Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[Storm Rider]

OK. I guess I am wondering how children would turn out who have been raised by a gay couple (no known biological parents or the non-gay parent not in the picture), then wanting to become members. It seems those children would be completely accepting of the lifestyle they were raised in and could therefore not accept the church's stand on it. I guess that's what the new policy is all about and we would have to wait a while after it is in effect to test this. 

 

This is what makes all the hoopla about this policy so....unbelievable.  The reality of a gay, married couple who are committed to raising their children in the LDS Church has got to be an extremely small number.  I still find it hard to believe that there will be even a single such couple to be found in the entire world.  However, the amount of gnashing of teeth, pulling of hair and throwing dust into the air has no correlation to the fact that....no one will be affected by the policy.

 

If people want to discuss the potential theological implications, then we might have a little room to discuss the policy itself.  However, I don't see much of that.  It is all centered on the emotion of the sky is falling on the millions of children that will be harmed.  These children do not exist; no one will be harmed.  So, why all the wailing?

[carbon dioxide]

Minds and attitudes change.  This happens all the time including within the church.  Polygamy is a good example.  This core practice was jettisoned.  I'm sure you are aware of  BY, WW and others stating that would never happen.

Keep in mind that when the Church ended the practice of polygamy, it never apologized for it nor never said it was wrong.  It even never said that it would not start it again.  It just was ending the practice for an indefinite period of time.  People minds change but the Lord's mind does not change that much.  There is nothing to suggest in 10 years the Church might be practicing polygamy again.  My guess that it will not be but who knows that God is thinking on the matter.

[carbon dioxide]

That would fit so much better the context in which Paul makes his list of no-nos and nothing is redundant. So its not that homosexual relations are the sin its the ABUSE involved in the act.

This also makes the Sodom and Gamorrah story make SOOOO much more sense. We know the crowd wasn't just Men... who wanted to "Know" the Angels... women were involved too.

Gen 19

 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

 

So you can't say the story is about a Gay gang that wanted to rape Lot and the Angels.

 

We also know that Lot sent for his sons-in-law to bring their wives and leave the city with him (verse 12).

 

The Whole town of Sodom came and they didn't want to "know" the Angels sexually. They wanted to meet them abusively and rough them up.

 

Lot even says as much...

And Lot said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

 

Lot didn't offer his "virgin" daughters to entice the men sexually ... he offered his 2 remaining prepubescent children to the crowd to get beat up rather than his guests.

 

So Sodom and Gamorrah had nothing what so ever to do with homosexuals!

 

 

The reason Sodom was destroyed is not do to homosexuality.  I would agree on that point though the issue with Lot is an issue of men who did want to have sex with the men that Lot was with.  If you read the JST of that account, Lot does not offer his daughters to the men. 

 

Sodom was targeted for destruction before the issue of Lot and the men occurred.  The reason Sodom was destroyed is that God and Abraham made a deal.  If God could find even 10 righteous men, he would not destroy the city.  The same wicked acts one would find in Sodom one can find in any city in American.  Yes even homosexual acts are sinful.  The difference between Sodom and say San Francisco is one of scale.  There are still plenty of good people living in San Francisco that God does not destroy it.  But if a city ripens in iniquity to the point there is really no righteous people left, that city is ready to be destroyed.  So yes Sodom was not destroyed because of the homosexuality but make no mistake, homosexual behavior was part of the wickedness of Sodom.  Looks like God only found one righteous person in the bunch and that was Lot.  Even is wife probably was not righteous enough as she looked back.

 

Add on:  I would also suggest that many of the cities that were destroyed in the Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi were in the same condition as Sodom.  They people cast out the prophets and engaged in all manner of wickedness.  No righteous among them and God takes those cities out.  Wicked people tend to do more than one wicked habit.  Wicked people tend to engage in many different types of sins.  Its a lesson for our society today.  If our society continues to push for more wickedness and accepts it as normal, at some point God will say enough and cities are destroyed.  We have been told in the last days cities will be destroyed.  It is going to happen again.  The acceptance of SSM will not be the final straw but it also does not help. 

Edited November 21, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[JAHS]

This is what makes all the hoopla about this policy so....unbelievable.  The reality of a gay, married couple who are committed to raising their children in the LDS Church has got to be an extremely small number.  I still find it hard to believe that there will be even a single such couple to be found in the entire world.  However, the amount of gnashing of teeth, pulling of hair and throwing dust into the air has no correlation to the fact that....no one will be affected by the policy.

 

If people want to discuss the potential theological implications, then we might have a little room to discuss the policy itself.  However, I don't see much of that.  It is all centered on the emotion of the sky is falling on the millions of children that will be harmed.  These children do not exist; no one will be harmed.  So, why all the wailing?

 

I'm not holding my breath for the first one to come along. The only reasonable thing I have heard from the critics is if we think there will be no such situation why then do we even have to have the policy? The few unlikely situations that do come up could be handled on a case by case basis.

I think it is mostly just another opportunity for the antis and critics to have a reason to complain and criticize.

I wonder how many kids from polygamous parents have actually fallen under the similar policy regarding those situations and had to wait to be baptized at 18. 

[Zakuska]

This is why don't make an appeal to the Bible when talking about SSM and homosexuality.  Bible passages that appear to be condemning homosexualtiy can be worked around like this.

I agree... makes these words from the Prophet all the more powerful:

"for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible."

However the Bible is the only place questions about homosexuality can really be answered through scripture. Do you know of any Scripture in the D&C, POGP or the BOM that address Homosexuality?

I guess you could shoe horn it into "fornication" = sex between unmarried partners.

 

I think the best Bible passage for this topic is in Matt. 19 4-5 where Jesus specifically defines marriage as being a union of male and female. For me it all comes down to whether or not one accepts The Proclamation on the Family as an inspired document from modern prophets and apostles.

Agreed.

However we do know God is pretty lenient on serial sex offenders. He forgave his horring wives Israel and Judah (yes I know its figurative) without hardly batting an eye. And they where into some pretty elicit stuff. XXXXXXX!!!

All he required is for her to return to him and acknowledge her sin. He might be angry with her but not forever.

Could he Forgive Homosexuals just as easily?

Edited November 21, 2015 by Zakuska

[carbon dioxide]

 

And its used in this part of what Paul said "abusers of themselves with mankind".

 

I thought to myself... This definately is about gay sex right? It's gotta be. Surely.

 

But then I looked the word up on Google and this was among the definitions.

 

Here again we have the Older/Dominant Male in a male-male relationship identified.

Could this be talking about Pedofilia again?

But then I thought to myself. "abuser" and "mankind"

"mankind" doesn't necessarily mean Male only... mankind can often include "women" in the definition.

Then I found out that "Arsenokoitēs" has been used through history to also identify a certian type of Male-Female sexual relationship.

So we have a dominant Male in a sexual relationship that could include males and/or females.

I submit that with this in mind the context suggests that "Arsenokoitēs" should be rendered in modern English as:

RAPIST

 

It might be a more instructive on the issue of "arsenokoites" to not consult Google. As Justin W. Starr notes in is very good article "BIBLICAL CONDEMNATIONS OF HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT"

 

"Paul is the first person known to have used the word arsenokoitai. If Paul did indeed make up the word, what was he trying to say? Though one cannot be sure, the most likely answer to that question is in the Septuagint’s version of Leviticus 20:13. In the Septuagint Leviticus 20:13 reads in part kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos (“and whosoever may lie in bed with a man as with a woman”). One cannot help but notice the two words arsenos (the Septuagint’s version of the Hebrew word zakar or “male”) and koiten, which Paul combines to form his word arsenokoiten. If this is indeed the root of Paul’s phrase, which seems the most likely and logical conclusion, we can surmise that Paul was using God’s law as found in Leviticus to condemn, as Leviticus did, all homosexual intercourse between males, thus creating a contrast for the Corinthian saints with Roman law and custom."

 

In other words, perhaps the Greek Septuagint is a better source that Google on this matter.

 

Edited November 21, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[rockpond]

My responses below... I hope you don't mind but I am going to number your points in the quote here for ease of response:

1.  Okay, to start he repeats the oft used citation to the 2nd Article of Faith. In order to understand why his interpretation is wrong, we need to understand what the Second Article of Faith actually means. What punishment did Joseph Smith have in mind, when he said that man will be punished for their own sins? I think reason would dictate that the punishment is clearly one of an eternal nature, a punishment from God in other words. There is often collateral damage to every bad choice we make. If a married man cheats on his wife, the wife endures a type of punishment (including the potential loss of a saving ordinance and societal shame). But clearly she will not be "punished" by God as an innocent victim. The same holds true under this policy, whereby a child of gay couple may (but even then I don't think it is a punishment) endure a punishment as a result of one or both of their parents sinful behavior. In fact, I would be more apt to call this new policy a blessing as opposed to a punishment. Even still, if we both agreed that this was a punishment, this still does not contradict the 2nd Article of Faith because it is not the type of punishment referenced therein.

 

2.  Second, he cites Mosiah 18 to support his position that a desire to be baptized and being worthy is all that is required. This is wresting the scriptures. We must read the scripture as a whole, not in isolation. During the Savior's earthly ministry and for a period after, gentiles were not allowed to join the Kingdom of God (the Church). I think of the woman at the well who showed great faith, but was still not allowed to enter sacred covenants. Surely she was desirous and worthy. 

 

EDIT TO ADD: I also think what Alma was teaching in this very chapter is at least part of the "why" behind baptism. It was important that those who desired to enter into the fold of God understood what they were getting themselves into and the covenants they were making. In our day, that includes understanding the nature of good and evil, right and wrong and SSM is evil and wrong. 

 

3.  The last scripture from our Standard Works he cites to is easily where his strongest argument lies. D&C 68:26-27, but I also think he is missing the point on this scripture and that he is severely misunderstanding it. He uses that scripture to show that children, under Church law, must be baptized at age 8. But he fails to include the preceding verses and the verses that follow that provide a significant amount of further light. In fact, these verses when read in their complete context, I think, more than any other verses in the Standard Works actually STRENGTHENS the brethren's position. (EDITED TO BE MORE ACCURATE) Verse 25 of Section 68 instructs parents to teach their children the Gospel (faith, repentance, baptism at eight and Holy Ghost) AND that if they don't, the sin (ie punishment is on their head). Verse 26 says this (the teaching of verse 25, not verse 27 as Bill seems to be claiming) is the law. Verse 28 further teaches other righteous principals that parents are to teach their children. What none of these verses say, is what should happen with the child, when their parent is NOT teaching them these principals. And for all of their good qualities, and they do have good qualities, it is impossible for a gay couple to teach their children repentance in any meaningful way when they themselves are actively rebelling and living in sin, not to mention faith. The sin (and interestingly enough, the punishment according to verse 25) lies with the parents, NOT the children (that is actually pretty cool that we come full circle on the verses that Bill himself chose to use). How can one be prepared for baptism when they are confused on the fundamental difference between right and wrong? 

 

Now, I am sure you will disagree with my interpretations, and that's fine, but I think Bill's selected verses are pretty weak to try and show that the Brethren are wrong here. Maybe there are others that would do the trick, but its not these ones.

 

1.  The children are being punished in that they are being denied a saving ordinance.  Isn't that something of an eternal nature?  Sure, they can join the church when they are an adult and disavow their parents' relationship (#familyfirst) but what is the likelihood of that?

 

2.  I believe that Matthew 28:18-20 spoken at the end of the Savior's time on earth overrides Matthew 10:5-6.  Matthew 28 reflects the command we are meant to follow.  And remind me again, what happened last time we thought we were supposed to deny saving ordinances to a minority group of people?  I believe this same argument was used then.

 

3.  You're making a blanket assumption that gay parents can't teach their children the first principles and ordinances of the gospel.  That's a baseless assumption.  Are we going to start interviewing all parents to see if they are repenting of all their sins before letting their children be baptized?  Or just gay parents?

[Zakuska]

It might be a more instructive on the issue of "arsenokoites" to not consult Google. As Justin W. Starr notes in is very good article "BIBLICAL CONDEMNATIONS OF HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT"

 

"Paul is the first person known to have used the word arsenokoitai. If Paul did indeed make up the word, what was he trying to say? Though one cannot be sure, the most likely answer to that question is in the Septuagint’s version of Leviticus 20:13. In the Septuagint Leviticus 20:13 reads in part kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos (“and whosoever may lie in bed with a man as with a woman”). One cannot help but notice the two words arsenos (the Septuagint’s version of the Hebrew word zakar or “male”) and koiten, which Paul combines to form his word arsenokoiten. If this is indeed the root of Paul’s phrase, which seems the most likely and logical conclusion, we can surmise that Paul was using God’s law as found in Leviticus to condemn, as Leviticus did, all homosexual intercourse between males, thus creating a contrast for the Corinthian saints with Roman law and custom."

 

In other words, perhaps the Greek Septuagint is a better source that Google on this matter.

Yeah I saw those definitions too. But there again We would have to assume the translators got it right, and that their lexicons were up to date. From what I've read... Greek Scholars really don't know what the word really means for 100% certain and every single passage in the Bible that seems to address Homosexuality remain "ambiguous" at best.

http://www.equip.org/article/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious/

And lets be frank... Technically you cant do what Leviticus condemns its physically impossible. You can't lie with a man like you lie with a woman. Plumbing doesn't turn in on itself. The best you can do is sword fight.

"I see your Schwartz is as big as mine" -Dark Helmet

The Bible is silent on the sex act of sodomy and oral, with man woman child or beast. And I only know one verse in all scripture that can reasonably be applied to masturbation and that's for females and doesn't right out condemn it at all and is forgiven as quickly as its mentioned.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Zakuska

[saemo]

So SSM, not ordered towards God's creative revelation of a conjugal union, for the benefit of children, both bearing them and raising them, is viewed as disorderd. In the sense that, it goes against the divine order of things, and natural law. Any act that is ordered away from God, is called disordered and has the nature of being intrinsically evil.

-What justification do you have for establishing that disorder = intrinsic evil? All you've done is provided a definition of "intrinsic evil" without providing a justification as to why that definition is correct. Catholic morality is objective, and not pragmatic...

How?

Catholic morality is comprised of three elements. From the USCCB:

the objective act (what we do)

the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act)

and the concrete situation or circumstances in which we perform the act (where, when, how, with whom, the consequences, etc.)

For an individual act to be morally good, the object, or what we are doing, must be objectively good. Some acts, apart from the intention or reason for doing them, are always wrong because they go against a fundamental or basic human good that ought never to be compromised. Direct killing of the innocent, torture, and rape are examples of acts that are always wrong. Such acts are referred to as intrinsically evil acts, meaning that they are wrong in themselves, apart from the reason they are done or the circumstances surrounding them.

The goal, end, or intention is the part of the moral act that lies within the person. For this reason, we say that the intention is the subjective element of the moral act. For an act to be morally good, one's intention must be good. If we are motivated to do something by a bad intention—even something that is objectively good—our action is morally evil. It must also be recognized that a good intention cannot make a bad action (something intrinsically evil) good. We can never do something wrong or evil in order to bring about a good. This is the meaning of the saying, "the end does not justify the means" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 1749-1761).

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/morality

....

By objective, this means that an intrinsically moral evil is not made good by intentention or circumstance. Also, that any immoral act is not made good by a good outcome. "The end justifies the means" is an example of subjective morality, and an example of pragmatism, or depending on the circumstance and intention, an example of utilitarianism.

What makes an act intrinsically evil is its moral object, that is, the end in terms of morality toward which that act is inherently ordered. By its very nature, independent of the intention of the person who chooses the act and independent of the circumstances, an intrinsically evil act is ordered toward an evil end, toward an end incompatible with God as our highest good and final end.

What is ordered towards God, for a Catholic, is found in divine revelation: Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. In the teachings of the Majesterium, who do not provide scripture, but provide guidance regarding faith and morals, to Catholic faithful, through the ages.

Edited November 21, 2015 by saemo

[saemo]

Deleted, thanks to Calm (thank you also for pointing out that Saemo is a "she;" sorry Saemo)

Happens all the time, no problem.

[Mystery Meat]

My responses below... I hope you don't mind but I am going to number your points in the quote here for ease of response:

 

1.  The children are being punished in that they are being denied a saving ordinance.  Isn't that something of an eternal nature?  Sure, they can join the church when they are an adult and disavow their parents' relationship (#familyfirst) but what is the likelihood of that?

 

They are not being punished by God (or man for that matter). They may still get baptized when their family life has changed such that an eight year old is not placed in the position of disavowing their parents relationship (#eternalfamiliesfirst). I am not sure what the likelihood of that is, and neither do you.

 

2.  I believe that Matthew 28:18-20 spoken at the end of the Savior's time on earth overrides Matthew 10:5-6.  Matthew 28 reflects the command we are meant to follow.  And remind me again, what happened last time we thought we were supposed to deny saving ordinances to a minority group of people?  I believe this same argument was used then.

 

True, but we have scriptural evidence of people being denied admittance for a season. Even still, the scriptures in Mosiah 18 are not an exhaustive list of what is required to be baptized. We have to read all scriptures together.

 

3.  You're making a blanket assumption that gay parents can't teach their children the first principles and ordinances of the gospel.  That's a baseless assumption.  Are we going to start interviewing all parents to see if they are repenting of all their sins before letting their children be baptized?  Or just gay parents?

 

Call it a blatant assumption if you like, but no I do not think gay parents can effectively teach a child how to have faith or how to repent when they are living in open rebellion to God, his commandments and his anointed servants. That would be like an unrepentant adulterer being an effective teacher of repentance in his home. Will the gay parents being teaching their children that SSM is sin? Will they teach them to sustain and follow the prophet? I am sure you can see the difference between a parent who is not perfect, yet is striving everyday (weakness) and a parent who is in a SSM (rebellion). One is striving to follow the prophet and the other has ignored counsel and acted in defiance. Additionally, I don't know too many active parents who, although imperfect, would be inclined to teach their children that their particular weakness is actually okay. They would expect better of their children and teach them so that they avoided the same sins and faults. 

Edited November 21, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[Rivers]

However the Bible is the only place questions about homosexuality can really be answered through scripture. Do you know of any Scripture in the D&C, POGP or the BOM that address Homosexuality?

 

 

Nope. I'm fairly ceratin that the other scripures have no mention of homosexuality.

Could he Forgive Homosexuals just as easily?

 

I find much confort in knowing that judgement is in the hands of a loving and compassionate Father in Heaven.

 

 

I love this quote from Joseph Smith:

 

 

Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive...

Edited November 21, 2015 by Rivers

[JLHPROF]

 

I find much confort in knowing that judgement is in the hands of a loving and compassionate Father in Heaven.

 

I love this quote from Joseph Smith:

Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive...

 

 

It's true.  God will forgive repented sins.  In his mercy to forgive sins God is absolutley amazing.

In his willingness to accept sins - he has not the least degree of allowance.

 

(And liberal in that quote means generous, not socially "progressive").

Edited November 21, 2015 by JLHPROF

[saemo]

As far as morality and personal preference, of course, practicing Catholics believe that truth is objective and that objective truth is found in Christ, and His church. The personal part of it, is one's own conscience and forming of conscience towards this objective truth.

But, IIRC, it was Pope John Paul II who said, paraphrasing, that the Catholic Church teaches first the unconditional love of God, towards humankind and each individual. Until a person understands this, discussions of Catholic morality, are out of context. Or in other words, the Catholic Church is not teaching morality in the form of rule following, but as a response to God's love and a desire to follow the One who we love.

Edited November 21, 2015 by saemo

[Rivers]

 

 

(And liberal in that quote means generous, not socially "progressive").

I know.  God is exrtaordinarlily genreous as shown in the parable of the laborers in the vinyard.

[Zakuska]

It's true. God will forgive repented sins. In his mercy to forgive sins God is absolutley amazing.

In his willingness to accept sins - he has not the least degree of allowance.

(And liberal in that quote means generous, not socially "progressive").

If that's true. Why was he so willing to not divorce Israel the moment she went horring?

If he was so intolerant and black and white in his judgments of sin (as you seem to be implying) he would have divorced her immediately and never allowed her to come back and remained angry forever.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Zakuska

[rchorse]

The part you seem to be leaving out is repentance. God never forgave an unrepentant people. Not Israel, not the Jaredites, not the Nephites, not the people prior to the Flood. While God always gives us ample time for repentance, if we ultimately do not repent, we are destroyed. This can be physical and/or spiritual destruction. In the examples above, it was both. Physical destruction of today's fashionable sins has been limited so far, thankfully.

 

God's mercy in allowing time for repentance should not be mistaken for tacit approval of a sin. So it is with homosexuality.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm a little confused by my inclusion in this comment.

 

1.  I am not a follower of Dehlin and am not aware of any "prophecy" he has made

2.  I don't have any expectation that the mormon church will accept gay marriage nor do I really care if they do.

3.  I do support gay marriage in general.  Is that why I should breathlessly be waiting for some mysterious Dehlin prediction to be realized?

My apologies, then. I withdraw my inclusion of you in the comment.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not holding my breath for the first one to come along. The only reasonable thing I have heard from the critics is if we think there will be no such situation why then do we even have to have the policy? The few unlikely situations that do come up could be handled on a case by case basis.

I think it is mostly just another opportunity for the antis and critics to have a reason to complain and criticize.

I wonder how many kids from polygamous parents have actually fallen under the similar policy regarding those situations and had to wait to be baptized at 18.

All of which feeds my suspicion that the expressed sorrow over the as yet hypothetical children is really just a rhetorical device obscuring the fact that the real cause for anger is that the Church has now totally shut out the vain hope that same-sex marriage will ever so gradually be accommodated within the beliefs, faith and culture of the Latter-day Saints. Edited November 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Zakuska]

And Christ cursed the fig tree that was unable to bear fruit.

you do know what That fig tree represents?

Hint: its not Homosexuals

Edited November 21, 2015 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

Some have suggested that this depicts a Pedastre and a Ketemite love afair between David and Sauls son Jonathan. If true it would definately explain why Saul absolutely loathed David so much and wanted him Dead.

Saul was after the molester of his child... :shock:

1 Samuel 18English Standard Version (ESV)

David and Jonathan's Friendship

18 As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father's house. 3 Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt. 5 And David went out and was successful wherever Saul sent him, so that Saul set him over the men of war. And this was good in the sight of all the people and also in the sight of Saul's servants.

1 Samuel 20New International Version (NIV)

David and Jonathan

20 Then David fled from Naioth at Ramah and went to Jonathan and asked, “What have I done? What is my crime? How have I wronged your father, that he is trying to kill me?”

2 “Never!” Jonathan replied. “You are not going to die! Look, my father doesn’t do anything, great or small, without letting me know. Why would he hide this from me? It isn’t so!”

3 But David took an oath and said, “Your father knows very well that I have found favor in your eyes, and he has said to himself, ‘Jonathan must not know this or he will be grieved.’ Yet as surely as the Lord lives and as you live, there is only a step between me and death.”

4 Jonathan said to David, “Whatever you want me to do, I’ll do for you.”

5 So David said, “Look, tomorrow is the New Moon feast, and I am supposed to dine with the king; but let me go and hide in the field until the evening of the day after tomorrow. 6 If your father misses me at all, tell him, ‘David earnestly asked my permission to hurry to Bethlehem, his hometown, because an annual sacrifice is being made there for his whole clan.’ 7 If he says, ‘Very well,’ then your servant is safe. But if he loses his temper, you can be sure that he is determined to harm me. 8 As for you, show kindness to your servant, for you have brought him into a covenant with you before the Lord. If I am guilty, then kill me yourself! Why hand me over to your father?”

9 “Never!” Jonathan said. “If I had the least inkling that my father was determined to harm you, wouldn’t I tell you?”

10 David asked, “Who will tell me if your father answers you harshly?”

11 “Come,” Jonathan said, “let’s go out into the field.” So they went there together.

12 Then Jonathan said to David, “I swear by the Lord, the God of Israel, that I will surely sound out my father by this time the day after tomorrow! If he is favorably disposed toward you, will I not send you word and let you know? 13 But if my father intends to harm you, may the Lord deal with Jonathan, be it ever so severely, if I do not let you know and send you away in peace. May the Lord be with you as he has been with my father. 14 But show me unfailing kindness like the Lord’s kindness as long as I live, so that I may not be killed, 15 and do not ever cut off your kindness from my family—not even when the Lord has cut off every one of David’s enemies from the face of the earth.”

16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the Lord call David’s enemies to account.” 17 And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself.

18 Then Jonathan said to David, “Tomorrow is the New Moon feast. You will be missed, because your seat will be empty. 19 The day after tomorrow, toward evening, go to the place where you hid when this trouble began, and wait by the stone Ezel. 20 I will shoot three arrows to the side of it, as though I were shooting at a target. 21 Then I will send a boy and say, ‘Go, find the arrows.’ If I say to him, ‘Look, the arrows are on this side of you; bring them here,’ then come, because, as surely as the Lord lives, you are safe; there is no danger. 22 But if I say to the boy, ‘Look, the arrows are beyond you,’ then you must go, because the Lord has sent you away. 23 And about the matter you and I discussed—remember, the Lord is witness between you and me forever.”

24 So David hid in the field, and when the New Moon feast came, the king sat down to eat. 25 He sat in his customary place by the wall, opposite Jonathan,[a] and Abner sat next to Saul, but David’s place was empty. 26 Saul said nothing that day, for he thought, “Something must have happened to David to make him ceremonially unclean—surely he is unclean.” 27 But the next day, the second day of the month, David’s place was empty again. Then Saul said to his son Jonathan, “Why hasn’t the son of Jesse come to the meal, either yesterday or today?”

28 Jonathan answered, “David earnestly asked me for permission to go to Bethlehem. 29 He said, ‘Let me go, because our family is observing a sacrifice in the town and my brother has ordered me to be there. If I have found favor in your eyes, let me get away to see my brothers.’ That is why he has not come to the king’s table.”

30 Saul’s anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don’t I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? 31 As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send someone to bring him to me, for he must die!”

32 “Why should he be put to death? What has he done?” Jonathan asked his father. 33 But Saul hurled his spear at him to kill him. Then Jonathan knew that his father intended to kill David.

34 Jonathan got up from the table in fierce anger; on that second day of the feast he did not eat, because he was grieved at his father’s shameful treatment of David.

35 In the morning Jonathan went out to the field for his meeting with David. He had a small boy with him, 36 and he said to the boy, “Run and find the arrows I shoot.” As the boy ran, he shot an arrow beyond him. 37 When the boy came to the place where Jonathan’s arrow had fallen, Jonathan called out after him, “Isn’t the arrow beyond you?” 38 Then he shouted, “Hurry! Go quickly! Don’t stop!” The boy picked up the arrow and returned to his master. 39 (The boy knew nothing about all this; only Jonathan and David knew.) 40 Then Jonathan gave his weapons to the boy and said, “Go, carry them back to town.”

41 After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most.

42 Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, for we have sworn friendship with each other in the name of the Lord, saying, ‘The Lord is witness between you and me, and between your descendants and my descendants forever.’” Then David left, and Jonathan went back to the town

Edited November 21, 2015 by Zakuska

[Storm Rider]

Mystery, I think you are painting with too broad a brushstroke and create a standard that no other sinner can meet.  Gay behavior is a sin, a gay person is not a sin.  A sinner is still capable of teaching gospel truths such as faith, repentance, and charity.  All sinners are in rebellion to God's teachings to some degree, better said - we all fall short of the glory of God and disciples of Christ actively seek forgiveness for our weaknesses though we keep on sinning and remain sinners.

 

I think we have to be very careful with our language here.  We need to be precise or we will begin to teach untruths and/or falsehoods.  Does that make sense?

[sjdawg]

My apologies, then. I withdraw my inclusion of you in the comment.

No problem. I wasn't offended or even really bothered. Just confused

[Bobbieaware]

Some have suggested that this depicts a Pedastre and a Ketemite love afair between David and Sauls son Jonathan. If true it would definately explain why Saul absolutely loathed David so much and wanted him Dead.

Saul was after the molester of his child... :shock:1 Samuel 18English Standard Version (ESV)

David and Jonathan's Friendship

18 As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father's house. 3 Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt. 5 And David went out and was successful wherever Saul sent him, so that Saul set him over the men of war. And this was good in the sight of all the people and also in the sight of Saul's servants.

1 Samuel 20New International Version (NIV)

David and Jonathan

20 Then David fled from Naioth at Ramah and went to Jonathan and asked, “What have I done? What is my crime? How have I wronged your father, that he is trying to kill me?”

2 “Never!” Jonathan replied. “You are not going to die! Look, my father doesn’t do anything, great or small, without letting me know. Why would he hide this from me? It isn’t so!”

3 But David took an oath and said, “Your father knows very well that I have found favor in your eyes, and he has said to himself, ‘Jonathan must not know this or he will be grieved.’ Yet as surely as the Lord lives and as you live, there is only a step between me and death.”

4 Jonathan said to David, “Whatever you want me to do, I’ll do for you.”

5 So David said, “Look, tomorrow is the New Moon feast, and I am supposed to dine with the king; but let me go and hide in the field until the evening of the day after tomorrow. 6 If your father misses me at all, tell him, ‘David earnestly asked my permission to hurry to Bethlehem, his hometown, because an annual sacrifice is being made there for his whole clan.’ 7 If he says, ‘Very well,’ then your servant is safe. But if he loses his temper, you can be sure that he is determined to harm me. 8 As for you, show kindness to your servant, for you have brought him into a covenant with you before the Lord. If I am guilty, then kill me yourself! Why hand me over to your father?”

9 “Never!” Jonathan said. “If I had the least inkling that my father was determined to harm you, wouldn’t I tell you?”

10 David asked, “Who will tell me if your father answers you harshly?”

11 “Come,” Jonathan said, “let’s go out into the field.” So they went there together.

12 Then Jonathan said to David, “I swear by the Lord, the God of Israel, that I will surely sound out my father by this time the day after tomorrow! If he is favorably disposed toward you, will I not send you word and let you know? 13 But if my father intends to harm you, may the Lord deal with Jonathan, be it ever so severely, if I do not let you know and send you away in peace. May the Lord be with you as he has been with my father. 14 But show me unfailing kindness like the Lord’s kindness as long as I live, so that I may not be killed, 15 and do not ever cut off your kindness from my family—not even when the Lord has cut off every one of David’s enemies from the face of the earth.”

16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the Lord call David’s enemies to account.” 17 And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself.

18 Then Jonathan said to David, “Tomorrow is the New Moon feast. You will be missed, because your seat will be empty. 19 The day after tomorrow, toward evening, go to the place where you hid when this trouble began, and wait by the stone Ezel. 20 I will shoot three arrows to the side of it, as though I were shooting at a target. 21 Then I will send a boy and say, ‘Go, find the arrows.’ If I say to him, ‘Look, the arrows are on this side of you; bring them here,’ then come, because, as surely as the Lord lives, you are safe; there is no danger. 22 But if I say to the boy, ‘Look, the arrows are beyond you,’ then you must go, because the Lord has sent you away. 23 And about the matter you and I discussed—remember, the Lord is witness between you and me forever.”

24 So David hid in the field, and when the New Moon feast came, the king sat down to eat. 25 He sat in his customary place by the wall, opposite Jonathan,[a] and Abner sat next to Saul, but David’s place was empty. 26 Saul said nothing that day, for he thought, “Something must have happened to David to make him ceremonially unclean—surely he is unclean.” 27 But the next day, the second day of the month, David’s place was empty again. Then Saul said to his son Jonathan, “Why hasn’t the son of Jesse come to the meal, either yesterday or today?”

28 Jonathan answered, “David earnestly asked me for permission to go to Bethlehem. 29 He said, ‘Let me go, because our family is observing a sacrifice in the town and my brother has ordered me to be there. If I have found favor in your eyes, let me get away to see my brothers.’ That is why he has not come to the king’s table.”

30 Saul’s anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don’t I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? 31 As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send someone to bring him to me, for he must die!”

32 “Why should he be put to death? What has he done?” Jonathan asked his father. 33 But Saul hurled his spear at him to kill him. Then Jonathan knew that his father intended to kill David.

34 Jonathan got up from the table in fierce anger; on that second day of the feast he did not eat, because he was grieved at his father’s shameful treatment of David.

35 In the morning Jonathan went out to the field for his meeting with David. He had a small boy with him, 36 and he said to the boy, “Run and find the arrows I shoot.” As the boy ran, he shot an arrow beyond him. 37 When the boy came to the place where Jonathan’s arrow had fallen, Jonathan called out after him, “Isn’t the arrow beyond you?” 38 Then he shouted, “Hurry! Go quickly! Don’t stop!” The boy picked up the arrow and returned to his master. 39 (The boy knew nothing about all this; only Jonathan and David knew.) 40 Then Jonathan gave his weapons to the boy and said, “Go, carry them back to town.”

41 After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most.

42 Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, for we have sworn friendship with each other in the name of the Lord, saying, ‘The Lord is witness between you and me, and between your descendants and my descendants forever.’” Then David left, and Jonathan went back to the town

I've read several posters on this board declare that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because the people living there gave themselves over to large scale sexual transgression. But for some strange reason the folks who make that claim never quote the following verses from the Apostle Jude;

6 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.

7 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. (The Epistle of Jude)

Jude's use ot the word 'fornication' points to any sexual relations outside of committed male/female marriage, so that means gay sexual relations are included on that list.

I see you zealously going on and on in an effort to rationalize away the incontrovertible fact gay sexual relationships are included on the list of those transgressions of God's law included under the heading of FORNICATION. And you do this in spite of the fact that the living Apostles and prophets of God unambiguously teach otherwise. Why?

And you must also understand that while God unconditionally loves all of his children, that doesn't mean he unconditionally forgives them of their sins. As an essential component of God's unconditional love, God places all of his accountable children under the unalterable commandment to repent of all the things they do that are in violation of his holy law. In the same vein, we are commanded to love all men with the pure love of Christ as well, but the foremost expression of charity toward our fellow men is to persuade them to come unto Christ and repent of their sins. Love is not coddling people IN their sins.

I predict the day is going to come when all those who coddled sinners. persuading them that they had no need to repent and follow God's holy laws as set forth by the living Apostles and prophets of God, will bitterly mourn when they come to realize they unwittingly kept back their brothers and sisters from receiving rescue and salvation. God's love is manifested in his strictness and chastisement as much as it is in his affection. The Lord has no desire to become a codependent participant in spiritually dysfunctional relationships.

[Hamba Tuhan]

All of which feeds my suspicion that the expressed sorrow over the as yet hypothetical children is really just a rhetorical device obscuring the fact that the real cause for anger is that the Church has now totally shut out the vain hope that same-sex marriage will ever so gradually be accommodated within the beliefs, faith and culture of the Latter-day Saints.

 

With reverberations in the wider movement since it seems that so many saw gay 'marriage' as the holy grail that would almost immediately deliver the sought-for normalisation of homosexual behaviour whilst simultaneously providing the legal framework for marginalising and even silencing any remaining resistance. At this point, the Church and its members were supposed to feel too vanquished and/or scared to do anything but read from the script that those on the 'right side of history' have already written out for us

Edited November 21, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan