Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[Scott Lloyd]

Don't think so. When someone uses to support their position " He even instructed them to make a website just a few monthes ago on the subject." then it is appropriate to challenge when this was revealed.

Your point is well taken.

Still, with something as important and visible as launching that new website, I hardly think it would have happened without the leaders at the highest level giving the go-ahead for it and feeling that they had divine approbation in doing so.

With that said, would it be easy or even possible to document the exact moment in time or the process over time by which that divine inspiration was received? I doubt it.

Does that make the decision any the less inspired or divine? Well, if I as a ward choir director can receive inspiration, as I believe I did, on such a pedestrian matter as organizing a male chorus to perform in a sacrament meeting with a missionary theme a couple of weeks ago, I don't doubt that the Lord can inspire the Brethren and those who assist them about launching a website regarding the very sensitive matter of SSA.

A couple of years ago, I heard Richard Bushman give a seminar lecture on what he called "the routinization of charisma" in the Church. It might be defined as the widespread acceptance among the Latter-day Saints that whatever men and women in the Church do in fulfillment of their individual callings, it is for the most part accomplished under divine guidance. If this is true at the local level, it is most assuredly true at the general level.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

My iPad is acting up and jumping from one post to another, that rep point to slamrawi was meant for Tao. I find equating what was done in S and G to the current activism for SSM inappropriate.

 

 

 

49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

 

My iPad is acting up and jumping from one post to another, that rep point to slamrawi was meant for Tao. I find equating what was done in S and G to the current activism for SSM inappropriate.

 

 

Cal, the verse that was highlighted referred to abomination:

 

 48 As I live, saith the Lord God, ^aSodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.

 49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister ^aSodom, ^bpride, fulness of bread, and abundance of ^cidleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

 50 And they were haughty, and committed ^aabomination before me: therefore I took them ^baway ^cas I saw good.

 

In verse 50 the term abomination refers to homosexual behavior. What indicates is that Sodom was practicing homosexual behavior, an abomination before the Lord, and the Lord took them away, i.e. destroyed them, as he "saw good".  I don't know how the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is NOT directly related to a conversation about SSM. I don't think I understand how it could not be; can you explain your position more fully?

 

The desire to blind oneself to the scriptures and claim that there is no condemnation of homosexual behavior is a desire to ignore what is clearly evident. Rock, I understand a desire to be open that things change, but to say that that scriptures do not condemn homo-behavior is to purposely ignore scripture, the word of the Lord, and his prophets.

 

We have all seen where the Lord throughout history has accepted polygamy at one time only to reject it at another time. This has never occurred for homosexual behavior; it has been condemned as an abomination from the beginning. Being confused is one thing, but to consistently close your eyes in order to maintain a hope as a pathway to evade confusion is not a spiritually path; it is one that will lead to apostasy. I suggest that a better way when confused - i.e. how can two people who love one another so fully be bad? - is to simply let God handle it.

 

As for me, I find myself in a different position. It is not possible to do anything else but condemn the behavior; I will not, I cannot call evil good and good evil. 

[Calm]

In verse 50 the term abomination refers to homosexual behavior.

 

CFR please...and in Hebrew, not just the connections made back and forth between words that are sometimes assumed to be the same.

 

My problem with equating SSM with S&G is that the second takes behaviour to the level of rape and violence.  Even if homosexual behaviour was one of Sodom's sins, it was not the only one that merited God's judgment and for which they were destroyed, not according to Ezekiel.

 

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

 

 

I am not one of those who removes homosexual behaviour as a sin in the scriptures.   Nor do I feel the need to appeal only to the scriptures to condemn such behaviour, I believe modern prophets' counsel is enough.  I just don't think it is a parallel example and due to the violence associated with Sodom, inappropriate.  Sodom had a lot of other issues going on and it is taking a big step to assume it was the homosexual behaviour apart from any violence that solely brought about its condemnation.

 

There are plenty of teachings about the immorality of homosexual acts available, one doesn't need to appeal to one that actually is condemning a number of other sins, including neglect of the poor and extreme violence.

 

A parallel would be attempting to condemn heterosexual behaviour using the account of the gang rape of the concubine in Judges 19.  Gang rape is bad period, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual.  If one is to condemn homosexual behaviour in general using scriptures, one needs to appeal to a different account.

 

Stormrider, do you believe that Sodom's actions would have been less of an abomination if they had instead demanded of Lot to send out his daughters to be raped?

Edited September 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

The Lord is begging them to change. Actually, he is begging all of us to change. He wants us to change so much. That's how much he loves us. The Lord is a surprisingly humble God. Or so I have found, from the way he communicates with me. Perhaps he's showing me that I need to be more humble. Leading by example, teaching me lessons. I'm quite sure he is a good teacher. In fact, I know it. =p

Thanks. That is a beautiful testimony.

[rockpond]

@ StormRider

 

Sexual activity between any two persons, regardless of gender, outside of a marriage relationship seems to be condemned by the Scriptures.  I would hope that on this much we agree.  As Cal has demonstrated, I don't believe S&G to be a condemnation of any specific sexual activity -- the text just doesn't justify such a conclusion.  But if it were -- the condemnation would certainly be for rape.

 

There are no examples of loving committed homosexual relationships in our cannon with the possible exception of David & Jonathan.  Does that mean that loving, committed gay unions are condemned?  Blessed?  Just never brought up?  Removed over time?

[rockpond]

: ) 

 

So it's all about bad manners?

 

I wonder what those blasted prophets were teaching? It wouldn't have anything to do with the ceremonies (the groves) that included homosexuality, heterosexual immorality, and human sacrifice would it? This homosexuality thing happens in every dispensation and the demise of it is not for the faint hearted.

 

Homosexual sin has also been directly addressed by our modern day prophets. It's your choice whether you believe them or not.

 

Seriously, SSM as a temple ordinance has never been accepted nor will it be. Absolute truths exist, this is one of them.

 

Yes, I agree that ritual immorality and human sacrifice would be enough to upset the Lord.

 

SSM as a temple ordinance has never been accepted in this dispensation.  Absolute truths do exist.  And the Restoration continues to unfold.

[rockpond]

Your point is well taken.

Still, with something as important and visible as launching that new website, I hardly think it would have happened without the leaders at the highest level giving the go-ahead for it and feeling that they had divine approbation in doing so.

With that said, would it be easy or even possible to document the exact moment in time or the process over time by which that divine inspiration was received? I doubt it.

Does that make the decision any the less inspired or divine? Well, if I as a ward choir director can receive inspiration, as I believe I did, on such a pedestrian matter as organizing a male chorus to perform in a sacrament meeting with a missionary theme a couple of weeks ago, I don't doubt that the Lord can inspire the Brethren and those who assist them about launching a website regarding the very sensitive matter of SSA.

A couple of years ago, I heard Richard Bushman give a seminar lecture on what he called "the routinization of charisma" in the Church. It might be defined as the widespread acceptance among the Latter-day Saints that whatever men and women in the Church do in fulfillment of their individual callings, it is for the most part accomplished under divine guidance. If this is true at the local level, it is most assuredly true at the general level.

 

I agree with what you are saying but believe there is a difference between inspiration/guidance we receive (and even that the Prophet receives) and the statement above that the Lord had made His position clearly known on this matter.

[rockpond]

: ) 

 

So it's all about bad manners?

 

I wonder what those blasted prophets were teaching? It wouldn't have anything to do with the ceremonies (the groves) that included homosexuality, heterosexual immorality, and human sacrifice would it? This homosexuality thing happens in every dispensation and the demise of it is not for the faint hearted.

 

Homosexual sin has also been directly addressed by our modern day prophets. It's your choice whether you believe them or not.

 

Seriously, SSM as a temple ordinance has never been accepted nor will it be. Absolute truths exist, this is one of them.

 

Here's the exact quote.  I was thinking that he mentioned "inhospitality"... not in the sense of bad manners but in the sense of not taking care of the poor and afflicted.  Maybe I was wrong on that or maybe it's in another quote.

 

“In consequence of rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Prophets whom God hath sent, the judgments of God have rested upon people, cities, and nations, in various ages of the world, which was the case with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, that were destroyed for rejecting the Prophets.” Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 192–205. From a discourse given by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo on Jan. 22, 1843.)

 

Elder Maxwell did suggest some element of not caring for the poor:

 

“When love waxes cold, let the poor and the needy beware too, for they will be neglected, as happened in ancient Sodom.” (Neal A. Maxwell, Repent of [Our] Selfishness’ (D&C 56:, Ensign, May 1999, 23)

[CV75]

I've countered every argument that you have presented, so I certainly have defended my position.  From a debate persective... but I thought we were just having a discussion.

 

Sections 32, 110, and 138 don't contradict what I've said.  Yes, I agree there are sealing ordinances that promise posterity.  But sealing a gay couple together still helps connect the chain of parents to children.  Obviously it would be problematic if everyone wanted to be in a gay relationship but obviously Heavenly Father didn't design us that way.

 

And now, gay couples can and do have children.  Those sons & daughters go on to have children in heterosexual and/or homosexual relationships.  Sealing them together still works towards the objective of Elijah.

 

And, as I've stated, we have no idea how spirits are formed and eternal seed created in the next life.  We don't know that gay couples couldn't participate in that process.  And even if they can't, there is no requirement that a future sealing for them include such a promise.

 

But we really are talking in circles now... covering ground we've already covered multiple times.  I do however, think it's awesome that you could envision a separate ordinance for them allowing them to continue to associate, somehow, in the next life.  Even though I'd love to see more than that revealed (acknowledging that I don't now the Lord's will on the matter) maybe we could end on that note as our common ground.

 

Well, maybe here's some new ground, at least a view from another angle:

 

The new and everlasting covenant and the keys at the foundation of it are for the perpetuation of an eternal generation chain, not to accommodate whatever temporal human social constructs allow.

 

There can be no covenant that breaks this chain by inserting links that cannot be subsequently linked into. It goes back to Adam and Eve—by design, inserting a same-sex couple would terminate the possibility for any subsequent linkages. A single soul may as well be linked in there, and it doesn’t work that way, either. That is why same-sex couples will end up singly and separately in whatever kingdom they can attain, short of exaltation.

 

Eternal adoption into same-sex unions doesn’t work for this same reason. By design, all the children have parents of two different sexes—that is their sealing right and blessing right as well.

 

God will not deny those who have made the covenant the blessings by terminating the chain. The design is that the Atonement brings the chain together, not cut it off.

 

So there can be no covenant that will disrupt the new and everlasting covenant.

 

And of course people can continue their associations and ministry, even bewteen kingdoms.

[Storm Rider]

CFR please...and in Hebrew, not just the connections made back and forth between words that are sometimes assumed to be the same.

 

My problem with equating SSM with S&G is that the second takes behaviour to the level of rape and violence.  Even if homosexual behaviour was one of Sodom's sins, it was not the only one that merited God's judgment and for which they were destroyed, not according to Ezekiel.

 

 

I am not one of those who removes homosexual behaviour as a sin in the scriptures.   Nor do I feel the need to appeal only to the scriptures to condemn such behaviour, I believe modern prophets' counsel is enough.  I just don't think it is a parallel example and due to the violence associated with Sodom, inappropriate.  Sodom had a lot of other issues going on and it is taking a big step to assume it was the homosexual behaviour apart from any violence that solely brought about its condemnation.

 

There are plenty of teachings about the immorality of homosexual acts available, one doesn't need to appeal to one that actually is condemning a number of other sins, including neglect of the poor and extreme violence.

 

A parallel would be attempting to condemn heterosexual behaviour using the account of the gang rape of the concubine in Judges 19.  Gang rape is bad period, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual.  If one is to condemn homosexual behaviour in general using scriptures, one needs to appeal to a different account.

 

Stormrider, do you believe that Sodom's actions would have been less of an abomination if they had instead demanded of Lot to send out his daughters to be raped?

 

Just click on the word abomination and it takes you to the TG and you see the definition of the term i.e. specifically homosexual behavior. I clicked on it in the online Bible, but it should work on my quote above with the hyperlinked word.

 

I have mentioned before that I don't like to quantify sin other than in very broad brush strokes. I think there are some really bad ones, but I don't like to dissect the menu; the objective is to avoid all sin. If we can have godly sorrow for those things we do wrong, that are contrary to God's will, then we are on the right path; our hearts are single to the glory of God. Regardless, the sins of S&G are multi-faceted. The sins were not limited to homosexual behavior. These folks were dwelling on their passions and letting them have full rein of all their actions.

 

Rape is not rape - I view rape of a child worse than rape of an adult. However, it is this desire of humanity to attempt to quantify sins; it serves at its heart to feed the pride of man I think. It is better to just see it as all sin.

[Calm]

]

Just click on the word abomination and it takes you to the TG and you see the definition of the term i.e. specifically homosexual behavior. I clicked on it in the online Bible, but it should work on my quote above with the hyperlinked word.

.

Didn't really answer my CFR as I asked about the Hebrew....

There is a difference in rating sin and identifying the types.

And I do believe there is some value in at least recognising that God holds some sins as more vile than others, otherwise it makes no sense that he is not trashing cities right and left as he did S and G since everyone is a sinner.

Also: Luke 10

’ 10 But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town we wipe from our feet as a warning to you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

Add-on: I do not know the accuracy of this wiki article on the Hebrew words translated as abomination, but it does demonstrate the variety of words involved and thus the need for care in proper identification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination_(Bible)

Edited September 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Toevah/toeba is the Hebrew word in Ezek, which is not specified as homosexuality as far as I can tell.

Edited September 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

Well, maybe here's some new ground, at least a view from another angle:

 

The new and everlasting covenant and the keys at the foundation of it are for the perpetuation of an eternal generation chain, not to accommodate whatever temporal human social constructs allow.

 

There can be no covenant that breaks this chain by inserting links that cannot be subsequently linked into. It goes back to Adam and Eve—by design, inserting a same-sex couple would terminate the possibility for any subsequent linkages. A single soul may as well be linked in there, and it doesn’t work that way, either. That is why same-sex couples will end up singly and separately in whatever kingdom they can attain, short of exaltation.

 

Eternal adoption into same-sex unions doesn’t work for this same reason. By design, all the children have parents of two different sexes—that is their sealing right and blessing right as well.

 

God will not deny those who have made the covenant the blessings by terminating the chain. The design is that the Atonement brings the chain together, not cut it off.

 

So there can be no covenant that will disrupt the new and everlasting covenant.

 

And of course people can continue their associations and ministry, even bewteen kingdoms.

 

Do you have any references to back up these statements?  I'm not doing a "CFR"... just curious if you've got specific scripture or teachings that you are basing this on.

 

Joseph obviously didn't consider the sealing ordinance as only creating a chain from father to son, mother to daughter.  Given the law of adoption sealings that he started, it almost seems like he was going for more of a "web" as opposed to a "chain".

 

That aside, we seal children to their non-biological parents all the time.  Those children go on to have their own children who are sealed to them.  The sealings create a chain without regard for biological parentage.  Gay couples could also have children sealed to them in the same way without breaking that chain.  No disruption.

[rockpond]

Toevah/toeba is the Hebrew word in Ezek, which is not specified as homosexuality as far as I can tell.

 

I don't want to get too far off topic by discussing this article, but you might find it interesting (it's a quick read).  It's written by a Ph.D. student at Hebrew University and delves into the meanings of Toevah/Toevot in the Old Testament/Torah.

 

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/2826/does_the_bible_really_call_homosexuality_an_%E2%80%9Cabomination%E2%80%9D

Edited September 3, 2013 by rockpond

[Questing Beast]

... Joseph Smith taught that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for inhospitality and rejecting the prophets. Not homosexuality.

We are all so screwed....

[Scott Lloyd]

While it is a Protestant, not an LDS source, this webpage provides some reasoned insight into the question "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?"

 

It makes a case that "while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities."

 

[rockpond]

 

While it is a Protestant, not an LDS source, this webpage provides some reasoned insight into the question "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?"

 

It makes a case that "while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities."

 

 

 

But it makes that leap to homosexuality as the "primary reason" without any justification.  The author uses the Hebrew word for detestable in Ezek 16:49-50 to connect it to the same Hebrew word used in Lev 18:22, then references Jude 7 "sexual immorality" and immediately jumps to the quote that you gave.

 

They are forcing in all "homosexuality" where what we really have is a gang rape attempt (and according to the JST, they didn't even care about gender as they asked for Lot's daughters as well).  And even the gang rape attempt is never specifically cited in scripture as the reason for the destruction.

[Scott Lloyd]

But it makes that leap to homosexuality as the "primary reason" without any justification.  The author uses the Hebrew word for detestable in Ezek 16:49-50 to connect it to the same Hebrew word used in Lev 18:22, then references Jude 7 "sexual immorality" and immediately jumps to the quote that you gave.

 

 

In addition to "sexual immorality,"  Jude 7 says the people of those ancient cities "pursued unnatural desire," which the King James Version renders more graphically as "going after strange flesh," which would indicate sexual perversion, arguably including homosexuality. So, while I can see your point, it is not quite the stretch that you indicate it is.

[rockpond]

In addition to "sexual immorality,"  Jude 7 says the people of those ancient cities "pursued unnatural desire," which the King James Version renders more graphically as "going after strange flesh," which would indicate sexual perversion, arguably including homosexuality. So, while I can see your point, it is not quite the stretch that you indicate it is.

 

Jude 7 says "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh".  Why is heterosexuality not the reason for Sodom's destruction?  Why is homosexuality the "primary reason"?

[Calm]

I don't want to get too far off topic by discussing this article, but you might find it interesting (it's a quick read).  It's written by a Ph.D. student at Hebrew University and delves into the meanings of Toevah/Toevot in the Old Testament/Torah.

 

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/2826/does_the_bible_really_call_homosexuality_an_%E2%80%9Cabomination%E2%80%9D

http://www.jaymichaelson.net/

 

I think that fact that he is an LGBT activist should be taken into account in his reasoning.

Edited September 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[CV75]

Do you have any references to back up these statements?  I'm not doing a "CFR"... just curious if you've got specific scripture or teachings that you are basing this on.

 

I’m not sure what statements you mean—all of them?

 

The new and everlasting covenant and the keys at the foundation of it are for the perpetuation of an eternal generation chain, not to accommodate whatever temporal human social constructs allow. D&C 132:7 lists the types of temporal human social constructs (“covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity”) that are excluded. D&C 128:18 speaks to the “welding link,” which “in this case… is the baptism for the dead,” the gate by which all must enter prior to receiving the rest of the ordinances that provide a welding link between the fathers and the children, upon the subject of the new and everlasting covenant, which is subsequently addressed in D&C 132 and also specified in in D&C 138:48. President Woodruff received a revelation that the correct principle is to be sealed to our parents and along generational lines, and so it goes on that way today.

 

There can be no covenant that breaks this chain by inserting links that cannot be subsequently linked into. It goes back to Adam and Eve—by design, inserting a same-sex couple would terminate the possibility for any subsequent linkages. A single soul may as well be linked in there, and it doesn’t work that way, either. That is why same-sex couples will end up singly and separately in whatever kingdom they can attain, short of exaltation. See the same sources I cited above, an also some of those cited below apply.

 

Eternal adoption into same-sex unions doesn’t work for this same reason. By design, all the children have parents of two different sexes—that is their sealing right and blessing right as well. Several items from The Family: A Proclamation to the World: “… marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. …Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. … His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body … The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally. …The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. …the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. …We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. …Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations. …The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother …By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. …We warn that individuals who …fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God.”)

 

God will not deny those who have made the covenant the blessings by terminating the chain. The design is that the Atonement brings the chain together, not cut it off. I’ll take the lazy route here: go to http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormon_ordinances/Marriage/Eternal_marriage#endnote_fn33

 and scroll down to the heading, “What of members who are not married?” I think there is little controversy that the blessings of exaltation are the purpose of the Atonement, and that the validity of the ordinances relies on the Atonement.

 

So there can be no covenant that will disrupt the new and everlasting covenant. I think this goes without saying, but a scriptural reference to the idea is found in D&C 128:19-23—the Lord will allow nothing to stop His work.

 

And of course people can continue their associations and ministry, even between kingdoms. D&C 76 speaks to how the kingdoms relate and associate with each other.

 

Joseph obviously didn't consider the sealing ordinance as only creating a chain from father to son, mother to daughter.  Given the law of adoption sealings that he started, it almost seems like he was going for more of a "web" as opposed to a "chain".

Yes, or for a web of chains linked by marriage; or perhaps even a fractal as the pattern progresses eternally. These adoptions still require a male-female parental set for the child to have both a mother and a father, which is his right, both biologically and by covenant, just as much as the fathers (parents) have a right to posterity.

 

 

That aside, we seal children to their non-biological parents all the time.  Those children go on to have their own children who are sealed to them.  The sealings create a chain without regard for biological parentage.  Gay couples could also have children sealed to them in the same way without breaking that chain.  No disruption.

 

They are biological parents in that one is male and one is female to form a set of parents.

[Calm]

 

While it is a Protestant, not an LDS source, this webpage provides some reasoned insight into the question "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?"

 

It makes a case that "while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities."

 

 

The problem with this is equating homosexual behaviour in general with homosexual gang rape.  As far as I can tell, there is nowhere in the story as it is told that states that consensual homosexual behaviour was seen as normal sexual behaviour.

[Scott Lloyd]

The problem with this is equating homosexual behaviour in general with homosexual gang rape.  As far as I can tell, there is nowhere in the story as it is told that states that consensual homosexual behaviour was seen as normal sexual behaviour.

I'm having trouble getting your meaning here. Did you perhaps leave the word "not" out of your last sentence, as in "there is nowhere in the story as it is told that states that consensual homosexual behaviour was not seeen as normal sexual behavior"?

[Calm]

I'm having trouble getting your meaning here. Did you perhaps leave the word "not" out of your last sentence, as in "there is nowhere in the story as it is told that states that consensual homosexual behaviour was not seeen as normal sexual behavior"?

Yeah, I'm having trouble getting my meaning as well.  How about we just pretend I never wrote it and leave it with the first sentence itself.

 

Okay....thinking a little bit more, I think I was trying to say that it doesn't state that culturally acceptable consensual homosexual behaviour was typical Sodomite behaviour included in the reasons for which it was destroyed.  IOW, it might even be possible that the attempted gang rape of the men was seen as that much worse because sex with men was generally taboo among the Sodomites but because they were strangers/outsiders, the rapists thought they could get away with it and wouldn't be socially condemned.  To come to any conclusion of what was socially acceptable we need more info in my opinion, such as studying what the typical cultic practices of the area were.

 

Some of the rabbinical stories surrounding Sodom are quite interesting and from my reading...as uninformed as that is....it appears to be focused mainly on the Sodomites differentiating between themselves and outsiders and treating outsiders to callous and cruel actions.

 

Think of it as an extreme violation of the commandment to love one's neighbour as oneself.

Edited September 3, 2013 by calmoriah