Scriptures Against Homosexuality

[wenglund]

There are a myriad of ways in which sacred procreative powers may be used or abused in non-procreative ways, that aren't expressly forbidden in the scriptures. So? Do we really need to be commanded in all things?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Hamilton Porter]

Are you gay or something?

 

Just kidding, thanks for posting. We need to understand these arguments instead of making a fool of ourselves like Bible-thumping  rednecks. Lots of evangelicals marry their cousins and they have an issue with gays getting married. Sheesh.

 

We expect the same level of courtesy towards other religions and we do towards Mormonism.

[rockpond]

You mentioned people who have a testimony.  I was simply agreeing that simply having a testimony that the bible or the book of mormon is true doesn't mean that a person knows how to interpret what they read and understand it in the way that God wants us to.

 

Got it.  I agree with that.

[rockpond]

There is no other form of marriage. All other human relationships are not marriages. There is but one that is defined by Christ as a marriage. You are correct that the topic of the passage was divorce, however, within that statement is the definition of what is a marriage. 

 

Interesting that Christ defined marriage in that passage without actually saying the word "marriage" or any of its derivatives.

[Palerider]

You accuse gays of trying to tear down and secularize all of the good practices and traditions of society. Then a few sentences later you state that gays shouldn't be ridiculed. Um, okay. Do you really not see the contradiction there?

 

No I don't...... would you like to point it out more clearly?

[The Nehor]

Interesting that Christ defined marriage in that passage without actually saying the word "marriage" or any of its derivatives.

 

I know. I mean why are we listening to Christ? The guy couldn't even be bothered to speak English!

[Danzo]

I've studied the words of the prophets and apostles on this subject over the past decades and I don't see them as having spoken with one voice on this issue.

CFR

Perhaps you can share with us the multiple conflicting voices from the prophets on this issue

[CV75]

I was only pointing out that  your reference to Elder Oaks is not doctrine.  Sorry you find that whining.

Your complaint was expressed in in a childish fashion. “Are all conference talks now considered scripture? Are all conference talks even considered official doctrine? You can clearly state that this is Elder Oaks opinion, but you can't really state that this is doctrine can you.” This all-or-nothing, hyperbolic foot stomping about doctrine is childish and qualifies as whining.

What does my using a quote from a conference talk have to do with considering it doctrine, or that the idea isn’t based in some other doctrinal source? Your standards for what I can and cannot do are poorly informed.

 

No I do not propose such laws.  I fully support laws allowing for straight couples to marry and have children.  When did I ever say that I did not support such laws.

It is also whining (a childish complaint) to say, “When did I ever say that I did not support such laws?” when no accusation that you did was made.

 

Through reading the scriptures and what is actually doctrine rather than opinion.  Do you find it odd that I want to know the actual will of God rather than opinions of church leaders?  If we have learned one lesson over the years, it is that ONLY the word of God can be relied upon.  Church leaders have gotten the will of God wrong too many times in the past for that to be our sole basis for belief.

 

Look, I am not saying I know the will of God on this subject either.  What I am clearly pointing out is that NO ONE can say they know the will of God on this subject because it has NEVER been revealed.  Maybe if more people had confronted Brigham Young about his opinions of blacks, the church would not have a legacy of not allowing blacks to marry in the temple for 100 years simply based on the opinion of Brigham Young.

As I said, “So what if your discovery differs from mine?” Am I to abide by your doctrine? Argue the actual point, not what you say is LDS (or your own) doctrine. Your doctrine carries less weight to me than mine, unless you can make a compelling case for me to adopt your doctrine. Remember, though, my post you found objectionable was to the OP, not to you.

All you are “clearly pointing out” is that you think no one can say they know the will of God on this subject (whatever that is, as in all the whining you haven’t articulated the subject you’re actually trying to talk about) because you think it has never been revealed.

Edited December 6, 2013 by CV75

[rockpond]

No I don't...... would you like to point it out more clearly?

 

It was more of a rhetorical question but I'll help ya out...

 

For me, saying that gays (as a population) are trying to tear down all of the good practices and traditions of society is ridiculing them.

[EllenMaksoud]

I don't have any issues with same sex marriage. I live in Ottawa, where men and women hold hands, women and men hold hands, men and men hold hands, and women and women hold hands. But there are scriptures in the New Testament and Old Testament that are pretty clear against homosexuality.

 

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

 

Since this one is part of the Mosiac Law, I can see how we can get past this one

 

 

However, Paul is preaching here. 

Romans 1:24-28

 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their alust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

 

I could see this as a form of fornication. But if there was a lawful marriage between two members of the same sex, would this verse still apply?

 

 

Are there other clear scriptures like these?

Ask a Jewish scholar about some of these old testament scriptures that some Christians hang their hate and fear on. One that I laugh about is Deut 22:5, look it up.  According to one of these scholars, the real translation is "The men and women are to stay out of each others tents".  These are turbulent times and we must seek Heavenly Father constantly. Cling to the last two commandments that Jesus the Christ gave us. Love Heavenly Father with our hearts, souls, mind and body, and Love one another. I still insist that Heavenly Father guides our prophet.

 

Real science is advancing rapidly, and if the war mongers do not destroy our future, in time, soon we will know the etiology of the homosexual drives, and so many other things that happen to us that are now a complete mystery.  For now, the haters hate, and the devout seek the wisdom of Heavenly Father.  Will we learn to accept it or will we find a cure? I do not know.

 

Of great importance to me is that Mormons I know take a stand they believe in without hate or malice. Those I came from rant and rave in a most frightening manner.

[rockpond]

CFR

Perhaps you can share with us the multiple conflicting voices from the prophets on this issue

 

There's not a single CFR for that.  You have to go through and read a lot of their writings and addresses to get a feel for the tone and messages being expressed.  You could start with President Kimball's writings in the 60's and early 70's after he was assigned by President McKay to deal with the issue of homosexuality.

 

Move forward to Packer's teachings on the subject ("For Young Men Only", "To The One", other more recent addresses)

 

Review historical items in which the Brethren presumably (or implicitly as seems to be the popular term in this thread) had oversight or approval... BYU activities and the political activities (Colorado's amendment 2 in contrast to the recent SLC gay rights ordinance).

 

The Oaks-Wickman interview.

 

Holland's article/address that was turned into the primary church pamphlet on the subject -- God Loveth His Children.

 

Mormons & Gays website.

[Danzo]

There's not a single CFR for that.  You have to go through and read a lot of their writings and addresses to get a feel for the tone and messages being expressed.  You could start with President Kimball's writings in the 60's and early 70's after he was assigned by President McKay to deal with the issue of homosexuality.

 

Move forward to Packer's teachings on the subject ("For Young Men Only", "To The One", other more recent addresses)

 

Review historical items in which the Brethren presumably (or implicitly as seems to be the popular term in this thread) had oversight or approval... BYU activities and the political activities (Colorado's amendment 2 in contrast to the recent SLC gay rights ordinance).

 

The Oaks-Wickman interview.

 

Holland's article/address that was turned into the primary church pamphlet on the subject -- God Loveth His Children.

 

Mormons & Gays website.

Perhaps you can just illustrate the conflicts? 

 

Perhaps where one person says that homosexual activity is ok and another says it is not?

[Bob Crockett]

Ask a Jewish scholar about some of these old testament scriptures that some Christians hang their hate and fear on. One that I laugh about is Deut 22:5, look it up.  According to one of these scholars, the real translation is "The men and women are to stay out of each others tents".  These are turbulent times and we must seek Heavenly Father constantly. Cling to the last two commandments that Jesus the Christ gave us. Love Heavenly Father with our hearts, souls, mind and body, and Love one another. I still insist that Heavenly Father guides our prophet.

I think historical rabbincal commentary sees it otherwise.

 

A man’s attire shall not be on a woman: making her appear like a man, thereby enabling her to go among men, for this can only be for the [purpose of] adultery. — [Nazir 59a]

 

nor may a man wear a woman’s garment: to go and abide among women. Another explanation: [in addition to not wearing a woman’s garment,] a man must also not remove his pubic hair or the hair of his armpits [for this is a practice exclusive to women]. — [Nazir 59a]

 

But, then again, these days you can find rabbinical commentary supporting and justifying homosexual behavior, and commentary condemning it; just as you can find liberal NT scholars explaining Paul's statements on the subject away.   

 

You put your trust in the arm of the flesh and you basically do what you want.

 

I really get nowhere with my gay friends using the scriptures to condemn homosexuality or homosexual marriage.  The reason, in part, is that you have entire denominations of Christianity which bless homosexual unions and have scriptural justification for it.  As I recall, the Community of Christ (old RLDS Church) has fallen in line with these.  So, who are we to judge that among Christians?  Let them do what they want.  

 

As far as Latter-day Saints are concerned, it is a closed club and homosexuals can't officiate in the priesthood, etc. etc., unless the Brethren (and not the Bible) say otherwise.   Plain as day.

 

I suppose those who object to that can agitate for that all they want, and compare it to the priesthood and the blacks issue, and someday there might be a sea-change.  I just don't feel right about doing that, personally.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[EllenMaksoud]

I think historical rabbincal commentary sees it otherwise.

 

A man’s attire shall not be on a woman: making her appear like a man, thereby enabling her to go among men, for this can only be for the [purpose of] adultery. — [Nazir 59a]

 

nor may a man wear a woman’s garment: to go and abide among women. Another explanation: [in addition to not wearing a woman’s garment,] a man must also not remove his pubic hair or the hair of his armpits [for this is a practice exclusive to women]. — [Nazir 59a]

 

But, then again, these days you can find rabbincal commentary supporting and justifying homosexual behavior, and commentary condemning it; just as you can find liberal NT scholars explaining Paul's statements on the subject away.   

 

You put your trust in the arm of the flesh and you basically do what you want.

You do not get to look into my life. If you did you would find no act of mine that supports homosexual behavior. That I do not agree with your assessment of the state of affairs will likely not change your thinking at all. I love Heavenly Father, Jesus the Christ and support the prophet and all the policies of the church.  My days are full of service to others full stop.

 

So, you are Jewish scholar?

Edited December 6, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[rockpond]

Perhaps you can just illustrate the conflicts? 

 

Perhaps where one person says that homosexual activity is ok and another says it is not?

 

Example of a conflict:  Having a general authority write an amicus brief for Colorado's amendment 2 in support of denying civil rights to homosexual citizens.  Then, within about 15 years, supporting the passage of a SLC city ordinance that provides almost the same provisions as the CO amendment 2 that you fought against.

 

Another example:  Suggesting through words and actions that homosexuality can be changed, cured, overcome (etc).  Whereas now the Brethren admit that may not be possible in this life.

 

Nobody said that homosexual activity was okay.  But if you read through the older stuff you'll note that they weren't really differentiating between orientation and behavior back then, as they are now.

 

Frankly, I've pretty much lost interest in trying to argue over cherry-picked quotes (mine or others').  My response was simply that I don't see a historically unified voice among the Brethren on this subject.  If someone reads through all of the materials I've mentioned above and disagrees, so be it.

[daz2]

There is no question but that the Church clearly condemns same sex behavior inside or outside of same sex marriage.  The church also recently made clear that "Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change."

 

It is interesting to me that the statement that traditional opposite sex marriage is "central" and "foundational" and "cannot change", does not add that "the church's opposition to same sex marriage cannot change."

 

Many people argue that because opposite sex marriage is central, foundational and ordained of God, that same sex marriage is not and never can be permitted, allowed or even be blessed of God.  Perhaps they are right. 

 

But I don't see things that way.  I don't see SSM as changing the definition of traditional marriage--but as an exception to the definition.  That is, marriage means a union between a man and a woman, except in the case of LGBT in which case two LGBT of the same sex or intersex may marry.

 

By analogy, for whatever reason, God allows or causes a small percentage of the population to be born intersex--with sexual organs of both sexes.  Or a person to be born genetically of one sex but with the organs of the other.  May a person who geneticaly male but with female organs marry a female?  May that person marry a male instead?  Or must the person be forbidden to marry?  What about a person who has what the church calls a "non-elective" transsexual operation?  In the case of a non-elective operation, that person may be a member of the church in the gender/sex in which s/he is recreated.  But what if the operation is in error (in some celestial sense)?

 

The treatment of intersex individuals, in my mind, may consitute an exception to the rule that marriage must be between a man and a woman, since it ought to include intersex individuals who may have been assigned to one sex or the other.  Or may be reassigned later.

 

Bottom line, the Church's policy is what it is.  But I don't see it remaining stagnant.  As members and leaders grow in light and knowledge and continued revelation, I see the possibility of accommodations being made to reflect those individuals who are intersex, transgendered, or whose sexual orientation is different from the vast majority.  And I don't see that as undermining the Church's commitment to opposite sex marriage as foundational, central and ordained of God.

 

I think that if God leads the Church in this direction, it will be easier than for other churches to make the change--because we do not accept the Bible as inerrant and because our canonized restoration scriptures do not explicitly forbid the church from making such an accommodation or exception.

[Danzo]

 

 

Nobody said that homosexual activity was okay. 

 

 

So you are withdrawing your statement

[rockpond]

So you are withdrawing your statement

 

I never said that any Prophet or Apostle said that homosexual activity was okay.  So, now, I'm not withdrawing anything.

[california boy]

Your complaint was expressed in in a childish fashion. “Are all conference talks now considered scripture? Are all conference talks even considered official doctrine? You can clearly state that this is Elder Oaks opinion, but you can't really state that this is doctrine can you.” This all-or-nothing, hyperbolic foot stomping about doctrine is childish and qualifies as whining.

What does my using a quote from a conference talk have to do with considering it doctrine, or that the idea isn’t based in some other doctrinal source? Your standards for what I can and cannot do are poorly informed.

 

It is also whining (a childish complaint) to say, “When did I ever say that I did not support such laws?” when no accusation that you did was made.

 

As I said, “So what if your discovery differs from mine?” Am I to abide by your doctrine? Argue the actual point, not what you say is LDS (or your own) doctrine. Your doctrine carries less weight to me than mine, unless you can make a compelling case for me to adopt your doctrine. Remember, though, my post you found objectionable was to the OP, not to you.

All you are “clearly pointing out” is that you think no one can say they know the will of God on this subject (whatever that is, as in all the whining you haven’t articulated the subject you’re actually trying to talk about) because you think it has never been revealed.

You obviously are taking this very personally where it was not ment to be.  This thread is on Homosexuality and the scriptures, not the opinion of some church leaders.  So I was discussing doctrine rather than opinion.  Sorry if that offended you.  I think I will leave it at that.

[Danzo]

I never said that any Prophet or Apostle said that homosexual activity was okay.  So, now, I'm not withdrawing anything.

 

I apologize for misunderstanding you.

 

So you agree that the prophets and apostles "Have spoken with one voice" that Homosexual activity is a sin.

 

That is all that I was trying to clarify.

[rockpond]

I apologize for misunderstanding you.

 

So you agree that the prophets and apostles "Have spoken with one voice" that Homosexual activity is a sin.

 

That is all that I was trying to clarify.

 

To the best of my understanding, no prophet or apostle has ever taught that the act of homosexual sexual relations is anything but a sin.  Though, like I said, if you go back a decade or two they did not distinguish between the orientation and the act.  Issues like cause, mutability, resolution (i.e. heterosexual marriage as the appropriate course of action) have not been spoken of with one voice.

[CV75]

You obviously are taking this very personally where it was not ment to be.  This thread is on Homosexuality and the scriptures, not the opinion of some church leaders.  So I was discussing doctrine rather than opinion.  Sorry if that offended you.  I think I will leave it at that.

For goodness' sake...

The OP asked whether Romans 1:24-28 still applies if there was a lawful marriage between two members of the same sex. I used Elder Oak’s talk to answer in the affirmative that yes, it still applies. You jumped all over that, with nothing but your own opinion, I might add!

He had a follow-up question: “Are there other clear scriptures like these?” I chose not to answer that question for him since “scripture” means many things to many people.

I take it you think there is no other doctrine on the matter than Romans 1:24-28.

[Bob Crockett]

You do not get to look into my life. If you did you would find no act of mine that supports homosexual behavior. That I do not agree with your assessment of the state of affairs will likely not change your thinking at all. I love Heavenly Father, Jesus the Christ and support the prophet and all the policies of the church.  My days are full of service to others full stop.

 

So, you are Jewish scholar?

My comment that "you put your trust in the arm of the flesh" was meant to be generic, as in "If one puts his trust in the arm of the flesh, he can do what he wants."  I meant to convey the message that relying upon rabbinical or New Testament commentary to either attack or justify homosexual behavior will get whatever result a person wants.  My comment had nothing to do with you; I don't know you.   I'm sorry to have been less than precise in my comment.  

 

I'd like to think that I'm a Jewish scholar, but I'm not Jewish.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[EllenMaksoud]

My comment that "you put your trust in the arm of the flesh" was meant to be generic, as in "If one puts his trust in the arm of the flesh, he can do what he wants."  I meant to convey the message that relying upon rabbinical or New Testament commentary to either attack or justify homosexual behavior will get whatever result a person wants.  My comment had nothing to do with you; I don't know you.   I'm sorry to have been less than precise in my comment.  

 

I'd like to think that I'm a Jewish scholar, but I'm not Jewish.

My apologies for getting too thin skinned. Perhaps we could um "start over"? 

 

These days my hobby is genetics. We are finding astonishing things out, and it is my hope that in 20 or so years, we will understand the etiology of homosexual activity, but not necessarily justify it, and perhaps do things in regards to it that are humane and compassionate.  I wish my path to be to mercy, not judgement.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Nobody said that homosexual activity was okay.  But if you read through the older stuff you'll note that they weren't really differentiating between orientation and behavior back then, as they are now.

OK, but the CFR related specifically to this statement of yours:

 

But no revelation yet that specifically addresses marriage for God's gay children.

Followed by this assertion of yours:

 

I've studied the words of the prophets and apostles on this subject over the past decades and I don't see them as having spoken with one voice on this issue.

I know you've written above that you have 'lost interest' in defending your claims, but I do think it would be interesting to see at least one of these statements you've found from the Latter-day apostles in support of same-gender 'marriage'.