The Bible and Homosexuality

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

I guess that depends on who thinks their interpretation of the Bible is the correct interpretation.  Battles have been fought over who was right and who was wrong.  One church has persecuted another church over who is following the Bible teachings correctly to the point of killing people for a different point of view.  And it still goes on today.  

Maybe these few scriptures on homosexuality does mean what the Church thinks it means.  But maybe these scriptures mean what other religions and other Biblical scholars think it means as has been outlined in this thread.  Those that have a different belief are usually unwilling to even consider a different point of view.  How many members even bothered to read the scholar thesis on these scriptures and carefully considered them?   They know they are right and everyone else who disagrees with their interpretation is flat out wrong.. Basic teachings of Christ have been thrown under the bus by individuals and religion when someone has an agenda to pursue.

I personally am not really impressed when people use their Bible to "prove" their teachings are righteous when in doing so they fail to treat others in any way that Christ would recognize as what He was trying to teach.  It all becomes pretty irrelevant when you start baring little children from baptism or similar actions. Then who has the correct interpretation and who doesn't becomes kind of irrelevant imo. 

Too many use God to spout their true feelings inside and that's what writers have done in the Bible. They have broken the commandment to not take God's name in vain, or use Him to get their way.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Too many use God to spout their true feelings inside and that's what writers have done in the Bible. They have broken the commandment to not take God's name in vain, or use Him to get their way.

And how do you know it is not you using God to get your way here?

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

And how do you know it is not you using God to get your way here?

I know God is love, and what the scriptures have in them isn't always that. It's man made for the most part, in my mind, soul and heart, I believe this.

[Peacefully]

On 10/18/2019 at 6:27 PM, california boy said:

I know this is crazy thinking, but gay marriage is legal.  And some crazy members of the church think that sex inside of marriage is not immoral.  The Church refuses to recognize those marriages as being real marriages.  A lot of members believe that just because you are gay doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to find someone to marry and share a life with.  So there is the conflict for a lot of members.  And there is the core of the countless threads that pop up like Whack-a-Moles.  

I struggle to reconcile some church teachings with own feelings and I get tired of twisting myself into a pretzel to do so. All I can say is that sexual intimacy is s basic need and to tell someone they cannot have it in this life doesn’t seem right. If a person has a choice (bisexual) and they are a member then I think it behooves them to default to a heterosexual relationship, however, if there is no choice (gay) then I hope we can make room at the table for them even if they choose to marry someone of the same sex and have the love and comfort that we all want. But these are my own feelings and I am not trying to change anyone’s mind or get anyone to agree with me. This just seems like a safe space to express them.

[InCognitus]

47 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe these few scriptures on homosexuality does mean what the Church thinks it means.  But maybe these scriptures mean what other religions and other Biblical scholars think it means as has been outlined in this thread.  Those that have a different belief are usually unwilling to even consider a different point of view.  How many members even bothered to read the scholar thesis on these scriptures and carefully considered them?   They know they are right and everyone else who disagrees with their interpretation is flat out wrong.. Basic teachings of Christ have been thrown under the bus by individuals and religion when someone has an agenda to pursue.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Teancum.  Relating to the discussion of these seven verses, what exactly is your take away from "what other religions and other Biblical scholars think [these verses mean] as has been outlined in this thread"?   Could you please briefly summarize (in a couple of sentences) what you understand these articles and discussions to be saying that helps whatever position it is that you see they support?

[carbon dioxide]

45 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I struggle to reconcile some church teachings with own feelings and I get tired of twisting myself into a pretzel to do so. All I can say is that sexual intimacy is s basic need and to tell someone they cannot have it in this life doesn’t seem right.

It may be that it is a basic need and perhaps it may not seem right.  However the scriptures say that the natural man is an enemy to God.  Most sins that we do are natural. Anger,  hate, envy, desire to steal, ect are all human traits that individuals possess to one degree or another.  We are called to put off the natural man and submit ourselves to God and the commandments.  Sexual intimacy is no exception to this.  Monogamy, even marriage itself is not natural.    God gives us agency to choose.  Are we willing to sacrifice or direct our desires and basic needs to specific specifications that get us to eternal life or ignore it for the needs to mortality?    Life is designed to be a test.  If everything was easy, it would not be much of a test.

The standards of the world is "my will be done."  Do whatever feels good or makes you happy.  The standards of the gospel is "thy will be done."  That may require giving up something or not having something for a particular time to gain something far more in value later.

Edited October 20, 2019 by carbon dioxide

[lightparticle]

I don't trust any argument proclaiming definite proof via scripture that LGBTQ+ people are sinners. That kind of judgment is reserved for God alone. What really irks me about how the church interacts with the LGBTQ+ community is based on a few of the earlier comments that nobody expounded upon: the fact that the leaders of the church have admitted that they do not know enough, or have enough answers to definitively give extensive counsel. Rather than simply extending the welcome mat, we end up being treated as if God told them we were evil. If they don't have that knowledge and revelation, why not assume the best and attempt to integrate us into the church with the knowledge they do have until the knowledge gap is closed?

Jesus spent his time with people that the Pharisees had declared the vilest of vile, the sinister of the sinners. He showed incredible kindness and love to those who were considered not worthy by the leading religious leaders of the day. If he could do that without condemning those viewed by most as unworthy and of little value, why is it that I can't attend a Relief Society lesson without church leaders getting their undergarments in a deep-fried nuclear twist?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I guess that depends on who thinks their interpretation of the Bible is the correct interpretation.  Battles have been fought over who was right and who was wrong.  One church has persecuted another church over who is following the Bible teachings correctly to the point of killing people for a different point of view.  And it still goes on today.  

Maybe these few scriptures on homosexuality does mean what the Church thinks it means.  But maybe these scriptures mean what other religions and other Biblical scholars think it means as has been outlined in this thread.  Those that have a different belief are usually unwilling to even consider a different point of view.  How many members even bothered to read the scholar thesis on these scriptures and carefully considered them?   They know they are right and everyone else who disagrees with their interpretation is flat out wrong.. Basic teachings of Christ have been thrown under the bus by individuals and religion when someone has an agenda to pursue.

I personally am not really impressed when people use their Bible to "prove" their teachings are righteous when in doing so they fail to treat others in any way that Christ would recognize as what He was trying to teach.  It all becomes pretty irrelevant when you start baring little children from baptism or similar actions. Then who has the correct interpretation and who doesn't becomes kind of irrelevant imo. 

I will try to answer each paragraph...

1. Since I am unsure what translations you are referring too, and because we cannot compare every translation, let’s just speak of the KJV, of the Bible. This way we are talking about the Bible used by the Church, because this is a debate on an LDS related website. As such it matters little about unnamed sources, and unnamed wars.  
 

2. The scriptures in the KJV of the Bible are very straight forward, and not vague. 
 

3. The Bible, nor the Church teach something different than the message of the love Jesus Chris. Which is the same for all sins and sinners, to love “love the sinner, but hate the sin” (too coin a phrase). Of course you, as with all men are free to choose how you view the scriptures, or what you think Jesus Christ message is, but it does not change the truth. Also everyone who struggles with sin at any point in their lives, have wished that God would pardon their sins, without the pain of repentance, meaning to forsake that sin. It is the state of the “Natural Man”, to have weaknesses, and to give into those weaknesses.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I know God is love, and what the scriptures have in them isn't always that. It's man made for the most part, in my mind, soul and heart, I believe this.

And maybe those who wrote it felt the exact same thing, soul and heart. 

Stating opinion and feelings as fact does not help having a conversation.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

sexual intimacy is s basic need

For many people, not all. Some are asexual, some are good with physical intimacy but not sexual. Others go their entire lives without it due to their situations.  And these can all have happy, successful lives by most common standards  

So to describe it as a basic need that puts it up there with food and shelter is an overstatement, imo. 

I do get the inappropriateness of someone who has the opportunity to be sexually intimate telling someone who doesn’t or shouldn’t by the moral code they choose to live by that refraining from sexual intimacy is no big deal, a sacrifice that should be no real issue to make, etc. 

Edited October 20, 2019 by Calm

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And how do you know it is not you using God to get your way here?

THAT is the point.  Every person who reads scriptures believes that THEY know what side God is on.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I'll ask you the same question I asked Teancum.  Relating to the discussion of these seven verses, what exactly is your take away from "what other religions and other Biblical scholars think [these verses mean] as has been outlined in this thread"?   Could you please briefly summarize (in a couple of sentences) what you understand these articles and discussions to be saying that helps whatever position it is that you see they support?

My takeaway is that whoever reads these seven scriptures will interpret them to mean what they want them to mean.  

I don't have a position.  Any interpretation could possibly be right.  All could possibly be wrong.  The Bible doesn't present a clear answer to anything.  There is not even a clear understanding how we got the Bible.  Were these men that wrote the Bible speaking for God?  Or, like some statements by modern prophets, were they men of their own time.

In the end, each of us have to trust God.  Put our faith in Him.  If you believe in God, then you have to believe He will guide you.  Scriptures only give us the things to pray about.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I know God is love, and what the scriptures have in them isn't always that. It's man made for the most part, in my mind, soul and heart, I believe this.

I have not heard this degree of strident declaration from you before; it is something new. I take it that you have made some decisions about what is true and what is not. This may be better than the lukewarm positions you have taken in the past, but it also demands that you have gained certain knowledge. Is this from a spiritual awakening or something else?

I have studied the scriptures and world religions for over fifty years now. The rather trite phrase, "God is love", is used by a certain segment of believers and at certain times and in certain contexts. As in almost all things, context is everything. I believe that God is love, but he is absolutely know that concept of love that is all rose-colored glasses floating about the heavens throwing daisies at his creation. He is actively involved in creating a path for his children to become one with him. I have always appreciated the painting where Jesus is knocking at the door, but the door has no handle. It is we who must open ourselves to him. We must approach him, love him, follow him, emulate him, and seek his guidance throughout our lives. He demands that we grow, which is a very painful process. Suffering seems to be part of the process - a refiner's fire as it is often termed. In the midst of our own pain, it is an enlightened individual that can also see God's love for us. 

Too often, this God is love, is used in the context of an absence of commandments, God's teachings, holiness, or righteousness. It is strictly a diet of the most watered down liquid that can still be called milk.  That is not a concept of God found in scripture, but in the philosophies of humans. 

I disagree that scripture is bereft of inspiration or God's guidance. There is a reason that Jesus is identified as the Word. The Word of God has value in the same way that his word has value. He told us it was for for us. Humans tend to kill the prophets when what they really want is not God's words, but rather an excuse to follow after their own passions. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, lightparticle said:

don't trust any argument proclaiming definite proof via scripture that LGBTQ+ people are sinners

Out of curiosity, what do you trust to define what is and isn’t sin for you and others?

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

THAT is the point.  Every person who reads scriptures believes that THEY know what side God is on.  

Which is why it is so strange to me  to condemn someone else for doing the same thing you (generically speaking) do yourself. 

Edited October 20, 2019 by Calm

[california boy]

36 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I will try to answer each paragraph...

1. Since I am unsure what translations you are referring too, and because we cannot compare every translation, let’s just speak of the KJV, of the Bible. This way we are talking about the Bible used by the Church, because this is a debate on an LDS related website. As such it matters little about unnamed sources, and unnamed wars.  
 

2. The scriptures in the KJV of the Bible are very straight forward, and not vague. 
 

3. The Bible, nor the Church teach something different than the message of the love Jesus Chris. Which is the same for all sins and sinners, to love “love the sinner, but hate the sin” (too coin a phrase). Of course you, as with all men are free to choose how you view the scriptures, or what you think Jesus Christ message is, but it does not change the truth. Also everyone who struggles with sin at any point in their lives, have wished that God would pardon their sins, without the pain of repentance, meaning to forsake that sin. It is the state of the “Natural Man”, to have weaknesses, and to give into those weaknesses.  

1. So what makes the KJV of the Bible the correct translation?  Were the men under King James more schooled to read Greek or other earlier Bible  writings?  Scholars have found many errors in their translations.  Did they have all of the resources we have today?   Why does the KJV get a free pass in your mind. or the Church's for that matter.  Is it possible that modern translators have a better understanding of Greek or some of the other earlier Bible writings?  

2.  Straight forward?  Really?  Should women ever wear make up?  Jewelry? Pray in church? Cover their hair?  The KJV seems pretty straight forward about those issues.  

I could give you literally hundreds of Bible points that people don't agree on.  

3.  I don't disagree that the pain of repentance is necessary to rid a person of sin.  The question is, what is sin according to God and what is sin according to men.  And maybe, as it relates to this subject on a personal level, let's say that the Church has it all figured out.  A gay person has to be celibate throughout this life.  Then what happens in the next life?  Does the Church really have that part of the plan all figured out?  Can a person who chooses to have companionship in this life ever repent?  And if eventually they repent, then what?  Do they "get" to be married to a woman for eternity?  Tell me exactly what according to God, my fate will be if I only do what every other human desires to do, find someone to share this life with.  Since family is the core of the Plan of Salvation, it is a sin to want to have a family? And is it my fault that I am gay and how that family looks to me?

Are you still so sure that what you wrote is the will of God?  Because I am not.  I am with my companion, not to go against God or rebels against Him, but because I believe there are certain lessons we only learn by being with another person, sharing a life with, supporting and taking care of someone other than ourselves, learning to put others needs in front of our own.  I am doing my best to follow what I believe is the path that God wants me on.  Can you positively tell me I am on the wrong path?

 

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

Scriptures only give us the things to pray about.

This I agree with. Scriptures help us think about what kind of questions we should be seeking the answer to, especially through the Spirit. 

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which is why it is so strange to me  to condemn someone else for doing the same thing you (generically speaking) do yourself. 

Really?  Where have I condemned anyone?

[InCognitus]

31 minutes ago, california boy said:

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I'll ask you the same question I asked Teancum.  Relating to the discussion of these seven verses, what exactly is your take away from "what other religions and other Biblical scholars think [these verses mean] as has been outlined in this thread"?   Could you please briefly summarize (in a couple of sentences) what you understand these articles and discussions to be saying that helps whatever position it is that you see they support?

My takeaway is that whoever reads these seven scriptures will interpret them to mean what they want them to mean.  

I don't have a position.  Any interpretation could possibly be right.  All could possibly be wrong.  The Bible doesn't present a clear answer to anything.  There is not even a clear understanding how we got the Bible.  Were these men that wrote the Bible speaking for God?  Or, like some statements by modern prophets, were they men of their own time.

In the end, each of us have to trust God.  Put our faith in Him.  If you believe in God, then you have to believe He will guide you.  Scriptures only give us the things to pray about.

I asked my question for several reasons (some of which I may share at a later date), but one of the reasons I asked is because you seemed to be implying that the "scholar thesis" on those scriptures supported a particular view, one that you also seem to share, and I wanted to know if you had read the articles at all for yourself, and what you thought about them with respect to your view. 

But if your point is only that anyone can interpret the Bible and try to make it say whatever they want, then that has been said by a few others in this thread already.  People often use or misuse, or ignore or emphasize, verses from all over the Bible for different purposes.  But God knows the answers.  And I think that's why he called prophets and apostles to lead us.

I realize that it is somewhat circular to use a scripture that can be interpreted to make this point, but isn't this the very reason that scripture says that apostles and prophets are to continue?   They are to be here until "all come in the unity of the faith", so that we will not be like "children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive".  (Ephesians 4:11-14)   What you are describing is the "every wind of doctrine" issue that this verse is addressing, and the solution to that problem is that God sends his apostles and prophets.  We need to listen to them.

Edited October 20, 2019 by InCognitus

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I asked my question for several reasons (some of which I may share at a later date), but one of the reasons I asked is because you seemed to be implying that the "scholar thesis" on those scriptures supported a particular view, one that you also seem to share, and I wanted to know if you had read the articles at all for yourself, and what you thought about them with respect to your view. 

But if your point is only that anyone can interpret the Bible and try to make it say whatever they want, then that has been said by a few others in this thread already.  People often use or misuse, or ignore or emphasize, verses from all over the Bible for different purposes.  But God knows the answers.  And I think that's why he called prophets and apostles to lead us.

I realize that it is somewhat circular to use a scripture that can be interpreted to make this point, but isn't this the very reason that scripture says that apostles and prophets are to continue?   They are to be here until "all come in the unity of the faith", so that we will not be like "children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive".  (Ephesians 4:11-14)   What you are describing is the "every wind of doctrine" issue that this verse is addressing, and the solution to that problem is that God sends his apostles and prophets.  We need to listen to them.

Show me where I implied that the "scholar thesis"  is something I share.  As I have stated, I have no idea who is right and who is wrong.  It is funny.  You think that because I am gay, I might be prejudice to this interpretation.  Yet are you willing to acknowledge that because you are not homosexual, it is easy for you to consider homosexuality a sin?

The way you interpret the scripture you quoted is also just your interpretation.  It actually contradicts your interpretation.  This is contained in a letter written the the Ephesians.  It is saying that apostles and prophets will continue until we all come to a unity of the faith.  Did that happen?  Did apostles and prophets continue?  You seem to have made a strong case for the Catholic Church here, and disproved the idea of a restoration.

So yeah, even this scripture that you use has been twisted slightly to suit your own interpretation.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

Really?  Where have I condemned anyone?

I said generically, in this case it was Tacenda’s taking the Lord’s name in vain accusation, etc. 

Edited October 20, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I said generically, in this case it was Tacenda’s taking the Lord’s name in vain accusation, etc. 

Well leaders in the church have indeed done this, thinking the ban on the blacks not receiving the PH, that came from BY. He spoke for God, when he shouldn't have. And now Pres. Oaks is, IMO.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

1. So what makes the KJV of the Bible the correct translation?  Were the men under King James more schooled to read Greek or other earlier Bible  writings?  Scholars have found many errors in their translations.  Did they have all of the resources we have today?   Why does the KJV get a free pass in your mind. or the Church's for that matter.  Is it possible that modern translators have a better understanding of Greek or some of the other earlier Bible writings?  

2.  Straight forward?  Really?  Should women ever wear make up?  Jewelry? Pray in church? Cover their hair?  The KJV seems pretty straight forward about those issues.  

I could give you literally hundreds of Bible points that people don't agree on.  

3.  I don't disagree that the pain of repentance is necessary to rid a person of sin.  The question is, what is sin according to God and what is sin according to men.  And maybe, as it relates to this subject on a personal level, let's say that the Church has it all figured out.  A gay person has to be celibate throughout this life.  Then what happens in the next life?  Does the Church really have that part of the plan all figured out?  Can a person who chooses to have companionship in this life ever repent?  And if eventually they repent, then what?  Do they "get" to be married to a woman for eternity?  Tell me exactly what according to God, my fate will be if I only do what every other human desires to do, find someone to share this life with.  Since family is the core of the Plan of Salvation, it is a sin to want to have a family? And is it my fault that I am gay and how that family looks to me?

Are you still so sure that what you wrote is the will of God?  Because I am not.  I am with my companion, not to go against God or rebels against Him, but because I believe there are certain lessons we only learn by being with another person, sharing a life with, supporting and taking care of someone other than ourselves, learning to put others needs in front of our own.  I am doing my best to follow what I believe is the path that God wants me on.  Can you positively tell me I am on the wrong path?

 

The KJV, does have errors in translation on very minor issues, but it was translated for Greek and Latin, well one in the same to a degree. But if you are trying to say, that if there is an error in some places, then why not with scriptures that speak of homosexuality, that would fall under grasping a straws. I would speaking with a young man who had been excommunicated, from the Church, for adultery. He just could not understand why, he was being punished just because he was born different. He said that God made the way he is, so he can’t just have one women, therefore he could not be faithful to his wife. So, what are we to do now, talk about errors in translation, and call into question almost all the commandments of, Adultery, Fornication, and Marriage. That is a dangerous and slippery sloop to go down, because once on it, why believe a single word of scripture.   

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

The KJV, does have errors in translation on very minor issues, but it was translated for Greek and Latin, well one in the same to a degree. But if you are trying to say, that if there is an error in some places, then why not with scriptures that speak of homosexuality, that would fall under grasping a straws. I would speaking with a young man who had been excommunicated, from the Church, for adultery. He just could not understand why, he was being punished just because he was born different. He said that God made the way he is, so he can’t just have one women, therefore he could not be faithful to his wife. So, what are we to do now, talk about errors in translation, and call into question almost all the commandments of, Adultery, Fornication, and Marriage. That is a dangerous and slippery sloop to go down, because once on it, why believe a single word of scripture.   

IMO, Joseph and others couldn't stick with one woman and called it polygamy. Because the God I believe in would never command it. 

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Too many use God to spout their true feelings inside and that's what writers have done in the Bible. They have broken the commandment to not take God's name in vain, or use Him to get their way.

Now the Bible can't be trusted.

You don't trust prophets, leaders, believers, or God's word.

So I'll ask again - how do you believe in God or Christ when the ONLY things we know about them come from these sources?

Brigham was exactly right as usual. 

"If we have any lack of confidence in those whom the Lord has appointed to lead the people, how can we have confidence in a being whom we know nothing about? It is nonsense to talk about it. It will weaken a person quicker to lose confidence in those who dictate the affairs of God's kingdom on the earth, than to say “I do not know whether there is a God or not, and I care nothing about Him.” A man or woman will not be prepared to be taken by the enemy, and led captive by the devil so quickly for disbelieving in a being they do not know about, as for disbelieving in those whom they do know."