Gay Clergy- UMC Church Division

[Calm]

Would anyone's minds here have been changed if there was writing about homosexuality in the Book of Mormon?  After all, there is writing in the Bible about it.

Interpretations are given for biblical scripture to support one's stance on homosexuality and same sex marriage.

I assume that many came to their position through reading scripture, but it seems likely that bias highly influences current interpretation save perhaps for those who state something along 'the scriptures counterdict my position, but I don't care'.

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Yes, it sure would be nice for the present-day prophet to receive and present a revelation on the topic, as such, to the body of the church for its membership to sustain and enter into the official cannon. 

Do you think if this happened you would change your mind?

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Yes, it sure would be nice for the present-day prophet to receive and present a revelation on the topic, as such, to the body of the church for its membership to sustain and enter into the official cannon. 

Leviticus is unambiguous. As is Romans

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Nope, not everything is, and that's clearly evident based on many other threads on this board that aren't about homosexuality.  But that is the topic and scope of this thread.   

Fair enough.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Let's not be coy. Your "interesting" is a criticism. I'm addressing the aptness of that criticism. It only makes the slightest sense if continuing revelation is taken out of the conversation. You can't honestly do that.

I wrote exactly what I meant and was not being coy.  It was not a criticism.  If you feel the need to create a strawman to argue against, go ahead, but don't claim my words mean something I didn't write and didn't imply. 

[USU78]

17 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I didn't say the word itself needs to be.

While you feel the OT may be clear about God's final plan for individuals in same-sex relationships, many other religious people view things differently.  

Reasonable minds can disagree that the both Biblical and LDS scriptures aren't as definitive on this topic as you interpret them to be without being narcissistic.  

Similarly, reasonable minds may hold out hope for further light and knowledge on such things without being narcissistic

The Hebrew is unambiguous in Leviticus

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wrote exactly what I meant and was not being coy.  It was not a criticism.  If you feel the need to create a strawman to argue against, go ahead, but don't claim my words mean something I didn't write and didn't imply. 

Should I trust your statement? Why?

[Daniel2]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you think if this happened you would change your mind?

Not for me, but not everything is about me, personally.

Such a revelation would at least provide a sense of direction and/or closure for actively LDS members of my family, as well as many of my other straight, bisexual, and gay friends who are devout members of the church but yet aren't certain that the Lord has revealed his final word on the subject, and faithfully hope for further light and knowledge.  After all, it is written,

Quote

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.  For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If [we] then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [our] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Edited May 6, 2017 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

I assume that many came to their position through reading scripture, but it seems likely that bias highly influences current interpretation...

I agree that this is certainly true on all sides of this issue, which is why further clarification would be helpful, especially if God is not the author of confusion, and truly answers to those who knock, that it may be opened unto them, and ask, that they may receive.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would anyone's minds here have been changed if there was writing about homosexuality in the Book of Mormon?  After all, there is writing in the Bible about it.

Interpretations are given for biblical scripture to support one's stance on homosexuality and same sex marriage.

I assume that many came to their position through reading scripture, but it seems likely that bias highly influences current interpretation save perhaps for those who state something along 'the scriptures counterdict my position, but I don't care'.

 

It's tough to say how I might react to a hypothetical scripture.

To your point, it's certainly true that we've got myriad interpretations of the few biblical verses which refer to homosexual practices. 

The thought/hope, with what Daniel and I have suggested, is that perhaps some verses in the Book of Mormon could add clarity to what we have from the OT and NT.  

If such hypothetical scripture, failed to add clarity, than we'd still be in the same situation we find ourselves now.  

[Daniel2]

34 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Leviticus is unambiguous. As is Romans

I understand that is your opinion and belief, and I don't anticipate that anything that I say will sway you from it--and that's just fine.

Many people feel that that language--and especially in the original language as it was written--don't clearly apply to same-sex couples in committed relationships.  

As you, yourself, have said, antiquity didn't have a firm understanding of what most now recognize as sexual orientation (including heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, and the fluidity of the same for some, as well as the immutability of it for others), and the language used was limited in scope and understanding.  

After educating myself on the actual original language, I've come to the same conclusion as many others like me: it's clear to me that Leviticus and Romans are not as unambiguous as you assert they are.  

And reasonable minds can disagree on the matter without being narcissistic.  

Edited May 6, 2017 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Should I trust your statement? Why?

You don't need to place any trust in my statement.  You also don't need to change the meaning from what I wrote. 

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You don't need to place any trust in my statement.  You also don't need to change the meaning from what I wrote. 

It's just that my expository writing\rhetoric prof's whispers in mine ears whenever I see such posts and your later denials make me doubt the bona fides all the more. An acquired weakness, no doubt

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It's just that my expository writing\rhetoric prof's whispers in mine ears whenever I see such posts and your later denials make me doubt the bona fides all the more. An acquired weakness, no doubt

I'm not sure what cause I have given you to doubt my honest and sincerity. 

[Daniel2]

There are many websites, pamphlets, and books that have been written about the subject, but this one, I think, does a nice job summarizing the controversies, questions, and paradigms into four basic conclusions about what The Bible says about homosexuality:

10/10/2011 02:56 pm ET | Updated Dec 10, 2011

David Lose President, The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia

What Does the Bible Really Say About Homosexuality?

Actually, a whole lot less than you might imagine! That may be hard to believe given the fierce rhetoric Christians often employ when talking about homosexuality, but there are really only seven passages in the Bible that refer directly to homosexual behavior, and none of them are associated with Jesus. Compare that to the more than 250 verses on the proper use of wealth or more than 300 on our responsibility to care for the poor and work for justice, and you appreciate quickly that homosexuality was not exactly a major theme of the Bible.

Nevertheless, these seven passages have been poured over by conservative and liberal scholars alike and have occasioned considerable conversation and controversy. In order to review what the Bible actually says about homosexuality, as well as what others are saying about it, I’ll group similar verses below and give a brief summary of the major differences in interpretation. Then, I’ll outline the four most common stances Christians take regarding these biblical passages in general, as these positions greatly influence how one interprets individual verses.

Old Testament Narrative

There are two passages that refer to homosexual behavior that are set in larger narratives. That is, they are part of a story, not a legal or moral code. Each deals with the threat of homosexual rape. The more famous of the two comes from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah found in Genesis 19:1-11. Lot, Abraham’s nephew, is staying in Sodom when he is visited by angels. Men from the city come and demand that they be allowed to have sex with Lot’s guests. Lot refuses and when he is threatened by the townspeople the angels he has hosted protect him. A similar story occurs in Judges 19:16-30 (minus angels and with a grislier outcome).

There is broad consensus among scholars on both the left and the right (except for the very most conservative) that these passages have nothing to do with homosexuality per se, but rather with hospitality and justice. That is, both scenes represent hosts protecting their guests from severe humiliation and outrageous injustice. Some other parts of the Bible interpret these passages just this way. Ezekiel, for instance, refers to the sin of Sodom not in terms of sexual immorality but rather justice: “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy” (16:49).

The Holiness Code of Leviticus

There are two verses in the book of Leviticus that refer to homosexual behavior. The first reads, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (18:22). While the second goes even further: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them” (20:13). Again, there is considerable agreement that both of these passages are portions of what is commonly called the holiness code, a set of rules and regulations spanning chapters 17-26 that are intended to set Israel apart from the Egyptians they fled and the Canaanites they were now living among. (There is also overwhelming agreement, thankfully, that however one feels about homosexuality, the death penalty is an extreme and unwarranted response!)

There is considerable debate, however, about three matters. 1) Do these passages refer to consensual homosexual practice (and whether that was even a recognized option in the ancient world), or do they describe the cultic practice of Israel’s neighbors and adversaries? 2) Are these regulations contingent because they derive from particular challenges and situations the Israelites faced at that time (the importance of procreation, for instance, given that Israel was a nomadic people dependent on increasing its population for survival), or do they intend to establish universal sexual norms? And 3) even if these regulations were normative for Israelites, do they continue to be for Christians given how many other Levitical codes are contradicted later in the New Testament or have historically been ignored by Christians.

New Testament Ethics

The three passages in question read as follows:

Romans 1:26-27: “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-11: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers — none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

1 Timothy 1:9-11: “This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave-traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”

There is considerable debate on at least two questions about these passages. 1) Do they refer to consensual homosexual practice, to cultic prostitution or to male pederasty (where an adult male has sex with a younger boy, either as a coming of age ritual or on a commercial basis)? 2) Are the New Testament authors pointing to specific behavior they have witnessed, or are they using a common “catalogue of complaints” against Gentiles (as there are similar complaints in other first-century Jewish writings about Gentiles)?

Of these verses, the Romans passage is often cited as a “lynch pin” text because the Apostle Paul seems to make his argument on the basis of the natural order (“natural” vs. “unnatural” passions). But at another place Paul uses nature to justify his position on the proper length of men’s and women’s hair and the need for women to wear head coverings (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). As it turns out, arguing from nature was a common rhetorical device in Paul’s day, employed by many contemporaries of the Apostle, and was similar to saying today, “The conventional wisdom is...”

Four Basic Views

Most Christians I have talked to fall into one of four groups regarding these verses, depending on how they address two questions. The first we’ve named directly at several points already: Do the passages refer to anything like the phenomena of life-long, monogamous or mutually consensual same-gendered relationships that we know of today? (It’s worth noting that the word “homosexual” was not present in the ancient world but was instead invented in the 19th century.) The second issue we’ve only alluded to: Whether or not the passages refer to the phenomenon we are describing today, are we bound to ethical determinations made by persons living in vastly different cultures and times and whose understanding of the world and of God’s activity was shaped and limited by their own cultural viewpoints.

Depending on how you answer those two critical questions, you will likely fall into one of our groups.

• 1. The passages in question refer to homosexual practice in all times and cultures and so universally prohibit such practice.
• 2. The passages do not refer to homosexuality as we know it today and so cannot be seen as prohibiting it. Other passages therefore need to inform our discussions about sexuality in general and homosexual relationships in particular.
• 3. The passages may or may not refer to homosexuality as we know it, but they — and the larger witness of Scripture — imply a view of nature and creation that supports sexual relationship and union only between man and woman, and so homosexual practice is prohibited.
• 4. The passages may or may not refer to homosexuality as we know it, but they — and all of Scripture — are conditioned by the cultural and historical realities of the authors and so offer an incomplete and insufficient understanding of creation and nature and so cannot be used to prohibit homosexual practice today. Rather, one needs to read the larger biblical witness to discern God’s hopes for caring, mutually supportive relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

As is often the case, one’s larger theological or ideological commitments greatly influence how one reads these seven verses. The first and third positions, for instance, reflect a more conservative view and make it difficult to find anything but condemnation in the Bible for homosexual practice. The second and forth, in contrast, invite a more progressive interpretation of the verses in common and open the way to supporting homosexual relationships as several major mainline church bodies have done.

For those Christians who look to the Bible for moral guidance, two additional questions may be worth considering. First, do you see yourself represented fairly in one of the four groups above? Second, can you imagine that someone holding one of the other three positions is also a faithful Christian who loves God and neighbor and searches the Scripture for guidance in these matters, even if that difference puts you at odds on this matter? How professing Christians answer these questions will greatly determine future discourse on these matters and, more importantly, how they interact with persons who are gay or lesbian.

Note: For a more detailed treatment of these passages, see “BACKGROUND ESSAY on BIBLICAL TEXTS” for “Journey Together Faithfully, Part Two: The Church and Homosexuality” by Arland J. Hultgren and Walter F. Taylor Jr., two well respected biblical scholars who disagree on the issues at hand. I have at several points been guided by their work.

[JLHPROF]

On May 2, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Darren10 said:

As I see it, denying gays can change is a direct affront to the Atonement and quite disdainful of gays as children of God. There is no such thing as "I cannot change" in an eternal sense and there is no doctrine in the LDS Church which denies homosexuals exaltation if they live the same covenants as anyone else.

Agreed.

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/4/2017 at 0:25 AM, california boy said:

So you think adultery needed to be talked about in scripture, but not homosexual relationships because people were more unclear if adultery was wrong?  Because there is a lot of reference about adultery. 

Not sure what a WR is.  Why do people use abbreviations and expect everyone to know what it stands for.  Are you are talking about baseball.  Isn't catching a foul ball pretty much outlined in the rule book?  If it wasn't clear what happens in the rule book, would it be considered an out or just a foul ball?  How would that be decided? Maybe you are referring to a wide receiver?  Even in football, the rules are clearly outlined how those catches are ruled.  You look in the rule book and it clearly states that the pass is considered incomplete.   

Can you see how unclear rules can be if not everyone understands what the rules are?  I think it is pretty clear that homosexual relationships are very similar to your example.  Some people seem to know exactly what the rules are even when they are  not actually defined.   Others are less clear.   Are committed homosexual relationships allowed?  We just have to guess don't we.  Do you think it is fair for God to have certain expectations when those expectations are not clearly defined?  No mention about homosexual relationships by Christ, in the entire Book of Mormon, the D&C, and Pearl of Great Price.  A very few in the Bible, but then there is a lot in the Bible that we don't consider to be in the rulebook and we don't practice it.  

Perhaps the church does have it right and God does not allow any kind of homosexual relationships.  But that is not really clear for everyone when they look at the rule books.  And since there has been no claim of modern revelation, we are just going on the guess work of fallible men.  It has happened before. They  are not always right are they.

Adultery is a far bigger issue historically in relation to Israel.  There are references to homosexuality in the scriptures.  None of them speak of it in a positive or a neutral way.  You know exactly what a WR (wide receiver) is.  My reference was to football using yards as a distance. 

The rule are pretty clear on this.  In regards to committed homosexual relationships being allowed?  According the the scriptures or the rule book, the answer is no.  I am sure one could give a long list of alternative sexual practices that are not mentioned in the scriptures at all. Even less than homosexuality but we should not assume that somehow they might be acceptable since no mention of them is made.  What the rule books do clearly refer to is a standard.  Male and female relationships in marriage.  It even applies it to polygamy.  The rule book does not even give a hint that it might find anything beyond that as acceptable. 

There are however some people who just have a problem looking at rules and thinking that unless something is specifically written, they can do it.  To give you an example, I work in a lab and in all of our pregnancy kits have this little white humidity device in them that keeps humidity out of the pack.  The kits need to stay completely dry.  On these packs says "Do not eat".  Why would any rational person even think that they could eat these things or want to.  There is nothing to suggest that they one could eat them.  But apparently there are people out there who might or have actually ingested these things.  So the company has to print "Do not eat" to help these select special souls not to eat these non-food items.  I sort of see this relating here.   Unless the scriptures spell out these words "Have no homosexual relations ever regarding of the circumstances", there will be people like any lawyer does to find some technical exception to justify something.  There are others who don't need everything spelled perfectly.  They read the scriptures, see what the standard is and they can't even see how one could read any situation where homosexual relations would be sanctioned regardless of whether the party involved in committed to each other or not.  They don't need the words "Do not eat" on the humidity pack.  They can see clearly from just observation and what it is used for that its not a consumable item.  It just does not meet the standard of a type of food.  Gay relationships simply don't meet any standard of what an acceptable as defined by the scriptures.  They might meet a standard by society but God does not look to society to make decisions or judgements. 

Edited May 6, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Adultery is a far bigger issue historically in relation to Israel.  There are references to homosexuality in the scriptures.  None of them speak of it in a positive or a neutral way.  You know exactly what a WR (wide receiver) is.  My reference was to football using yards as a distance. 

The rule are pretty clear on this.  In regards to committed homosexual relationships being allowed?  According the the scriptures or the rule book, the answer is no.  I am sure one could give a long list of alternative sexual practices that are not mentioned in the scriptures at all. Even less than homosexuality but we should not assume that somehow they might be acceptable since no mention of them is made.  What the rule books do clearly refer to is a standard.  Male and female relationships in marriage.  It even applies it to polygamy.  The rule book does not even give a hint that it might find anything beyond that as acceptable. 

There are however some people who just have a problem looking at rules and thinking that unless something is specifically written, they can do it.  To give you an example, I work in a lab and in all of our pregnancy kits have this little white humidity device in them that keeps humidity out of the pack.  The kits need to stay completely dry.  On these packs says "Do not eat".  Why would any rational person even think that they could eat these things or want to.  There is nothing to suggest that they one could eat them.  But apparently there are people out there who might or have actually ingested these things.  So the company has to print "Do not eat" to help these select special souls not to eat these non-food items.  I sort of see this relating here.   Unless the scriptures spell out these words "Have no homosexual relations ever regarding of the circumstances", there will be people like any lawyer does to find some technical exception to justify something.  There are others who don't need everything spelled perfectly.  They read the scriptures, see what the standard is and they can't even see how one could read any situation where homosexual relations would be sanctioned regardless of whether the party involved in committed to each other or not.  They don't need the words "Do not eat" on the humidity pack.  They can see clearly from just observation and what it is used for that its not a consumable item.  It just does not meet the standard of a type of food.  Gay relationships simply don't meet any standard of what an acceptable as defined by the scriptures.  They might meet a standard by society but God does not look to society to make decisions or judgements. 

Interestingly, the vast majority of the world's Christians believe that we (LDS) have found some "technical exception to justify" polygamy since they read the Bible as condemning it. 

Personally, I study the scriptures and see the standard and believe that it completely supports same sex marriage. 

And, I don't see any support for recommending celibacy.  

 

[california boy]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Adultery is a far bigger issue historically in relation to Israel.  There are references to homosexuality in the scriptures.  None of them speak of it in a positive or a neutral way.  You know exactly what a WR (wide receiver) is.  My reference was to football using yards as a distance. 

The rule are pretty clear on this.  In regards to committed homosexual relationships being allowed?  According the the scriptures or the rule book, the answer is no.  I am sure one could give a long list of alternative sexual practices that are not mentioned in the scriptures at all. Even less than homosexuality but we should not assume that somehow they might be acceptable since no mention of them is made.  What the rule books do clearly refer to is a standard.  Male and female relationships in marriage.  It even applies it to polygamy.  The rule book does not even give a hint that it might find anything beyond that as acceptable. 

There are however some people who just have a problem looking at rules and thinking that unless something is specifically written, they can do it.  To give you an example, I work in a lab and in all of our pregnancy kits have this little white humidity device in them that keeps humidity out of the pack.  The kits need to stay completely dry.  On these packs says "Do not eat".  Why would any rational person even think that they could eat these things or want to.  There is nothing to suggest that they one could eat them.  But apparently there are people out there who might or have actually ingested these things.  So the company has to print "Do not eat" to help these select special souls not to eat these non-food items.  I sort of see this relating here.   Unless the scriptures spell out these words "Have no homosexual relations ever regarding of the circumstances", there will be people like any lawyer does to find some technical exception to justify something.  There are others who don't need everything spelled perfectly.  They read the scriptures, see what the standard is and they can't even see how one could read any situation where homosexual relations would be sanctioned regardless of whether the party involved in committed to each other or not.  They don't need the words "Do not eat" on the humidity pack.  They can see clearly from just observation and what it is used for that its not a consumable item.  It just does not meet the standard of a type of food.  Gay relationships simply don't meet any standard of what an acceptable as defined by the scriptures.  They might meet a standard by society but God does not look to society to make decisions or judgements. 

Look, I honestly don't have any problem with you or the Mormon church thinking that gay marriage is some kind of horrible and evil curse on the world today.  But let's not pretend that this is an open and shut case according to scripture.  While I fully realize that you and the church have extrapolated your position on gay marriage by the few scriptures in the Bible, what you can not say is that is a definitive interpretation for everyone.  The old out of the mouth of two witness thing certainly doesn't apply to this issue.  You also can not claim that there has been a direct revelation on this issue. It is not as cut and dried as you want it to be.  Reread Daniel's post above.  Read the position of a number of other mainstream Christian churches.  I think that to be fair, you have to concede that other's have come to different point of view.  Certainly some people have come to the conclusion that it is more important to bring people to Christ and allowing all that are willing to be baptized and participate in full fellowship with the church than it is to extrapolate what the Bible may or may not mean on this issue.  Are you absolutely sure that Christ would want gay couples to be labeled as apostates, refuse to baptize their children and not allowed to participate fully in the church?  Or is there just the slightest possibility that the Biblical scriptures, like the scriptures on so many other subjects that were once thought to be the will of God such as slavery, etc could be viewed differently.