Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[Calm]

Remember it had not been that long about that the Sodomites had almost been forced to become the perpetual outsides, the lowest of the low in their society and yet the Lord had rescued them through Abraham from a life of slavery, poverty and abuse and restored them to their own homes.  Instead of showing gratitude and thinking 'there but for the grace of God', they instead treat with even worse abuse outsiders.  It is an insult towards God's goodness and thus just that God destroys them, having given them a second chance already.

[Questing Beast]

...

 

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.

I read the Book of Jasher many years ago, and while likely an 11th century CE creation, it is a Jewish creation according to Jewish views. Iirc, the main crime of Sodom and Gomorrah was selfishness of such a depth that it was irredeemable. They preyed upon the traveler, murdering and plundering him instead of showing hospitality. And they even put nets over their fruit trees to keep birds from pecking at the fruit. Sexual predatory practice was just one of many manifestations of this inbred selfishness and materialism....

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Thing is, the passage in Jude does not reference the attempted gang rape. It only refers to the people of Sodom being given to "unnatural desire," or "going after strange flesh," which arguably could be interpreted as sexual perversion. The question, then, is what did the ancients regard as sexual perversion. If the purpose of sex was considered to be reproduction within the marital covenant, then anything that departed therefrom, including homosexuality, might have been included in the general category of sexual perversion.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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"?

Because heterosexuality arguably does not fall within the classification of "pursuing unnatural desire" or "going after strange flesh." See my post above.

[Scott Lloyd]

 And they even put nets over their fruit trees to keep birds from pecking at the fruit.

I've been casting around for ways to keep the birds off my peaches, apples and tomatoes, which are just coming on now. I hope, in so doing, I won't be bringing down fire and brimstone upon my yard.

[David T]

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.

 

 

Because heterosexuality arguably does not fall within the classification of "pursuing unnatural desire" or "going after strange flesh." See my post above.

It's also understood, knowing Jude's use of 1 Enoch, to refer to using the example of unnatural angel-human relations. In this case, it is the opposite of the story of the Watchers, where the rebellious angelic creatures assaulted humans.(referred to explicitly in Jude 6 directly above it! " And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day") In this case, in verse 7,  it is humans assaulting righteous angels. Both were Not Okay.

 

Yes, that's not something we currently believe as being literally, historically possible. It was, however, very clearly a popular view in the Second Temple period, and was a powerful and visceral mythic example of violating one's divine roles, crossing a line, and having divine punishment (the imprisonment of the Watchers and destruction of their cross-breed offspring, the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah).

Edited September 3, 2013 by David T

[David T]

The only recorded incident of homosexual acts in Sodom and Gomorrah was the bizarre incident of an attempted (requested?) rape outside Lot's home. And yes, I believe that the Lord opposes rape. But that alone isn't why He destroyed the city. Joseph Smith taught that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for inhospitality and rejecting the prophets. Not homosexuality.

 

Probably got some of that idea from Ezekiel.  Ezekiel 16:49-50 "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 .And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

Edited September 3, 2013 by David T

[rockpond]

http://www.jaymichaelson.net/

 

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

 

Good point.  I didn't realize that.  Could show a bias to his interpretation.  Though, we need to be careful because it appears that the entire world is being divided into "activists".  Some would consider our own church leaders to be anti-LGBT activists.

[rockpond]

Because heterosexuality arguably does not fall within the classification of "pursuing unnatural desire" or "going after strange flesh." See my post above.

 

The 7th verse of Jude reads:

 

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

 

Notice that fornication and "going after strange flesh" are listed independently.  The strange flesh comment is not there to clarify the fornication.  It was just fornication - which includes heterosexual and homosexual sexual activities.  I still see it as a leap to conclude that "homosexuality" was the primary reason.  It also stands in contradiction to Joseph's commentary on Sodom (quoted above).

[rockpond]

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.

 

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.

 

 

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

 

They are not the birth parents.  The biological chain you insist upon in your interpretation is "broken" per your definition in the same way that sealing a gay couple and their adopted children would "break" the chain.

 

Theologically, we don't insist that adopted children revert to their birth parents in the next life.

[rockpond]

I've been casting around for ways to keep the birds off my peaches, apples and tomatoes, which are just coming on now. I hope, in so doing, I won't be bringing down fire and brimstone upon my yard.

 

The rabbits and birds got to my entire backyard harvest so far this year.  I guess I am more righteous than you.    Though I don't feel that way... I mostly find myself craving some fresh picked fruit.

[Scott Lloyd]

The rabbits and birds got to my entire backyard harvest so far this year.  I guess I am more righteous than you.    Though I don't feel that way... I mostly find myself craving some fresh picked fruit.

I have no green thumb at all. But the weather conditions this year in the Salt Lake Valley were such that my apple, pear and peach trees had more blossoms than I have ever seen at one time. Which made for an incredibly bountiful harvest. Two of the branches on one of my peach trees broke off before the fruit had a chance to fully ripen. I picked some of the fruit anyway, and it wasn't bad. But the fruit on the remaining branches and the other tree is just now ripening, and the taste is absolutely paradisiacal.

 

I'm just hoping now my apples will ripen before the worms get to all of them.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The 7th verse of Jude reads:

 

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

 

Notice that fornication and "going after strange flesh" are listed independently.  The strange flesh comment is not there to clarify the fornication.  It was just fornication - which includes heterosexual and homosexual sexual activities.  I still see it as a leap to conclude that "homosexuality" was the primary reason.  It also stands in contradiction to Joseph's commentary on Sodom (quoted above).

Perhaps you are right about it not being the primary reason. I've never regarded the Bible as an independent source of doctrine.

I don't see that it contradicts Joseph Smith, though, unless you are saying he ruled out sexual immorality as a reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Perhaps you are right about it not being the primary reason. I've never regarded the Bible as an independent source of doctrine.

I don't see that it contradicts Joseph Smith, though, unless you are saying he ruled out sexual immorality as a reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

Here's the quote again... He didn't specifically rule out sexual immorality (I think sexual immorality could fall under "rejecting the prophets") but in reading this comment it is tough to conclude that homosexuality was the primary reason as it seems like he probably would have alluded to that if that's what he believed.

 

“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.)

Edited September 3, 2013 by rockpond

[CV75]

They are not the birth parents.  The biological chain you insist upon in your interpretation is "broken" per your definition in the same way that sealing a gay couple and their adopted children would "break" the chain.

 

Theologically, we don't insist that adopted children revert to their birth parents in the next life.

If find this quite humorous, because as I pointed out with your grandparents, the non-birth (adopting) parents are still biologically male and female; "Adam" and "Eve" in and by design (in form, function and purpose)!

Edited September 3, 2013 by CV75

[Calm]

Thing is, the passage in Jude does not reference the attempted gang rape. It only refers to the people of Sodom being given to "unnatural desire," or "going after strange flesh," which arguably could be interpreted as sexual perversion. The question, then, is what did the ancients regard as sexual perversion. If the purpose of sex was considered to be reproduction within the marital covenant, then anything that departed therefrom, including homosexuality, might have been included in the general category of sexual perversion.

Jude is a long time after Sodom actually occurred though.  I am wondering how much of it was based on tradition....just as we have now with the idea that is sometimes taught that the "original sin" was sex.

 

I do believe that the scriptures teach against homosexual behaviour.  I just think we need to be careful about using Sodom as if it is an example of how God  treats homosexuals in general as was suggested by the post that started this subtopic:

 

slamarwi:

I'm sure the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were just as sincere and caring for their same sex partners. The Lord didn't make exceptions for them or any other society engaging in or promoting homosexuality

 

Edited September 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Because heterosexuality arguably does not fall within the classification of "pursuing unnatural desire" or "going after strange flesh." See my post above.

But wouldn't it be so if it was outside the bonds of marriage?  Especially if it was rape or a cultic practice?

 

(serious question, I don't have a clue what the culture of that time would define it as)

Edited September 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

If find this quite humorous, because as I pointed out with your grandparents, the non-birth (adopting) parents are still biologically male and female; "Adam" and "Eve" in and by design (in form, function and purpose)!

 

Why does it matter if the non-birth parents are male & female?

[USU78]

I read the Book of Jasher many years ago, and while likely an 11th century CE creation, it is a Jewish creation according to Jewish views. Iirc, the main crime of Sodom and Gomorrah was selfishness of such a depth that it was irredeemable. They preyed upon the traveler, murdering and plundering him instead of showing hospitality. And they even put nets over their fruit trees to keep birds from pecking at the fruit. Sexual predatory practice was just one of many manifestations of this inbred selfishness and materialism....

 

There are plenty of reasons to believe and assert that the irredeemable selfishness you point out is not only not inconsistent with, but necessarily part and parcel of homosexual behavior en masse.  It's just that most folks are just too polite to say so, leaving the field to those who take advantage of a certain sense of squeamishness.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's the quote again... He didn't specifically rule out sexual immorality (I think sexual immorality could fall under "rejecting the prophets") but in reading this comment it is tough to conclude that homosexuality was the primary reason as it seems like he probably would have alluded to that if that's what he believed.

 

“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.)

When you consider that the prophets preach the gospel, rejecting the prophets does cover quite a broad territory.

[Calm]

Good point.  I didn't realize that.  Could show a bias to his interpretation.  Though, we need to be careful because it appears that the entire world is being divided into "activists".  Some would consider our own church leaders to be anti-LGBT activists.

I only use the term because he is actively involved in an organization that deals with LGBT equality issues.  I would not use it for just someone who happened to comment one time on an interpretation or even spoke out on a popular subject from time to time.

 

Dr. Jay Michaelson is the Vice President of Social Justice programs at the Arcus Foundation, as well as a well-known writer, scholar, and activist

 

[USU78]

I have no green thumb at all. But the weather conditions this year in the Salt Lake Valley were such that my apple, pear and peach trees had more blossoms than I have ever seen at one time. Which made for an incredibly bountiful harvest. Two of the branches on one of my peach trees broke off before the fruit had a chance to fully ripen. I picked some of the fruit anyway, and it wasn't bad. But the fruit on the remaining branches and the other tree is just now ripening, and the taste is absolutely paradisiacal.

 

I'm just hoping now my apples will ripen before the worms get to all of them.

 

You need to read up on thinning peaches.

 

Note:  when I worked for George A Neilson & Sons (Utah's largest fruit farm . . . just read the billboard), we used to call thinning "beating on trees" for good reason.  Broken hoe handles served us well.

[Calm]

I have no green thumb at all. But the weather conditions this year in the Salt Lake Valley were such that my apple, pear and peach trees had more blossoms than I have ever seen at one time. Which made for an incredibly bountiful harvest. Two of the branches on one of my peach trees broke off before the fruit had a chance to fully ripen. I picked some of the fruit anyway, and it wasn't bad. But the fruit on the remaining branches and the other tree is just now ripening, and the taste is absolutely paradisiacal.

 

I'm just hoping now my apples will ripen before the worms get to all of them.

Our grapes are delicious and we should have had a bumper crop of peaches....but they've been infected with something and haven't grown since June.  Apples though...cut into one last night and a week or two, who knows.  I would almost start eating them now if my stomach could handle the greenness.

 

Got to remember to go out and try the plums, first year we've had those so I forgot.  

 

Didn't get any cherries though.

[Calm]

You need to read up on thinning peaches.

 

Note:  when I worked for George A Neilson & Sons (Utah's largest fruit farm . . . just read the billboard), we used to call thinning "beating on trees" for good reason.  Broken hoe handles served us well.

So you don't have to pick them off one by one, just hit the branches?  good to know...we are usually too lazy to thin them and instead just eat two smaller ones instead of one large one.

Edited September 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

It's also understood, knowing Jude's use of 1 Enoch, to refer to using the example of unnatural angel-human relations. In this case, it is the opposite of the story of the Watchers, where the rebellious angelic creatures assaulted humans.(referred to explicitly in Jude 6 directly above it! " And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day") In this case, in verse 7,  it is humans assaulting righteous angels. Both were Not Okay.

 

Yes, that's not something we currently believe as being literally, historically possible. It was, however, very clearly a popular view in the Second Temple period, and was a powerful and visceral mythic example of violating one's divine roles, crossing a line, and having divine punishment (the imprisonment of the Watchers and destruction of their cross-breed offspring, the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah).

Very interesting....thanks for posting this.