling "shameful" is the homosexual aspect. But as you say, context is everything, so let's go back a few verses more:

I wasn't saying they were "one night stands" as if that was the problem. The KJV translation makes no difference here. What are you finding difficult in understanding "abandon natural relations"? - This is describing heterosexuals abandoning that "natural" inclination for an unnatural one. They were having relations with the opposite sex and left, abandon it for same sex. Just like a homosexual abandoning his/her natural inclination would be shameful. The context is also corresponding to the young temple prostitutes of the time Paul is living in. It doesn't correspond to our 21st century political climate.

Why would these men do that? As any biblical scholar will tell you: “Context is everything.” This is a situation of lust, falsehood, idolatry, and dishonorable passions. In this account there are a number of men and a number of women. Both an accurate reading of this text, and a little historical knowledge would identify this situation as an orgy, not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. Just look at the language: everyone is filled with lust and “dishonorable passions” having sex with whomever, however. But why would Paul be talking about orgies? A little research into pagan religious practices contemporary to Paul uncovers the pagan practice of “sacred sexual orgies.” Baal was the Canaanite deity that was worshipped with sexual orgies on Mount Peor in Moab, a pagan practice with which Paul would have been familiar. Apparently, during these “sacred” orgies entire families would have sex with no regard for familial bonds, gender, or age. It makes complete sense for Paul to condemn such practices.

Cannon, Justin R. (2008-07-14). The Bible, Christianity, & Homosexuality (pp. 16-17). CreateSpace. Kindle Edition.

Are you familiar with pederasty? Paul certainly was and that would be much more appropriate a cultural and contextual issue that Paul was condemning.

If you want to twist these in the same way Bill Clinton twisted "sexual relations" in his mind, then maybe you have a case. But any normal person reads those and says, "oh, it says here, 'do not have sexual relations with another man', as it is detestable. (KJV uses the word 'Abomination')." It does not say, 'do not have sexual relations with Male prostitutes', or 'do not have abusive sexual relations with another man', it just says 'do not have sexual relations with another man, it is detestable.' That is a general statement that covers all forms of sexual relations with another man.

This is nothing similar to Bill Clinton. You in fact would be guilty of equivocating. Your generality is the problem here not mine. That was also Bill Clinton's problem. This is an ancient text we are talking about. If the statement is so general for you to categorize it as including modern day homosexual committed relationships then why doesn't it say anything about women? That isn't trivial - it is 1/2 of what you are attempting to use the scripture to condemn and it simply is not there.

Why doesn't Christ further elaborate on this massive of an issue to you and the majority of the membership when he fulfills the law and we are no longer under the statement you quote? Do you treat women the same way as the cultural climate and society in Leviticus? Do you fight against political and societal norms such as having sexual intercourse during menstruation Lev. 18:19, do you condemn those that don't shave the edges of their beards because that is detestable and the law Lev. 19:27. Do you condemn harvesting the same crop in the same field and picket farmers that do so Lev 19:19? Do you push for legislation that promotes the Leviticus dietary laws? Paul taught we are no longer under this law it is not applicable to us. So you using a verse outside of its real cultural context with no proper understanding of that, that doesn't speak to entire half of the issue we are discussing, that included abhorrent pagan practices that were part of the cultural climate, and that isn't even applicable to Christians anymore as if it supports your general idea committed and loving relations between the same sex is being spoken to? And you claim it is just self-evident to anyone who reads it?

Also, you aren't reading it self-evidently, because in Hebrew the translated "to lie with" includes sexual relations - so if we read it the way you insist the verse would read don't have sex with men don't have sex with men, which doesn't make sex. Let me clarify by quoting for you again:

"Some affirm that this law is quite straightforward. Clearly from the previous sixteen verses, we know that these laws were written to men. Thus, some may say, this law forbids men to “lie with”, or have sex with, other men. This interpretation is flawed as it entirely ignores the phrase “as with a woman.” These four words cannot simply be understood to refer to lying sexually, since that is already indicated in the Hebrew word translated “to lie with.” Since the verb translated “to lie with” already denotes sexual activity, if the above interpretation were what the author meant he could have just written, “Thou shalt not lie with a man; it is an abomination.” The phrase “as with a woman” must have been added for some reason, and we must understand the context of this law to understand it fully. The status of women in that time was much lower than that of men, and women were even considered property of their husbands. This belief regarding gender relations is rejected by most of the Christian church today, but in order to make sense of this specific Jewish law we must keep in mind this context in which it was written. Rabbi Arthur Waskow explains, “The whole structure of sexuality in the Torah assumes a dominant male and a subordinate female.” Further, in such patriarchal societies women were considered property of men, and were “obedient” to their husbands. In having sex, therefore, one should not be shocked that men would often have been dominating and controlling in sexual encounters. In other words, woman did what the man wanted and how the man wanted it. For a man to be treated in that way (i.e. as a woman) within the Jewish culture of the time, the man would have be taking a lower status, as well as being sexually dominated and controlled. To do so would have been reducing him to property and in effect defiling the image of God, which man was considered in that culture. “Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination” (KJV). Contextually about practices we see and familiar with. This Hebrew author would have been familiar with the male temple prostitutes, and the activity described is exactly how men would have treated the male temple prostitutesin a controlling and abusive manner. That is also how individuals would have been treated in the sacred sexual orgies with which Baal was worshiped. They would have had sex with other men “as with a women” using them in self-centered ways.

Cannon, Justin R. (2008-07-14). The Bible, Christianity, & Homosexuality (pp. 23-24). CreateSpace. Kindle Edition.

If one properly tries to understand the meaning and not force it to simply mean homosexuality is prime sin in the universe it isn't an uphill battle at all. Quite frankly, you have the uphill climb.

mikwut

[Bikeemikey]

As I understand it, it was never doctrinal that they would always be deprived of temple covenants.

It does not seem to have been permanent. And then there was always baptisms for the dead.

I would be really interested knowing if "blacks" were able to have temple work completed prior to the 1978 change in church policy.

Anyone have any insight on this?

[Log]

Just remember, when it is illegal to suggest that any legal marriage is less than a marriage - that's when "fun" begins.

And when a court holds that it de facto oppression - causing emotional anguish and the like - to imply someone in a legal state of marriage is not married, even more "fun" ensues.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Log

[Bikeemikey]

baptism is all that is required for entrance into the celestial kingdom.

I have always understood the Gospel in such away that baptism does not make you eligible for the Celestial Kingdom. Baptism, along with temple ordinances and a life time of righteous living make us eligible. Remove any part of that and you don't make the cut.

Baptism alone is insufficient, as far as I understand the Gospel. Please CFR statement or open another thread to discuss this in more detail.

[David T]

Just remember, when it is illegal to suggest that any legal marriage is less than a marriage - that's when "fun" begins.

And when a court holds that it de facto oppression - causing emotional anguish and the like - to imply someone in a legal state of marriage is not married, even more "fun" ensues.

I don't see this being a legal issue (IE, in having any successful lawsuits against the Church) , as it regards the reception of religious practices. Legally, the Church had no problem with restricting blacks from religious practices, because in the eyes of the law, it was as much a religious tenet as any, such as not letting women be ordained.

Especially if such wording in the Covenant is changed to something along the lines of 'spouse to whom they are wed in the eyes of the Church'. Right now, the Church invokes the legal definition of marriage.

Edited April 5, 2012 by David T

[Scott Lloyd]

Then they would be wise to remove the phrase 'legal and lawful' and replace it with 'In the eyes of the Church' in the terms and conditions of the Covenant.

This has not been necessary in the past, because it is only now that the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman has been challenged. And I'm fairly certain that unlike earthly tribunals, God is not bound by legal loopholes.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[David T]

This has never been necessary in the past. And I'm fairly certain that unlike earthly tribunals, God is not bound by legal loopholes.

Then why maintain the specific appeal to the legal institution?

Edited April 5, 2012 by David T

[Log]

And I'm fairly certain that unlike earthly tribunals, God is not bound by legal loopholes.

No, but the membership is, unfortunately. When the Church gets specific, in reaction to certain earthly legalities, that's when certain laws will be creatively applied to hinder the Church in its ordinances and its preachings. That's the plan.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Log

[Scott Lloyd]

Then why the specific appeal to the legal institution?

See the version of my post after I edited it. To reiterate, it is only now that the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman has been challenged. You seem to be under the impression that same-gender marriage is an age-old concept, not an extremely recent, 21st century notion.

[David T]

That's the plan.

Whose plan? And CFR on that.

[David T]

See the version of my post after I edited it. To reiterate, it is only now that the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman has been challenged. You seem to be under the impression that same-gender marriage is an age-old concept, not an extremely recent, 21st century notion.

Do you feel that with the legal definition being widely altered, the Church would perhaps be wise to remove the specific connection to the legal definition in the Covenant, if that is not what they believe it to actually mean?

Edited April 5, 2012 by David T

[Scott Lloyd]

No, but the membership is, unfortunately. When the Church gets specific, in reaction to certain earthly legalities, that's when certain laws will be creatively applied to hinder the Church in its ordinances and its preachings. That's the plan.

And I'm certain that's why the Church has encouraged members to be activist in the Prop 8 battle and the like. In the long run, it is seeking to protect its own religious liberty.

And I would suggest that the fact we are seeing pressure on this very thread to have the Church change its doctrine is evidence of the slippery slope. Once the pressure groups get their way in the government arena, they won't leave the Church alone.

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you feel that with the legal definition being widely altered, the Church would perhaps be wise to remove the specific connection to the legal definition in the Covenant, if that is not what they believe it to actually mean?

Perhaps. But I don't profess any legal expertise.

[Sky]

Do you feel that with the legal definition being widely altered, the Church would perhaps be wise to remove the specific connection to the legal definition in the Covenant, if that is not what they believe it to actually mean?

The legal definition refers not only to the laws of the land but also the laws of God.

If same-sex marriage becomes widespread enough, I could maybe see the wording change, but I don’t see that happening any time soon.

[Analytics]

Yes, Man's ways are not God's ways. However, God's house is a "house of order", has always been, and always will be. This statement could just as easily be used against homosexuality, since it is the thoughts of men that are pushing for homosexuality.

Infertile couples are at least biologically designed to have children, but for whatever infirmities afflict them, they are unable to do so. Homosexuals on the other hand have never been biologically designed to do so.

To say that because it's possible one day we may be able to manipulate genetic code from two males or two females into a biologically feasible "offspring" does not mean that God on that day will jump for joy and proclaim, "You did it! It is now ok for homosexual couples to be sealed in my temples".

I’m certainly not going to argue with you about what God really thinks about this issue. You are convinced that you already know God’s will on the issue, and it’s pointless to argue about it—especially with a disbeliever. What I am reminding you is that your faith believes that there will be future revelation. What will that revelation look like? The Jews thought the teachings of Jesus were so radical that he was destroying the law. New revelation can be shockingly unexpected, can’t it?

[Scott Lloyd]

It does not seem to have been permanent. And then there was always baptisms for the dead.

I would be really interested knowing if "blacks" were able to have temple work completed prior to the 1978 change in church policy.

Anyone have any insight on this?

I don't think so. I learned recently that temple work was performed for Jane Elizabeth Manning James very soon after the 1978 revelation was announced; it wouldn't have been possible prior to that.

[Bikeemikey]

I don't think so. I learned recently that temple work was performed for Jane Elizabeth Manning James very soon after the 1978 revelation was announced; it wouldn't have been possible prior to that.

That really is interesting and even more troubling to me than just the denial of temple blessings while living.

[rameumptom]

I agree that gays can make decent parents. If it were an issue of "til death do you part", it probably would not matter if marriages were between same sex couples.

However, when we're talking about eternal relationships patterned after God's family, with eternal seed, etc., suddenly there are everlasting reasons that strongly show that same sex marriages will not be approved in the Church.

For those who think otherwise, they have a nice pipe dream. But we're talking about issues of eternity, not just of this telestial world we dwell in. All of us have innate things we must deny and overcome, taking up our cross. To pretend otherwise is to deny the importance of God's eternal plan.

[Calm]

That really is interesting and even more troubling to me than just the denial of temple blessings while living.

Isn't this really only an issue if individuals 'gain admittance' to the Celestial Kingdom before Judgment and the Resurrection? Otherwise, pretty much anyone born after Christ will be receiving the eternal benefits of the ordinances at the same time no matter when the ceremony took place (at least up until the Second Coming).

[Bikeemikey]

Isn't this really only an issue if individuals 'gain admittance' to the Celestial Kingdom before Judgment and the Resurrection? Otherwise, pretty much anyone born after Christ will be receiving the eternal benefits of the ordinances at the same time no matter when the ceremony took place (at least up until the Second Coming).

Benefits of exaltation require access to temple ordinances. It seems to me that, theologically/doctrinally, if people are ineligible for temple work posthumously then there would be no argument to suggest they should for the same posthumous temple work in the millennium.

It suggests the logic and reasoning behind the denial of blacks receiving the priesthood also produced a theological view that created the belief that Blacks could not be exalted until God specifically stated otherwise. This idea, linked with the strong textual evidence that the early church members did not believe this would change until after this temporal existence, if at all, is interesting.

I think we forgot that the denial of blacks the priesthood was saying, as things stand God does not find you eligible the promise of exaltation; that is not even the HOPE of it even with righteous living.

[Mark Beesley]

All rights, implies rights to leadership roles (e.g. bishop, stake president, etc) and full ritual rights, specifically Temple rituals.

No one has any right to any leadership role in the Church. Nor does anyone have right to any ritual rites. These are all privileges bestowed by the Lord as He sees fit.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[Damien the Leper]

I would find it pretty difficult to explain away Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, & Romans 1:26-27...

Considering that the Hebrew word to'evah does not actually translate to the poorly translated abomination such a claim as this becomes problematic. My Hebrew Bible professor stated that the appropriate translation of to'evah is "not part of this particular culture and practice".

It is of particular interest that malakoi and arsenokoitai did not define homosexual until the 1958 Amplified Version and the phrase used is "those who participate in homosexuality".

Sodomite was never synonymous with homosexual. It was synonymous with **** intercourse...at least from a cultural and sociological perspective.

In the NRSV Bible, one of the best in circulation, malakoi is the equivalent to a male prostitute. Arsenokoitai is the equivalent to that of a sodomite. Bruce Metzger and company, IMO, nailed it. A great reference is his Greek Lexical Aid.

In conclusion, the context doesn't fit the condemnation.

[Damien the Leper]

The following article was published in today's Salt Lake Tribune:

I firmly believe that people from all religions should be free to dictate and advocate for their own beliefs, and support both Mormons' and non-Mormon's individual abilities to do so, whether attempting to persuade those of other Faiths or amongst their own memberships. While I do not agree with everything in his article, nor his religious convictions, I applaud Mr. Carmack's efforts to positively affect pro-gay attitudes in his own Faith.

Daniel2

I applaud this man's conviction. As some have stated before, when does this conviction border apostasy? I also applaud this man's dissent. It reminds me much of the convictions and testimonies of past religious figures who were seeking reform within their own communities. I do not mean to compare this man to John Wycliff but the conviction is the same. He protests and commits a sin against the church. The religious experience in history has often been that of educated rebellion and change. I hope that such radical views will continue to reshape our own religious experiences.

[Mark Beesley]

I applaud this man's conviction. As some have stated before, when does this conviction border apostasy? I also applaud this man's dissent. It reminds me much of the convictions and testimonies of past religious figures who were seeking reform within their own communities. I do not mean to compare this man to John Wycliff but the conviction is the same. He protests and commits a sin against the church. The religious experience in history has often been that of educated rebellion and change. I hope that such radical views will continue to reshape our own religious experiences.

There is no such thing as righteous rebellion in the Church of Jesus Christ. Remember, obedience is better than sacrifice.

[Damien the Leper]

Daniel, the precedents you mention aren't really apples to apples. The first was God justifying exceptions to the rule, not changing the rule itself. The second in reference to blacks holding the priesthood, there are several quotes from BY (also floating around on this board) showing that he specifically knew that to be a temporary law that would be undone at some point in the future. There has been no indication of such in the matter of homosexual relationships, and since they DO go against nature (number of children conceived by homosexual couples in the history of the world to date has been zero), I don't see this changing.

Perhaps you could take some time to understand the etymology of certain Greek and Hebrew words and how they were used in their historical context and not how modern religionists and practitioners interpret them. Modern revelation does NOT interpret history or language. Keep that in mind as you study.