The Bible and Homosexuality

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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

The God you believe in doesn't have any source.

You can't say "God wouldn't do that" while simultaneously rejecting everything recorded concerning God.

That makes a God of fantasy.

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The God you believe in doesn't have any source.

You can't say "God wouldn't do that" while simultaneously rejecting everything recorded concerning God.

That makes a God of fantasy.

Maybe I'm a prophetess!

[california boy]

40 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.   

I am not talking about homosexuality. I am saying that technology and understanding of Greek and Latin may very well be better today than it was during the time of kKing James.  So why think that the KJV is superior translation of the Bible to all other versions?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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

Then I don’t quite understand why you directed that to me???

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe I'm a prophetess!

Not if the spirit of prophecy actually requires a testimony of Christ and you reject everything we know of Christ's existence as suspect.

The exact opposite of faith in Christ is to doubt everything we know about him.

 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not if the spirit of prophecy actually requires a testimony of Christ and you reject everything we know of Christ's existence as suspect.

The exact opposite of faith in Christ is to doubt everything we know about him.

 

He doesn't have anything to do with what I've said. 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

He doesn't have anything to do with what I've said. 

Sure he does.  You questioned whether we can believe the ONLY records we have of him.

You 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."

If the Bible is just man made then we know nothing of Christ but man's opinion.

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sure he does.  You questioned whether we can believe the ONLY records we have of him.

You 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."

If the Bible is just man made then we know nothing of Christ but man's opinion.

You've not read a red letter Bible? 

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

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 agree, basic need is an overstatement. It is pretty high on the list, but not everyone requires it. 

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

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. 

Yes, very well put.

I used to say being gay was a burden or a struggle that a person had to learn to deal with but not give into, like alcoholism or drug addiction. I can’t believe I was that dismissive. 

[JLHPROF]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You've not read a red letter Bible? 

Written by the same men you say are only spouting  their own feelings, taking his name in vain, and trying to get their way.

You can't denounce the writers of scripture and then say 'except for when they say things in Christ's name'.

That's no different from the D&C.

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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.

 I get it and I’ve heard all of this before and I’ve told myself all of these things. But me telling another human that they can’t enjoy the same thing I have because of the way they were born seems inappropriate (thank you for the word, Calm). 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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.

I said, "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."   (Heavy emphasis on the word "seemed" ).  That's why I asked you the question, because your actual view (whatever that view was) wasn't clear to me, nor was it clear to me what you thought those "scholar thesis" were stating.   But you seemed (to me) to be siding with that thesis based on your statement here:

5 hours 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.

Because of what you said above, I wondered if you had actually read the "scholar thesis" on those scriptures and carefully considered them yourself (since that's the topic of this thread), so that's why I asked if you could summarize what you thought they were saying and I asked what was your actual position relating to them.   I was confused on where you stand on any of it, so that's why I asked.  It has nothing to do with whether or not you are a homosexual or what I am (or not).  I am relatively new to these boards, so I don't even know your background very well.

And what you say about being willing to acknowledging sin for what it is is interesting.  We all have sins.  I have sins and strive to overcome them.  But none of us would be able to admit we even have sins of our own if we were only willing to see them in someone else.  Isn't it a bit unfair for you to assume that I'm only willing to acknowledge them in you?  I have no idea what your sins are (and I really do NOT want to know!  So please don't tell me! )   And you don't really know me either, do you? 

As for Ephesians 4:11-14, Paul is stating the purpose of having the specific organization of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers.  It is to be there "Till we all come in the unity of the faith".  That's not a prophesy, nor is it a contradiction, it's simply a statement of their purpose.  And the alternative is to be tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine.  And isn't that exactly what happened after that organization was removed?  And the restoration reestablished that leadership and organization to the church "till we all come to a unity of the faith".  

Thanks for your response.

[Tacenda]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Written by the same men you say are only spouting  their own feelings, taking his name in vain, and trying to get their way.

You can't denounce the writers of scripture and then say 'except for when they say things in Christ's name'.

That's no different from the D&C.

Are you questioning if those are really Christ's words in the bible? Hmm....from what I've been told, those are the actual words of Christ, not those writers saying something in Christ's name. https://wn.elib.com/Library/Religious/KJV/NR/NewTrl_index.html  ETA: I've run out of my allotment of posts, in case you don't hear back from me real soon, JL.

Edited October 20, 2019 by Tacenda

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

from what I've been told, those are the actual words of Christ,

If the standard is just what you have been told, then why not just believe all scrioture?

And the reference, he didn’t speak in English so how can those be the actual words?

Edited October 20, 2019 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Are you questioning if those are really Christ's words in the bible? Hmm....from what I've been told, those are the actual words of Christ, not those writers saying something in Christ's name. https://wn.elib.com/Library/Religious/KJV/NR/NewTrl_index.html

Recorded by men mostly after his death.  Not by him.

So we are back to the beginning again.  If you reject the words of men, and those words are the ONLY sources we have to learn about God and Christ, how can you say we know anything at all about them?

Rejection of prophets and apostles requires rejection of Christ.  We know absolutely nothing about Christ that wasn't written by mortal men.

[lightparticle]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

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

I know what I said sounded terribly dismissive of religion in general. Alas, I cannot edit my posts yet, so please hear me out as I explain.

I think that all too often, scripture is interpreted as pushing our behavior in line via fear. There are consistent threats in the scriptures telling what will happen if we violate a law/commandment/utterance/prophetic-thank-you-note-scribbled-on-a-napkin. Typically, the outcome involves going kayaking on a river of fire and brimstone without a paddle — or a kayak. What happens in those situations is that people have a tendency to demand very specific guidelines as to what does or doesn’t constitute the violation of those things above — wanting it all spelled out. That’s partly what makes the discussion on this site so interesting. Who wouldn’t want to discuss the finer points of whether or not consuming a fine dish made with alcohol and a six-pack Mountain Dew chaser is a Word of Wisdom violation? But, I don’t think that’s how it’s supposed to be — in fact, the Doctrine and Covenants has a warning about being commanded in all things.

However, there is much in the scriptures that also tell us what we should be doing as opposed to what we shouldn’t. Unfortunately, it gets so little air time that “Hell fire and damnation” are dunking over it all night long on the court.

The entire point of the fall was to allow us to learn good from evil. Some things we know deep down are on one side or another. Other things are a little more difficult to discern which is where the Holy Ghost steps in and helps us determine what is sin — FOR OURSELVES. Basic gospel tenet: personal revelation is not personal revelation if you are attempting to receive it to define someone else’s sin. That’s not how personal revelation works. Yes, the scriptures tell us a lot about what is or isn’t sin — but in relativistic and general terms. Generally speaking, one can apply the rules and guidelines to the vast majority of situations and come out of it looking like Mr. Clean on laundry day. But, it doesn’t spell out exceptions either, and yes, God does include exceptions in the terms and conditions.

No, I’m not kidding (about there being exceptions as well as terms and conditions).

If the scriptures were so clear about LGBTQ people and their situations, why is the church leadership saying they don’t know enough about it and don’t have the revelation for it? Does anyone really think they have not studied the scriptures enough to know whether or not scriptures were plainly clear on the matter?

You see, if we spend our lives trying to figure out how close we can get to the “line of sin” without crossing it, we are going to continuously step over it because humans are notoriously spiritually distracted and disoriented by shiny stuff — and sometimes we’re just stupid. If only we spent just as much, if not more, energy focusing on the things that we know are as far away from the line as possible (such as loving our neighbors rather than trying to convince them of their spiritual footing), this discussion board could reallocate some of the money spent on bandwidth toward something more fun — like an animated gif of the Angel Moroni doing the Carlton.

Edited October 20, 2019 by lightparticle
Correcting color of the text

[lightparticle]

Edit: figured it out. Removing this entry.

Edited October 20, 2019 by lightparticle
Figured it out

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not talking about homosexuality. I am saying that technology and understanding of Greek and Latin may very well be better today than it was during the time of kKing James.  So why think that the KJV is superior translation of the Bible to all other versions?

This may be the case, but there is no evidence that suggests one is far more superior than any other, except for some modern day versions, created to promote new sales and copyrights. Nor, can we hang our hats on the hope that maybe there is a different version to support our personal beliefs. If we are to travel down that road, we will just become lost. Carried by “every wind and doctrine”, never finding the truth.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

17 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

I see, and the only three mortal men whom God has linked his own name, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all polygamists. In fact every ancient blessing we are promised when we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior, comes through “Abraham”, in fact, we become the “seed of Abraham”. Forgive me, but your comment is little more than a cheap shot, void of Biblical understanding, and tact. Also, if you worship the God of the Bible, you do worship a God who has both sanctioned polygamy, but also commanded it, and punished those who did not comply. 
 

ETA: How did you use my quote to make that leap? Please don’t do that again, use someone else’s post in the future to bash the Church and it’s leaders. 

Edited October 20, 2019 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I see, and the only three mortal men whom God has linked his own name, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all polygamists. In fact every ancient blessing we are promised when we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior, comes through “Abraham”, in fact, we become the “seed of Abraham”. Forgive me, but your comment is little more than a cheap shot, void of Biblical understanding, and tact. Also, if you worship the God of the Bible, you do worship a God who has both sanctioned polygamy, but also commanded it, and punished those who did not comply. 
 

ETA: How did you use my quote to make that leap? Please don’t do that again, use someone else’s post in the future to bash the Church and it’s leaders. 

To answer your question that you edited to add, see the below. It was lame of me to come out with that comment, to bash a church with imperfect men.:

Here's a c/p of a post you made.  "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.
 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

 

Here's a c/p of a post you made.  "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.
 

You were aware I was speaking of a man who was excommunicated, not some ancient Prophet, or early Church leader. So, why take that pot shot, at someone I nor anyone else was speaking of? It is unfortunate, especially when you know I would ever do that to you. 

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

You were aware I was speaking of a man who was excommunicated, not some ancient Prophet, or early Church leader. So, why take that pot shot, at someone I nor anyone else was speaking of? It is unfortunate, especially when you know I would ever do that to you. 

Touche'

[rockpond]

On 10/17/2019 at 2:51 PM, aussieguy55 said:

Can anyone here point me to any work that LDS scholars have done to deal with these passages?

ScottWoodward.org put together a list of apostolic teachings on the "sin of Sodom".  Here is the text of the linked page:

 

Joseph Smith (President)

The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah… were destroyed for rejecting the Prophets. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 271-272)

John Taylor (President)

And hence the inhabitants of the old world and of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, because it was better for them to die, and thus be deprived of their agency, which they abused, than entail so much misery on their posterity, and bring ruin upon millions of unborn persons…. It is upon this principle that the world will be punished in the last days for their transgressions, because they have abused their agency, and broken the covenant that God made with them. They have yielded to the influence of Satan, perverted the designs of Jehovah, and brought upon themselves and posterity a curse, misery, and ruin. (The Government of God, p. 53)

---

We are all the children of God. He is our Father and has a right to direct us, not only us, but has a perfect right to direct and control the affairs of all the human family that exist upon the face of the earth for they are all his offspring. Now, he feels kindly towards them and knows what kind of people they are, and also what we are, and he would do everything he could for them even if in his almighty wisdom he has to kill them off in order to save them.... He cut off the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in consequence of their corruptions, and by and by he will shake all the inhabitants of the earth, he will shake thrones and will overturn empires and desolate the land and lay millions of the human family in the dust. Plagues and pestilence will stalk through the earth because of the iniquities of men, because of some of these corruptions .... namely, the perversion of the laws of nature between the sexes, and the damnable murders that exist among men. (JD, 21:113-116, November 28, 1879)

Bruce R. McConkie (Quorum of the Twelve)

As spoken of in the revelations, pride is the opposite of humility. It is inordinate self-esteem arising because of one's position, achievements, or possessions; and it has the effect of centering a person's heart on the things of the world rather than the things of the Spirit. (1 John 2:15-17.) As humility, which is an attribute of godliness possessed by true saints, leads to salvation, so pride, which is of the devil, leads to damnation. (2 Ne. 28:15.) "God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble." (Jas. 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:5.)

Latter-day prevalence of pride in the hearts of men is one of the sure proofs that apostasy and unrighteousness prevail on the earth. (Rom. 1:28-32; 2 Tim. 3:1-7; 2 Ne. 28-10- 15; Morm. 8:28-36.) The Lord hates "a proud look." (Prov. 6:16-19.) "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." (Prov. 16:18.) Pride among the inhabitants of Sodom was one of the chief reasons for her destruction. (Ezek. 16:49.) Pride is wickedness, and those who are proud are living a telestial law and will be utterly destroyed at the Second Coming of Christ. (Isa. 2:12; Mal. 4:1; 1 Ne. 22:15; 3 Ne. 25:1; D. & C. 29:9; 64:24; 133:64.) (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-1973], 3: 110.)

---

When men are "ripened in iniquity," then the fulness of the Lord's wrath comes upon them, and they are destroyed in the flesh. (Ether 2:8-9; 14:25.) Such was the case with the Jaredites, the Nephites, and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, for instance; such will be the case with the wicked at the Second Coming. The "fiery indignation of the wrath of God" will continue to be poured out upon the wicked in hell until the day of their resurrection. (Alma 40:14; Rev. 14:10; D. & C. 19:15; 76:106-107.) Then, to all eternity, those subject to the second death shall be "vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity." (D. & C. 76:33, 38.) (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., p. 851)

George Albert Smith (President)

You remember the experience of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The servants of the Lord were there, anxious to teach the way of our Heavenly Father, yet the philosophies of men turned them aside from the wisdom of the living God, and eventually fire came down from heaven and destroyed those communities, not because they were serving the God of this earth, but because they were serving Baal and other false gods. (The Teachings of George Albert Smith, p. 169)

Joseph Fielding Smith (Quorum of the Twelve)

In the days of Abraham there were two cities known as Sodom and Gomorrah in which wickedness was without measure, and the Lord said to Abraham that he was going to destroy these cities.

Abraham pleaded with the Lord to spare them, which the Lord promised to do if 10 righteous souls could be found therein. Since this could not be done "the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven," and these cities with all their inhabitants were destroyed. And again the Lord said he did it! But the self-righteous and the wise of this present day say this is not a true record, for a merciful God would not do such a thing even if the people were wicked. (Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 3: 39)

[aussieguy55]

 I wonder how they deal with Ezekiel  

Ezekiel 16:49-50 New International Version (NIV)

49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen

 

Gnuse in "Seven Gay Texts" says  the text clearly attributes the sin of inhospitality  to strangers as the sin of the citizens of Sodom"

Edited October 22, 2019 by aussieguy55
update