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

[Robert F. Smith]

We seem to be talking past each other.  Perhaps read the two responses above me to better understand where I am coming from.  The question boils down to this.

 

Will there be gay people in the Celestial Kingdom?

 

If the answer is yes, then the plan of salvation is indeed for gay people as well as straight.

 

If the answer is no, then the plan of salvation is only for straight people.  All gays must become straight in order to be a part of the plan of salvation and be allowed to enter into the Celestial Kingdom.  If they don't want to be straight, then they can not participate in the plan of salvation.

 

So which is it?  Will there be gay people in the Celestial Kingdom  Yes or No

You just don't get it, californiaboy.  The plan of salvation applies to every human, everywhere, and at everytime.  There are no exceptions.  The plan of salvation has nothing to do with individual proclivities for some sort of sexual activity, or not.  The plan is for Jesus to give his life as a ransom for all of us (that is everyone).  He paid the price for sin, all sin, no matter what.  One does not need the Gospel to sin.  All will thus be resurrected and assigned to an appropriate kingdom of glory -- Paul says that we will all be changed in an instant, though he did not say what that change would be, except that we will all be immortal.

 

Of course there will not be homosexuality in the Celestial Kingdom, and likely not in the other kingdoms of glory, even though sexual activity is not likely there anyhow (where there is no marriage).  The only kind of reproductive activity we might imagine would be among the gods in the Celestial Glory, and not among the ministering angels.  So, there appears to be an elite class of male and female gods who have eternal increase.

 

If you understand Mormon theology differently, please so inform me.

[filovirus]

This seems to be the current church position on homosexuality.  So why worry about being gay in this life or trying to overcome it if it is a disorder that will not last beyond mortality.  If there is no homosexual feelings after we die, then there will also be no desire to sin after this life either.  How hard will repentance be if there is no desire to commit that sin of sexual feelings with someone of the same gender.  Seems like the only thing that is required is patience.  I can do that.

 

Combine that with the fact that virtually everyone dies without becoming a member of the church, it sounds like I will be pretty set.  I just gotta die and everything will be perfect.

This idea you set forth about just needing patience is not scriptural.

2 Nephi 28:7-10 - Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.

Alma 34:33 - Do not procrastinate the day of your repentance.

D&C 19:15-20 - Unrepentant must suffer even as Christ did.

D&C 82:3 - Sin against greater light brings greater condemnation.

2 Corinthians 7:10 - Everyone who would repent must feel Godly sorrow.

[california boy]

You just don't get it, californiaboy.  The plan of salvation applies to every human, everywhere, and at everytime.  There are no exceptions.  The plan of salvation has nothing to do with individual proclivities for some sort of sexual activity, or not.  The plan is for Jesus to give his life as a ransom for all of us (that is everyone).  He paid the price for sin, all sin, no matter what.  One does not need the Gospel to sin.  All will thus be resurrected and assigned to an appropriate kingdom of glory -- Paul says that we will all be changed in an instant, though he did not say what that change would be, except that we will all be immortal.

 

 

Of course I understand this part of your answer.  It is an answer that fits completely in sync with who you are and what you will become if you are straight.  It all makes sense.  You come to earth, gain experience, find an eternal mate, die/resurected and are allowed to repent through the grace and because of the atonement of Jesus Christ.  It is a clear linear path. . . if you are straight.

 

 

Of course there will not be homosexuality in the Celestial Kingdom, and likely not in the other kingdoms of glory, even though sexual activity is not likely there anyhow (where there is no marriage).  The only kind of reproductive activity we might imagine would be among the gods in the Celestial Glory, and not among the ministering angels.  So, there appears to be an elite class of male and female gods who have eternal increase.

 

If you understand Mormon theology differently, please so inform me.

 

And perhaps this all makes sense if you reduce gay relationships with only being sexual.  Is there  no love in the other kingdoms?  If you see the person that you spent your life with on earth, do you pass as strangers?  Do relationships endure death even in the other kingdoms?  

 

This is the part of Mormon theology that I don't understand, and was never taught. Perhaps because that part of the plan never needs to be discussed unless you are gay and as others have stated, there are no gays in the Celestial Kingdom.  So for me, I have to understand what the other kingdoms hold in store.  If I was straight, I would ignore the other kingdoms and consentrate on obtaining entrance into the Celestial Kingdom.  

 

If you understand this part of Mormon theology, please inform me.  I seriously would love to know what the next life has in store for gays.

[california boy]

This idea you set forth about just needing patience is not scriptural.

2 Nephi 28:7-10 - Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.

Alma 34:33 - Do not procrastinate the day of your repentance.

D&C 19:15-20 - Unrepentant must suffer even as Christ did.

D&C 82:3 - Sin against greater light brings greater condemnation.

2 Corinthians 7:10 - Everyone who would repent must feel Godly sorrow.

 

So how does this all work.  I am gay in this life.  According to current church doctrine, when I die, those feelings all disappear and I will no longer have any desire to be with a man.  At that moment, is there any need for further repentance if repentance is casting off sin or even the desire to sin and never doing it again? Seems like that will automatically be accomplished.  So I will be in a repentant state.  

 

 Is repentance not possible after we die?  Do we all have to die without sin to enter the Celestial Kingdom?  Of course I am familiar with these scriptures.  It is just not all that clear how they all apply to some things that are a very reality for some of God's children that don't exactly fit the mold.  We hear things like the plan of salvation is for everyone, but just not sure how it all works for everyone.

[california boy]

I trust God enough that if his prophets and apostles told me (and it was backed by scripture) that I would be gay in the next life and that that would make me the most happy I could accept it with faith and press forward, looking towards the day when God would make everything right (even if right meant being gay). I don't think it is all that different from what we are asked to do anyway as members of a Church that still has the doctrine of polygamy in play. I do not like the idea of polygamy. The thought of breaking my sweetheart's heart because of a polygamous relationship makes me feel quite disgusted. Yet, I do not worry all that much about it. If I am to be an eternal polygamist, I will trust that God knows a lot more about eternal happiness than I do and will look forward to further light on the matter. So I am not sure why this is so offensive to suggest that any gay man or woman who qualifies for the Celestial Kingdom will have the natural man completed rooted out of them, including any homosexuality.

 

Interesting.  You have no problem with being promised in the next life that you will loose your attraction to your wife, and women in general.  You would be ok with forever being changed to be attracted to men.  And you would be willing to spend eternity, not with your dear wife you have loved on earth.  She will be cast out from you for eternity and a man will take her stead.  Could you just affirm that this would all be ok with you and you would be willing to trust the 15 men that speak for God on this issue without any claim of revelation on this subject?

[Robert F. Smith]

Of course I understand this part of your answer.  It is an answer that fits completely in sync with who you are and what you will become if you are straight.  It all makes sense.  You come to earth, gain experience, find an eternal mate, die/resurected and are allowed to repent through the grace and because of the atonement of Jesus Christ.  It is a clear linear path. . . if you are straight.

Again, you have become so obsessed with sexual orientation, that you have missed the point:  It makes no difference what sexual orientation you have.  God is not concerned with the features you were born with, or which set of burdens you think you bear.  He wants to see how you bear up under the load you have.  Have you been honest with yourself and others?  Moreover, everyone falls short in some way.  Some more than others.

 

There is no clear linear path for anyone.  You are making false differentiations, perhaps to salve your own conscience.  We all tend to make those sorts of excuses.  However, Mormonism is not a Hell, fire, and brimstone religion.  It is universalist and humanistic.  I can see that you do not understand Mormon theology at all.

 

And perhaps this all makes sense if you reduce gay relationships with only being sexual.  Is there  no love in the other kingdoms?  If you see the person that you spent your life with on earth, do you pass as strangers?  Do relationships endure death even in the other kingdoms?

Same-sex friendships are very common, without having any sexual implications.  When Jesus and St Paul speak of love, they are not discussing eroticism or sexual love.  So I don't get your notion that anyone sees homosexual relationships as only sexual.  We all know better than that.

 

This is the part of Mormon theology that I don't understand, and was never taught. Perhaps because that part of the plan never needs to be discussed unless you are gay and as others have stated, there are no gays in the Celestial Kingdom.  So for me, I have to understand what the other kingdoms hold in store.  If I was straight, I would ignore the other kingdoms and consentrate on obtaining entrance into the Celestial Kingdom.  

 

If you understand this part of Mormon theology, please inform me.  I seriously would love to know what the next life has in store for gays.

If you want to make a religion or cult out of homosexuality, or heterosexuality, or dancing, singing, skiing, skating, etc., that is your right, but it seems rather silly and evanescent.  For most people, those are simply aspects of their larger lives -- which entail a multiplicity of features and activities.  Imagine the stupidity of Michaelangelo defining himself primarily as a homosexual.  He had so many other more important interests.  Or Hugh Hefner defining himself primarily as a heterosexual playboy.  How immature and meaningless.

[Robert F. Smith]

So how does this all work.  I am gay in this life.  According to current church doctrine, when I die, those feelings all disappear and I will no longer have any desire to be with a man.  At that moment, is there any need for further repentance if repentance is casting off sin or even the desire to sin and never doing it again? Seems like that will automatically be accomplished.  So I will be in a repentant state.  

 

 Is repentance not possible after we die?  Do we all have to die without sin to enter the Celestial Kingdom?  Of course I am familiar with these scriptures.  It is just not all that clear how they all apply to some things that are a very reality for some of God's children that don't exactly fit the mold.  We hear things like the plan of salvation is for everyone, but just not sure how it all works for everyone.

Unlike the Classical Greeks, you have heard the Gospel preached in this life, which requires that you come to terms with a conscience filled with those religious considerations.  You will be judged the same way all of us are, for our actions and integrity here and hereafter -- while we wait for the first resurrection.  Thus, every judgment is unique and separately applicable to each life.  In your case, repentance cannot be procrastinated without risk.  The same applies to me.  We all get the same grace.  There are no special privileges for heterosexuals.  Why you don't understand that beats me.

Edited November 26, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[filovirus]

So how does this all work.  I am gay in this life.  According to current church doctrine, when I die, those feelings all disappear and I will no longer have any desire to be with a man.  At that moment, is there any need for further repentance if repentance is casting off sin or even the desire to sin and never doing it again? Seems like that will automatically be accomplished.  So I will be in a repentant state.  

 

 Is repentance not possible after we die?  Do we all have to die without sin to enter the Celestial Kingdom?  Of course I am familiar with these scriptures.  It is just not all that clear how they all apply to some things that are a very reality for some of God's children that don't exactly fit the mold.  We hear things like the plan of salvation is for everyone, but just not sure how it all works for everyone.

This is my understanding of the difficulties of repentance in the spirit world.

If we look at a teaching of Alma to the Zoramites, we see they were cast out of their temples and synagogues. Alma 32

2 And it came to pass that after much labor among them, they began to have success among the poor class of people; for behold, they were cast out of the synagogues because of the coarseness of their apparel—

3 Therefore they were not permitted to enter into their synagogues to worship God, being esteemed as filthiness; therefore they were poor; yea, they were esteemed by their brethren as dross; therefore they were poor as to things of the world; and also they were poor in heart.

In essence, they were being forced to be humble. A similar thing will happen to each of us upon entering the spirit world. Because we no longer have a body, we will be forced to abstain from the cravings of a body. This will definitely humble us. We too will be compelled to be humble in like manner. This is good in a way because in may get us to repent, although I still don't believe everyone will choose to do so. As we read further in Alma 32, he says this:

13 And now, because ye are compelled to be humble blessed are ye; for a man sometimes, if he is compelled to be humble, seeketh repentance; and now surely, whosoever repenteth shall find mercy; and he that findeth mercy and endureth to the end the same shall be saved.

14 And now, as I said unto you, that because ye were compelled to be humble ye were blessed, do ye not suppose that they are more blessed who truly humble themselves because of the word?

15 Yea, he that truly humbleth himself, and repenteth of his sins, and endureth to the end, the same shall be blessed—yea, much more blessed than they who are compelled to be humble because of their exceeding poverty.

We can now clearly see from Alma's words that those who are not compelled to be humble will be more blessed than those who are compelled. What blessings might those be? Most likely a Kingdom of Glory. A separation between those of the C Kingdom and those of the T Kingdom. The difference between the two groups of people are when they truly felt Godly sorrow. Was it before being compelled, or after?

This is the reason we are charged to not procrastinate the day of our repentance. This is the reason we must repent while in mortal probation rather than waiting for death. This is especially true for those who have an understanding of the Gospel.

I am not naturally a very empathetic person. The genes I was born with apparently. I'm sorry if my posts come off as cold. It truly is not my intention. Because of this weekness I have, I usually try to express my thoughts through scripture and other's words. I really do try to understand your point of view and concerns.

[Tsuzuki]

To speak of 'gay people' before the end of the 19th century is ahistorical and anachronistic.

 

Consequently, to expect God to have said anything about gayness or same-sex marriage before the 20th century is equally ahistorical and anachronistic.

Let me rephrase that, then. Homosexuality has been among humans for as long as there have been humans, and it was as common and accepted in the Roman Empire as it is today, yet Jesus said nothing about it.

[Calm]

 "According to current church doctrine, when I die, those feelings all disappear and I will no longer have any desire to be with a man."

 

My impression of church doctrine is that they will only disappear like all other feelings of mortality that have no place in eternity and that is with repentance and acceptance of the Atonement and that is they will disappear only when we place them on the altar of God as our sacrifice, not that they will just disappear even if one does nothing towards personal change.

 

I don't think one can accurately claim that they know someone else's path will be "linear" and definitely not just because they are straight sexually in this life.  We don't know what celestial beings are like; we only have hints of it most likely as everything in scripture tells us we can't wrap our heads around what God is and how he thinks.  We only see a small and blurred picture of what godly attributes are.  It may turn out that we will all have to lay aside some aspects of ourselves that we have treasured greatly in this life that our current culture thoroughly approves of when we find out that such cannot exist in the presence of God.  Maybe there is no room for heterosexuality as we know and participate in it now in the celestial kingdom as well because pure godly love is so far above it, it is no more that than two kids playing house is what we know as marriage now.

 

Why would it take so long after life as Joseph Smith taught for the pure endowment to sink into even those who have received the gospel and participated in the temple rituals unless there is something fundamental in ourselves that must be changed after death, something that will take time and much greater knowledge of what God is and what we can become to be sanctified?  If it is just giving up stuff we know as sins in this life already, that would be relatively easy since we already know they are wrong.  I think all of us should be preparing ourselves to be ready to sacrifice everything that we are and whatever God asks of us.  If we don't have that willingness, how can we really join and be one with him?

 

I think the storyline in the book/movie Voyage of the Dawntreader where Aslan rips off Eustace's dragon skin to reveal the true human underneath is a great metaphor for what will happen to everyone.  We don't really know what we are yet and only with God's help can we find our true selves, which will be a better version of what we were before we came to earth more than what we are now (though our best qualities will carry over with us...I just don't think as many as we probably think will be there).

[The Nehor]

Let me rephrase that, then. Homosexuality has been among humans for as long as there have been humans, and it was as common and accepted in the Roman Empire as it is today, yet Jesus said nothing about it.

Homosexual relations were so different in Rome that this statement is misleading. While Roman men could have penetrative sex with other men it was a dominance thing. It was supposed to be limited to slaves, prostitutes, and others of low social standing. Hopefully not the way we see it today.

In any case Jesus is not recorded speaking about the subject. Mostl likely this is due to the small size of the record (you can read every account of Jesus's mortal life in a few hours) and that homosexuality was not controversial or as nuanced in Israel as it was in the rest of the Empire and that is where Jesus preached and he preached almost exclusively to those of the Jewish faith which had a pre existing strong stance on homosexual relations.

Edited November 26, 2015 by The Nehor

[busybee]

So how does this all work.  I am gay in this life.  According to current church doctrine, when I die, those feelings all disappear and I will no longer have any desire to be with a man.  At that moment, is there any need for further repentance if repentance is casting off sin or even the desire to sin and never doing it again? Seems like that will automatically be accomplished.  So I will be in a repentant state.  

 

 Is repentance not possible after we die?  Do we all have to die without sin to enter the Celestial Kingdom?  Of course I am familiar with these scriptures.  It is just not all that clear how they all apply to some things that are a very reality for some of God's children that don't exactly fit the mold.  We hear things like the plan of salvation is for everyone, but just not sure how it all works for everyone.

You are only in a repentant state if you are remorseful for your sin. Just being unable to continue in your particular sin does not put you in a repentant state. Remorse is part of repentance, which is a process. It requires more than just ceasing a behaviour.

Edited November 26, 2015 by busybee

[california boy]

I appreciate all of your comments.  Thanks.  And I mean that sincerely.  You are all right.  I don't understand or relate to the plan of salvation the same way that you do.  I know I am just frustrating you all by my questions.  For you it seems so clear.  For me it seems so unanswerable.  You all have a clear idea on how you fit into the whole plan.  You all find great comfort in the idea that you will have your sweetheart that you have found in this life to be your eternal companion.  No matter how that companionship continues in the next life, it will all be ok.  I completely understand that.  While all of us have sins we must overcome in this life, that assurance that you will be with the one most important person you have in this life makes whatever sacrifice and burden God has given you to overcome in this life worth while.  You are not asked to give up that relationship.  You are only asked to magnify and strengthen that relationship.

 

All of that goes away for me and others that are gay.  No such promise exists.  No such relationship continue through the eternities.  You all see that is no big deal.  You look at my relationship with my boyfriend as being expendable, something that I will be forced to abandon and you are all ok with that.  You find comfort in knowing that God wants me to sever that relationship  And if I do THAT, then and only then can I continue on this path of salvation.  I know you think that my clinging to that relationship seems petty to you and a small sacrifice to what the rewards are.  You can't understand why I can't see it that way.  And you are all getting frustrated in me not being able to see it that way.  And you think my vision of the eternities without the person I love is shallow and of little importance.  That giving up that relationship on this earth and being without his companionship and love is a good thing.  That I will find happiness in being alone.  That God will make me happy with a woman I have no connection with.  Someone who because they are in the Celestial Kingdom, then that alone will be what will make me want to be with them throughout eternities.  

 

I am gong to stop asking questions now.  You see my questions is just being stubborn and defying God.  You don't find my questions to be something I should be concerned about.  And I am not finding your answers to be answers to the questions that I have.  It is frustrating to both of us.  But it is not intentional.  I just don't get this plan of "happiness" .  I just don't feel any happiness in what is asked of me or what will be given to me.  I see my eternity as being alone forever without the one person I could endure all that is asked of me because we could be forever bound together.  i know.  Kinda silly.  I should want to easily give up that bond for something that you all find to be a wonderful future.  

[Jeanne]

I appreciate all of your comments.  Thanks.  And I mean that sincerely.  You are all right.  I don't understand or relate to the plan of salvation the same way that you do.  I know I am just frustrating you all by my questions.  For you it seems so clear.  For me it seems so unanswerable.  You all have a clear idea on how you fit into the whole plan.  You all find great comfort in the idea that you will have your sweetheart that you have found in this life to be your eternal companion.  No matter how that companionship continues in the next life, it will all be ok.  I completely understand that.  While all of us have sins we must overcome in this life, that assurance that you will be with the one most important person you have in this life makes whatever sacrifice and burden God has given you to overcome in this life worth while.  You are not asked to give up that relationship.  You are only asked to magnify and strengthen that relationship.

 

All of that goes away for me and others that are gay.  No such promise exists.  No such relationship continue through the eternities.  You all see that is no big deal.  You look at my relationship with my boyfriend as being expendable, something that I will be forced to abandon and you are all ok with that.  You find comfort in knowing that God wants me to sever that relationship  And if I do THAT, then and only then can I continue on this path of salvation.  I know you think that my clinging to that relationship seems petty to you and a small sacrifice to what the rewards are.  You can't understand why I can't see it that way.  And you are all getting frustrated in me not being able to see it that way.  And you think my vision of the eternities without the person I love is shallow and of little importance.  That giving up that relationship on this earth and being without his companionship and love is a good thing.  That I will find happiness in being alone.  That God will make me happy with a woman I have no connection with.  Someone who because they are in the Celestial Kingdom, then that alone will be what will make me want to be with them throughout eternities.  

 

I am gong to stop asking questions now.  You see my questions is just being stubborn and defying God.  You don't find my questions to be something I should be concerned about.  And I am not finding your answers to be answers to the questions that I have.  It is frustrating to both of us.  But it is not intentional.  I just don't get this plan of "happiness" .  I just don't feel any happiness in what is asked of me or what will be given to me.  I see my eternity as being alone forever without the one person I could endure all that is asked of me because we could be forever bound together.  i know.  Kinda silly.  I should want to easily give up that bond for something that you all find to be a wonderful future.  

I just want you to know that I care about you.,your feelings and your relationship here on this earth.  When I read how genuine and loving your relationship with your husband is..I can only hope and remember that mine, too, was as loving.  If you and I had not come across the LDS church in this life..we would be holding on to a hope that our love for our partners would always be there..enough to last for all eternity.  I include myself and my marriage with you..as I am not sealed to him and in this church for which we are acquainted will tell us we can't be together.  Just know that right now..right here..you are not alone and please value that wonderful love and companionship that you share.  I am alone this Thanksgiving Day...but hold dear the memory of husband throwing olives around....and my Mom making a steak because he was allergic to turkey!  We love and have been loved like every other member of this board has been.  Let us hope for each other that somewhere in God's plan.,.love matters,

 

Hugs and Happy Thanksgiving!

 

Jeanne

[Zakuska]

To conceive of that requires the realization that we will not always be subject to the limitations of mortality. I firmly believe (and I have statements of Church leaders to back me up) that same-sex attraction is a disorder that will not last beyond mortality. Thereafter, if the husband and wife are true and faithful to the gospel principles, they will be so attractive and appealing to each other that what you have expressed above will cease to be a concern.

I very much like a quotation from Brigham Young that I have used frequently in teaching and discussion:

This seems to be the current church position on homosexuality. So why worry about being gay in this life or trying to overcome it if it is a disorder that will not last beyond mortality. If there is no homosexual feelings after we die, then there will also be no desire to sin after this life either. How hard will repentance be if there is no desire to commit that sin of sexual feelings with someone of the same gender. Seems like the only thing that is required is patience. I can do that.

Combine that with the fact that virtually everyone dies without becoming a member of the church, it sounds like I will be pretty set. I just gotta die and everything will be perfect.

Not to mention the fact that the very notion is contrary to scripture...

Alma 34

34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

Alma 41

12 And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature?

13 O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just; merciful for that which is merciful.

14 Therefore, my son, see that you are merciful unto your brethren; deal justly, judge righteously, and do good continually; and if ye do all these things then shall ye receive your reward; yea, ye shall have mercy restored unto you again; ye shall have justice restored unto you again; ye shall have a righteous judgment restored unto you again; and ye shall have good rewarded unto you again.

15 For that which ye do send out shall return unto you again, and be restored; therefore, the word restoration more fully condemneth the sinner, and justifieth him not at all.

 

Thank you for your opinion. However, the testimony of Scripture, contrary to what you assume God "wouldn't" do, is that they were condemned.

Malakoi -- "soft ones" -- are catamites.

Let us accept from the outset that pederasty is the most common manifestation of male homosexual behaviour. For example, the Stonewall riots, which are annually celebrated in "gay pride" parades, were started because of police raids on a dive called the "Stonewall Inn." It was just an innocent "gay" bar, according to the proud ones. Actually it was a centre for male prostitution -- i.e. paid pederasty -- and drug peddling, and was run by a criminal gang.

Just an innocent "gay" bar, right? Or not?

Some might say not; but then again, if the Stonewall Inn doesn't qualify as innocent, what "gay" bar does?

Catamites yes. Now go back and read the story of David, Johnathan, and Saul and you might understand why Saul was so blood thirsty for David. Not Saying David or Johnathan where catamites (They where "knit" at the very soul) but Saul sure thought they where, That being a common practice among the Roman and Greek Soldiers of the time. Saul was after the man he thought corrupted his Son.

 

It's a bit like the adoration of Harvey Milk. Some say he shouldn't be held up as a gay hero, because he was a convicted pederast. But if pederasts can't be gay heroes, are there any candidates left?

In Paul's day, adolescence hadn't yet been infantilized. A boy became a man at 13. A Malakos was responsible for his choices.

Sorry Zak, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If homosexuality <> pedophilia, then pederasty <> pedophilia, because male homosexuality absolutely includes pederasty.

No.

Because that gets back to the same redundancy you were worried about earlier.

Arsenokoitai are male homosexuals, simpliciter.

It comes from two Greek roots: Arsenos, which means "male," and koiten, which means to have sexual relations -- it actually descends into English via Latin as "coitus." The combined noun, Arsenokoiten, is masculine. So it denotes a male who has sexual relations with other males.

A homosexual, IOW.

If you want to interpret it that way then Lesbians are home free! Whoo Whoo! You go girls!

Please, See discussion below.

 

Has it?

Call for references, please.

Thank you for demonstrating the technique of wresting the scriptures.

Yes it has, and all your blather goes against every thing we do know about the origin of the word.

Here's your CFR and please notice the bolding I have added.

Arsenokoites

Arsenokoitēs (αρσενοκοίτης) is a Greek word found in the New Testament, specifically in some verses that are generally considered a prohibition against homosexuality. It is a portmanteau of arsen, the Greek word for man, and koite, the Greek word for bed, echoing the phrasing of the Septuagint rendering of Leviticus 18:22.[1]

The verses in question are in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, both part of Paul's writings. In context, the lines say "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived ; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor manbedders..."[2] and "and immoral men and manbedders and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching..."[3]

Arsenokoites is extremely rare in ancient Greek - so rare, there is no other extant use predating or contemporary to the Bible (a linguistic phenomenon known as a hapax legomenon). Philo is often claimed to have used it around 35 CE [4] [5]. Some believe the claim to be false.[6] The context in which it is used in Corinthians suggests that it is the dominant partner of a homosexual relationship[7] (of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. μαλακός)[8]. Some liberal Christians insist it refers specifically to pimps or pederasts, but there's no more evidence to support this meaning than any other.

"Malakoi", (as used in 1 Cor 6:9 just prior to "arsenokoites") means literally "squishy." Linguists generally understand this word to be a form of showy effeminism; it may also indicate cowardice. Malakos is used in Matthew to describe the unnecessarily fine and showy clothing of the King. Unlike "arsenokoites," malakos is word is seen in other writers of the time, indeed as an indictment of cowardice, or sometimes vanity, or other "feminine" vices; the sexual sense of effeminate is typically referred to not by this word, but "kinaidia."

1 Translations

1.1 Arsenokoitia for male-female sodomy

2 Forgery

3 External links

4 Footnotes

Over the centuries, there has also been a range of interpretation of how best to translate "arsenokoites" into the different European languages.

The medieval Latin translation in the Vulgata Clementina was "masculorum concubitoribus," implying concubinage or pimping, not homosexuality specifically. Martin Luther's 1545 German translation employs the word "Knabenschänder" (from "Knaben", boys or young children), implying that "arsenokoites" was interpreted as pedophilia as early as the 16th century. A modern German translation speaks of "Kinder sexuell missbrauchen" ("to abuse children sexually"). The 1649 Giovanni Deodati Bible in Italian refers to "quelli che usano co' maschi". The term "maschi" can refer either to men or boys, but has a more general sense of boys, as in the traditional Italian expression "Auguri e figli maschi" (literally, "Congratulations and may you have many male children.")

Though certainly no European translator before the 20th century approved of homosexuality (least of all Martin Luther), the rendering of the word "arsenokoites" into modern European languages clearly does not imply a clear consensus on whether this specific term covers homosexuality in general. Yet the avoidance of the term "homosexual" may also have been merely to provide euphemisms for something considered "unspeakable" by many, and thus may have been a form of mere bowdlerism on the transators' part:

Danish: "Syndere imod Naturen" (sins against nature)

French (Martin, 1744): "ceux qui commettent des péchés contre nature" (those who commit sins against nature)

French (Ostervald, 1744): "les abominables" (the abominables)

French (Louis Segon, 1910): "les infâmes" (the infamous)

Irish (William O'Domhnuill, 1602): "dáoine míonadúrtha" (unnatural people)

Spanish (Sagradas Escrituras, 1569): "los homosexuales"

Spanish (Reina Valera, 1909): "los sodomitas" (sodomites, a term that in itself is open to wide interpretation)

Swedish (1917): "för dem som... onaturlig vällustsynd" (those who sin unnaturally)

English (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, Challoner Revision, 1749): "them who defile themselves with mankind"

The variety of translations made across time and place have helped to shape contemporary perceptions of homosexuality, and these translations were clearly products of their time, struggling against the strictures and limitations of any given language. Regardless, the original Greek word remains ambiguous.

[edit]Arsenokoitia for male-female sodomy

In a penitential by Saint John the Faster, there is a section of penances for certain sexual acts, and he says: "If any man perform arsenokoitia upon his wife, he shall be penanced for eight years, faring the while with xerophany after the ninth hour and doing two hundred metanies daily." While he does mention arsenokoites between males, it's not exclusive to male-male sex.[9]

[edit]Forgery

Some scholars consider 1 Timothy a forgery. It disagrees with other letters that Paul wrote, 1 Timothy tries to refute 'false teachings' that became important with the Gnostics well after Paul's time. The author of 1 Timothy also uses the same words as Paul but with different meanings. [10]

The genuineness of Pauline authorship was accepted by Church orthodoxy as early as c. 180 AD, as evidenced by the surviving testimony of Irenaeus and the author of the Muratorian. Possible allusions are found in the letters from Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians (c. 110) and Polycarp to the Philippians (c. 130).[11][12]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Arsenokoites

So as you see we realy can't say for sure what exactly Paul ment by "menbedders" or "mencouchers"

Martin Luther interprited it exactly as I have.

And it has been used to describe and punish male-female sodomy.

Malakoi would seem to be equivalent to our modern term "gay" or possibly "Vanity".

Paul should have used the greek "kinaidia" if he was talking about sexual acts.

As it stands the 2 terms are vauge at best. To hang a doctrine on it is truley a foundation of sand.

You have no stronger footing than any other Bible translator over the centuries.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Zakuska

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................................

All of that goes away for me and others that are gay.  No such promise exists.  No such relationship continue through the eternities.  You all see that is no big deal.  You look at my relationship with my boyfriend as being expendable, something that I will be forced to abandon and you are all ok with that.  You find comfort in knowing that God wants me to sever that relationship  And if I do THAT, then and only then can I continue on this path of salvation.  I know you think that my clinging to that relationship seems petty to you and a small sacrifice to what the rewards are.  You can't understand why I can't see it that way.  And you are all getting frustrated in me not being able to see it that way.  And you think my vision of the eternities without the person I love is shallow and of little importance.  That giving up that relationship on this earth and being without his companionship and love is a good thing.  That I will find happiness in being alone.  That God will make me happy with a woman I have no connection with.  Someone who because they are in the Celestial Kingdom, then that alone will be what will make me want to be with them throughout eternities.  

.............................................................................

God does not require or even desire that you sever and abandon your close friendship with your boyfriend.  Why would he?  As I have said before, same-sex friendships are quite common also for heterosexuals, and do not need to be forsworn.  Why would you even imagine that?  Your temporal projections into eternal life seem far too shallow and meaningless.

 

Anyone can insist on making a religion out of sexuality, but that seems odd and inappropriate for both hetero- and homosexuals.  One does not need sexuality to have true friendship.  It might even complicate the nature of true friendship.

 

Your continued statements that others lack sensitivity to the imagined cutting off of true friendship is a straw man, and has no substance.  The assumption is false, root and branch.  Most of us are probably destined for a glory in which true friendship and collegiality are enjoyed for eternity (Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial), even if most of us will not be expressing sexuality or sensuality in the earthly sense.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  It is astounding that you do not see that.

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................................................................  

Catamites yes. Now go back and read the story of David, Johnathan, and Saul and you might understand why Saul was so blood thirsty for David. Not Saying David or Johnathan where catamites (They where "knit" at the very soul) but Saul sure thought they where, That being a common practice among the Roman and Greek Soldiers of the time. Saul was after the man he thought corrupted his Son.

................................................................................   

Homosexuals have regularly interpreted the true friendship between David and Jonathan as homosexual, thus sullying all same-sex friendships and close camaradarie among men.  There is no evidence or even suggestion in the biblical text that David & Jonathan conducted themselves in that fashion.

[Kenngo1969]

What will be the fate of homosexuals, or of single people who never marry, in the next life?  I know the broad outlines ("No blessing will be denied if we are faithful," and so on), but I lack knowledge of the intricate details.  However God and we choose to work it out in the life to come, however, I don't think He's going to have to tell any of us, "Well, gosh, I know you were expecting something more, or something better, or at least something ... different ... and I know this means it sucks to be you, but ... sorry.   This is the best I can do."

 

If I am faithful, I trust I will be content ... whatever my lot.

If you are faithful, I trust you will be content ... whatever your lot.

For anyone else who is faithful, I trust he will be content ... whatever his lot.

 

I don't know any other way to construe the terms omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving and so forth.  And we throw these terms around as though the mortal mind can even begin to conceive what they mean.  By definition, our finite minds mean that, with respect to many things, we'll simply have to say, "Wow!  I didn't even know God could do that!"  Or, "I had some abstract idea that God could do something akin to that, but I didn't really even have any idea what that means."

Edited November 27, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Zakuska]

What will be the fate of homosexuals, or of single people who never marry, in the next life?  I know the broad outlines ("No blessing will be denied if we are faithful," and so on), but I lack knowledge of the intricate details.  However God and we choose to work it out in the life to come, however, I don't think He's going to have to tell any of us, "Well, gosh, I know you were expecting something more, or something better, or at least something ... different ... and I know this means it sucks to be you, but ... sorry.   This is the best I can do."

 

If I am faithful, I trust I will be content ... whatever my lot.

If you are faithful, I trust you will be content ... whatever your lot.

For anyone else who is faithful, I trust he will be content ... whatever his lot.

 

I don't know any other way to construe the terms omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving and so forth.  And we throw these terms around as though the mortal mind can even begin to conceive what they mean.  By definition, our finite minds mean that, with respect to many things, we'll simply have to say, "Wow!  I didn't even know God could do that!"  Or, "I had some abstract idea that I could do something akin to that, but I didn't really even have any idea what that means."

Well... there is a thousand years to "reform" them in spirit prison and then a little season for them to give it a go, the right way. A makeup test? Edited November 27, 2015 by Zakuska

[Hamba Tuhan]

It is a clear linear path. . . if you are straight.

 

You all have a clear idea on how you fit into the whole plan.  You all find great comfort in the idea that you will have your sweetheart that you have found in this life to be your eternal companion.  No matter how that companionship continues in the next life, it will all be ok.

 

As Robert and Calm have already intimated, I fear you are seriously underestimating the non-linearity of life here for all Saints.

 

I talked to my sister this morning and in doing so was reminded of a close mutual friend. This friend married an active man in the temple, and together they had six children, all adults now. All but the eldest girl served missions, and the family has always been faithful, active, serving Church members.

 

Then two years ago the husband abandoned his wife without any warning. The next step was to become the boyfriend to a wealthy elderly gentleman who started taking him on exotic holidays, and now, according to my sister this morning, the two men have been 'married'.

 

Do you think the betrayed wife sees any of this as clear? Comfortable? Linear? Rejected after decades with her chosen 'sweetheart', how exactly does she fit into the 'straightforward plan' you've concocted in your imagination?

 

Like many others have expressed, I bear you zero ill-will, and I empathise that you don't feel like the plan is an easy fit for you. But I find it very difficult to accept the assertion that you're somehow alone in this fact. You are not alone. We may be paddling different oars, but all of us are in the exact same boat.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Tacenda]

I just want you to know that I care about you.,your feelings and your relationship here on this earth. When I read how genuine and loving your relationship with your husband is..I can only hope and remember that mine, too, was as loving. If you and I had not come across the LDS church in this life..we would be holding on to a hope that our love for our partners would always be there..enough to last for all eternity. I include myself and my marriage with you..as I am not sealed to him and in this church for which we are acquainted will tell us we can't be together. Just know that right now..right here..you are not alone and please value that wonderful love and companionship that you share. I am alone this Thanksgiving Day...but hold dear the memory of husband throwing olives around....and my Mom making a steak because he was allergic to turkey! We love and have been loved like every other member of this board has been. Let us hope for each other that somewhere in God's plan.,.love matters,

Hugs and Happy Thanksgiving!

Jeanne

Heck yeah, many non members believe they'll be together with their mates. I don't get the teaching in the church that without it you won't be together. If true, there's going to be alot of unhappy souls, can't picture a loving heavenly father doing that, nope can't do it.

I'm sorry you're alone this year Jeanne. That's tough, I know when I've been alone, it wasn't fun. I wish you lived closer, you'd be welcomed in my home. But after spending some time with us, you might wish you were home.

[rockpond]

Thank you, thank you.

And congratulations.

It took you long enough to come around, but better late than never.

I guess JAHS is right!

Not sure what you are referring to... I've haven't really changed my position on this since Nov 5.

[Kenngo1969]

Well... there is a thousand years to "reform" them in spirit prison and then a little season for them to give it a go, the right way. A makeup test?

Congratulations!  I'm glad you have it all figured out!  As for me, I think I prefer to wait until I have a less-finite perspective opened to my view.  Look, I know as well as anyone (and better than most, at least in some cases), how much mortal life truly can suck, to put it bluntly.  I'm not trying to minimize that.  If I weren't as certain as any mortal who sees through a glass darkly can be that there is a post-mortal third act to follow this mortal second act (a second act that leaves a lot to be desired, to be quite frank ... and yet, at the same time, to engage in a gigantic understatement!) I might say, "To heck with it.  I'll get while the gettin's good and eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow I die!"  But there's a part of me that simply can't do that.

[Zakuska]

Homosexuals have regularly interpreted the true friendship between David and Jonathan as homosexual, thus sullying all same-sex friendships and close camaradarie among men.  There is no evidence or even suggestion in the biblical text that David & Jonathan conducted themselves in that fashion.

Arsenokoitēs => "Menbedders"

Is a pretty ambiguous term to lay a doctrine on. It could be interpreted to mean any one who lies in a bed with a man. including Man, Woman, Child, young girl, Another Man, Dog, Cat etc etc etc. Are you really ready to go that far?

Edited November 27, 2015 by Zakuska

[Jeanne]

Heck yeah, many non members believe they'll be together with their mates. I don't get the teaching in the church that without it you won't be together. If true, there's going to be alot of unhappy souls, can't picture a loving heavenly father doing that, nope can't do it.

I'm sorry you're alone this year Jeanne. That's tough, I know when I've been alone, it wasn't fun. I wish you lived closer, you'd be welcomed in my home. But after spending some time with us, you might wish you were home.

Thank you,,  Very grateful today for friends like you and others here today!