Tacenda Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints The above link describes some of what I was talking about in post #460.
rodheadlee Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Okay let me make my viewpoint clear. Anciently it is very clear from the scriptures that the sin Sodom was destroyed for was not homosexuality. I will further say that a condemnation of the gang raping of Angels (assume male angels if you would like), men, women and who knows what else offers no useful commentary on homosexual relationships today. There are places the bible explicitly condemns certain homosexual behaviors (Leviticus, Romans, Corinthians, Timothy). I personally would not add Sodom to that list as gang rape does not seem to match up with homosexual behavior any more than it does with heterosexual behavior.Well I'm sorry to disagree with you as my own personal experience is different.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Well I'm sorry to disagree with you as my own personal experience is different.Okay. Peace.
rockpond Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 I think it is clear that I have not been "boxing" over sexuality and that you keep bringing it up. You clearly approach marriage from a sexual standpoint (talk about bias!!!). But it and the other the principles I've been associating with it (opposition --including gender-- and atonement) are all spiritual and are far more reaching than that. This is why the natural man is an enemy to God. He boxes himself into the fallen condition by his limited capacity. Sexual capacity, like every other divine but imperfect gift God has given man, is perfected in Christ. As Elder Bednar said, “the enabling power of the Atonement strengthens us to do and be good and to serve beyond our own individual desire and natural capacity… the enabling and strengthening aspect of the Atonement helps us to see and to do and to become good in ways that we could never recognize or accomplish with our limited mortal capacity.”https://www.lds.org/liahona/2012/04/the-atonement-and-the-journey-of-mortality?lang=enghttps://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng Sexual capacity is not just a hetero-/homo- design. Grace covers all the forms, and covers them for all the forms of life (including those that reproduce asexually). Whoever possesses human life, his existence and his capacities (however they may be used) are dependent on marriage as God defined it and his perfection in existence and capacity is dependent on God's grace. Interesting... what makes you think that I approach marriage from a sexual standpoint? Because, I actually feel the opposite and am commonly told that my arguments in favor of SSM are incorrect because I ignore the sexual component of marriage that is so critical to its definition. And I agree with everything else you've written here.
mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Have you read the story? Three angels visit lot. The towns people come bang on Lot's door and want to gang rape them. Lot offers his daughters instead. He wishes to protect his guests ("for they have come under the protection of my roof") so much that he is willing to sacrifice his daughters instead. The crowd accepts the offer of the daughters but also want the angels. At this point the angels blind the crowd, encourage Lot to flee with his family and then destroy the city.The prophet Ezekial said of Sodom: Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.I can't see how you get from this a condemnation of homosexuality. Gang rape? Yes. Haughty and detestable? Yes. Didn't help the poor? Ezekial thought so. Went after "other" (ironically the greek here is hetero) flesh? According to Jude, yes. Given that words for homosexual activity existed in greek (and other flesh is not one of them) and given that the gang rape was to be of angels, and given that there is no corollary between gang rape and homosexual behavior, I don't see how anyone can read a condemnation of same sex relationships from the story of Sodom even when overlayed with the words of Jude.Sorry.As has been said before, read the next verse of Ezekiel where it speaks of abominations. That is the universal interpretation read Wikipedia on Sodom and Gomorrah.In LDS theology angels are human, sometimes premortal, Sometimes resurrected, or sometimes even just mortal humans. I do not have time to look that up for you right now.I don't think anyone understands the offering of the virgins, perhaps it was just a negotiating tactic. At any rate it never happened. Edited May 13, 2015 by mfbukowski
Gray Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 It's in the topical guide under homosexuality. carry on. A good example of presentism
Popular Post mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2015 Popular Post Posted May 13, 2015 This is a crazy time for Mormons. The women want us to emphasize Heavenly Mother. The gays want us to pretend she never existed. 5
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Sorry. As has been said before, read the next verse of Ezekiel where it speaks of abominations. That is the universal interpretation read Wikipedia on Sodom and Gomorrah.Sorry. I quoted that verse. Abomination = detestable acts. The attempted gang rape of Lot's daughters and his angel guests certainly would have been an abomination. In LDS theology angels are human, sometimes premortal, Sometimes resurrected, or sometimes even just mortal humans. I do not have time to look that up for you right now.I would love to see a reference for an angel being a mortal human (not a CFR, just want to learn something new). I don't think anyone understands the offering of the virgins, perhaps it was just a negotiating tactic. At any rate it never happened. I think it can be understood in the context of Lot viewing the violation of his guests (customs requiring hospitality) to be worse than the violation of his daughters. I notice you removed your reference to wiki. If you read in the other references section of the wiki article, you will find all the biblical passages that reference Sodom. If you read through the list there is no reference to homosexuality in any of the references. Only Jude has been interpreted that way, but that requires a twisted reading of "strange/other/different" flesh. Edited May 13, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding
Gray Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) In Mormon theology, there is no such thing as the flesh of angels, which is different than any other kind of flesh. Maybe, but the topic is what's in the Bible. Although we could go off on a tangent about blood and what physical changes might be effected upon resurrected beings Edited May 13, 2015 by Gray
Gray Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 The scriptures largely say whatever you want them to say. I try to rule my life by the spirit and testimony, not the words of men who someone tells me are "inspired" I have a testimony of every single principle I believe, or I do not believe it. My goal is to reconstitute the scriptures in my heart, as God reveals them to me, and that includes "non-scriptural" sources. My only point was that clearly the scriptures condemn homosexuality. If they do once, they do. That's it. No more to discuss on this. It is clear the church condemns homosexual behavior. I personally don't care if ssm is legal actually. All kinds of things that I disagree with are legal- who cares? But form me, I am opposed to any kind of religious position that maintains that God endorses ssm or homosexual behavior. I don't believe it, and no one has ever shown me a reason to do so. Until they do, and the spirit confirms it, I will stick to this position John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. This saying, attributed to Jesus, is, I think, an excellent means of determining a teaching to be true or false in the only meaningful sense of those words. That is, compare the results of living it, to its opposite. It is clear to me, at least, that our current teachings on homosexuality lead to misery, self-loathing and even death. Gay marriage, on the other hand, bears good fruits in those who enter into it - the same fruits that those of us in straight marriages enjoy. That is to say, greater peace, greater contentment, greater wholeness. It creates whole people who are capable of enjoying the fruits of spirituality. The orthodox viewpoint right now is creating a lot of broken people. It's just not sustainable. It doesn't pass the John 7:17 test.
Gray Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 OK one more and I promise to shut up.In same-sex marriage how is exaltation supposed to work? there will be two married males and no females? That is certainly a possibility in a world with no sexual reproduction.I am trying to see how one creates a model of God that is asexual that is still Mormon. I can see how that works with the Nicene Creed and sectarian ideas of the Trinity but I don't see it and a Mormon context at all. We are to true try to become like God yet God for us is sexual. I do not understand how we create a model for us to be like who is asexual.Do we stop trying to be like God and Heavenly Mother. Is that the idea?How is this all supposed to work? How is family supposed to work? We talk about eternal families, but our children break off into pairings and create their own kingdoms. We can create as many workarounds as we wish, but it's all speculative. How does the divine procreative model work with Mormon theology on intelligences and the idea that we have always existed in some form? 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. That doesn't sound procreative to me. As I said, we can come up with many creative ways to harmonize any of these ideas that we wish. But at the end of the day, another idea rings the most true to me: human dignity and happiness should more important than our favorite ideas about how heaven might work. If it's not, we've lost our way. We've lost the whole purpose of spirituality in the first place. 2
Gray Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 So the missionaries track into a family consisting of two married gay men and their two adopted children. We tell them that to find peace and happiness they must leave the one they love, break up their family, live celibately, and if they endure to the end, in the eternities they will one day get to be sealed to a woman they haven't met yet. Let's flip this. If some missionaries showed up on my door, told me to leave my wife and kids, and if I was lucky one day I would get to be married to a dude (and they said that doing so would make me happier), I am pretty sure I wouldn't have to think very hard about that one before showing them the door. Yes, this is simply not workable. That's why we need to rethink our policies. 1
Gray Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 So you're saying those angels the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with were not male angels? edited to add: I don't think the men of Sodom were even aware that the visitors were angels. Do you take admonitions not to rape women to be a condemnation of heterosexuality?
mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Sorry. I quoted that verse. Abomination = detestable acts. The attempted gang rape of Lot's daughters and his angel guests certainly would have been an abomination. I would love to see a reference for an angel being a mortal human (not a CFR, just want to learn something new). I think it can be understood in the context of Lot viewing the violation of his guests (customs requiring hospitality) to be worse than the violation of his daughters.I notice you removed your reference to wiki. If you read in the other references section of the wiki article, you will find all the biblical passages that reference Sodom. If you read through the list there is no reference to homosexuality in any of the references. Only Jude has been interpreted that way, but that requires a twisted reading of "strange/other/different" flesh.I didn't remove anything. I was using a phone and it might have disappeared. Believe what you like. All I am telling you is that in Western Culture "sodomy" refers to homosexual behavior and other behaviors, and Sodom is believed to have been destroyed due to "abominations" including homosexuality, and it is clear that the mob outside the house wanted to have sex homosexual sex with the visitors who were male. I am old, but I wasn't there, if it did exist at all. It is what it is in the culture- I honestly do not care one iota. If you want to believe that it has nothing to do with homosexuality, fine. Redefine the words anyway you like, the problem is just that people will not know what you are talking about. Trust me, if you fail to ask someone to dinner and call it "sodomy" you will be in trouble. That is not what the word means. I am being as nice as I can about it. 2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 This is a crazy time for Mormons. The women want us to emphasize Heavenly Mother. The gays want us to pretend she never existed.Indeed. I am glad I am not the only one that feels this way. 2
mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) How is family supposed to work? We talk about eternal families, but our children break off into pairings and create their own kingdoms. We can create as many workarounds as we wish, but it's all speculative. How does the divine procreative model work with Mormon theology on intelligences and the idea that we have always existed in some form? 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. That doesn't sound procreative to me. As I said, we can come up with many creative ways to harmonize any of these ideas that we wish. But at the end of the day, another idea rings the most true to me: human dignity and happiness should more important than our favorite ideas about how heaven might work. If it's not, we've lost our way. We've lost the whole purpose of spirituality in the first place. Good arguments, and thanks for that. That's the first reasonable argument I have seen here. So we throw out heavenly mother? We throw out the proclamation, and the entire family structure of the social trinity and how we now make three persons one in a family, right? So back to the Trinity, or do we become strict monotheists or total polytheists believing in the council of gods which include homosexual gods and female Creators? I suppose that would work. Back to Greece? Our God happens to be married but that is not the only possibility? The myth uh, description model, has to match the theology or it has no power. To have power for humans, it must be a model we humans can relate to and that can plausibly include fundamentalists, and perhaps the council of the Gods could be seen that way. Ironically that sounds more like Brigham Young than anything else. Adam - God kind of fits with that. I don't see it happening, and I remain unconvinced. Maybe Bokovoy sees that coming, and sees his research on that belief as laying the groundwork for that direction. That's probably what Seth was talking about when he said we needed to go backward to go forward. That would emphasize the sexuality of the gods, not minimize it. Pretty weird stuff for the modern day. But I think it would fit with present theology and please both the feminists and the gays. That's fine to advocate, but I will never advocate that. I see it as a serious mistake. I see the apotheosis of family values as incredibly important for social morality. Without families we are doomed. Edited May 13, 2015 by mfbukowski
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) I didn't remove anything. I was using a phone and it might have disappeared. Believe what you like. All I am telling you is that in Western Culture "sodomy" refers to homosexual behavior and other behaviors, and Sodom is believed to have been destroyed due to "abominations" including homosexuality, and it is clear that the mob outside the house wanted to have sex homosexual sex with the visitors who were male. I am old, but I wasn't there, if it did exist at all. It is what it is in the culture- I honestly do not care one iota. If you want to believe that it has nothing to do with homosexuality, fine. Redefine the words anyway you like, the problem is just that people will not know what you are talking about. Trust me, if you fail to ask someone to dinner and call it "sodomy" you will be in trouble. That is not what the word means. I am being as nice as I can about it. Sorry I thought that we were discussing what the bible says about Sodom not current pop cultural understandings. If you want to think it has to do with homosexuality, fine, define the words in the bible however you want. Just don't expect the notion that Sodom's sin = homosexuality to go unchallenged, just because the English word "sodomy" is currently associated with homosexuality. ETA: Interestingly per wiki: In modern German, the word Sodomie has no connotation of **** or oral sex and specifically refers to bestiality. (See Paragraph 175 StGB, version of June 28, 1935.) What now? Edited May 13, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding
mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Sorry I thought that we were discussing what the bible says about Sodom not current pop cultural understandings. If you want to think it has to do with homosexuality, fine, define the words in the bible however you want. Just don't expect the notion that Sodom's sin = homosexuality to go unchallenged, just because the English word "sodomy" is currently associated with homosexuality.ETA:Interestingly per wiki: In modern German, the word Sodomie has no connotation of **** or oral sex and specifically refers to bestiality. (See Paragraph 175 StGB, version of June 28, 1935.) What now?Don't ask me. This is your theory not mine.
Robert F. Smith Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 This is a crazy time for Mormons. The women want us to emphasize Heavenly Mother. The gays want us to pretend she never existed.
Robert F. Smith Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 So the missionaries track into a family consisting of two married gay men and their two adopted children. We tell them that to find peace and happiness they must leave the one they love, break up their family, live celibately, and if they endure to the end, in the eternities they will one day get to be sealed to a woman they haven't met yet. Let's flip this. If some missionaries showed up on my door, told me to leave my wife and kids, and if I was lucky one day I would get to be married to a dude (and they said that doing so would make me happier), I am pretty sure I wouldn't have to think very hard about that one before showing them the door.Do LDS missionaries do the same with polygamous families?
rockpond Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 The gays want us to pretend she never existed. Huh? CFR?
CV75 Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Interesting... what makes you think that I approach marriage from a sexual standpoint? Because, I actually feel the opposite and am commonly told that my arguments in favor of SSM are incorrect because I ignore the sexual component of marriage that is so critical to its definition. And I agree with everything else you've written here.Twice you dodged my points about marriage by making a comment diverting the conversation from the covenant and scripture to your views on sexual orientation. Of course you feel the opposite and also agree with everything I wrote in this post (#456). But my points were not about “the sexual component of marriage that is so critical to its definition” that you claim others call you out for ignoring. My points were about scripture, the structure of the covenant and how the Lord uses councils to draw human biases into alignment with His. I guess the discussion about race, priesthood and marriage in light of African mores, the Church’s teachings and marriage is a bit too indicative that the old, worn-out argument for change can also be used for not changing policy.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Don't ask me. This is your theory not mine.Apologies. I thought you were saying since sodomy today refers to a***sex, that must be the sin of Sodom.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Do LDS missionaries do the same with polygamous families?I have no idea. It is a very close analog though. The only difference being that the polygamous individual could be sealed to all his children and wives in the eternities.
rockpond Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Twice you dodged my points about marriage by making a comment diverting the conversation from the covenant and scripture to your views on sexual orientation. Of course you feel the opposite and also agree with everything I wrote in this post (#456). But my points were not about “the sexual component of marriage that is so critical to its definition” that you claim others call you out for ignoring. My points were about scripture, the structure of the covenant and how the Lord uses councils to draw human biases into alignment with His. I guess the discussion about race, priesthood and marriage in light of African mores, the Church’s teachings and marriage is a bit too indicative that the old, worn-out argument for change can also be used for not changing policy. If you feel I dodged your points than I must have misunderstood your questions because I wasn't intentionally dodging. And yes, it's possible that the current policy/doctrine regarding marriage will not ever be changed.
Recommended Posts