JLHPROF Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 15 hours ago, aussieguy55 said: 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" ONE of the sins. They appear to have done multiple things destable to God.
longview Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: ONE of the sins. They appear to have done multiple things detestable to God. Another DOCUMENTED detestable thing Sodomites did was to demand sexual intercourse and depravity with exalted beings who had come into town to make an "assessment" and to evacuate the righteous. The remaining denizens were found severely wanting and thus condemned to utter and amazing destruction. See Gen 19:1-11. Thus homosexual lifestyle is rejected (as is affirmed by the Proclamation on the Family). 1
longview Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 On 10/19/2019 at 9:24 PM, Tacenda said: On 10/19/2019 at 9:12 PM, 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! One who does not believe in keeping records (such as rejecting scriptures).
rockpond Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, longview said: Another DOCUMENTED detestable thing Sodomites did was to demand sexual intercourse and depravity with exalted beings who had come into town to make an "assessment" and to evacuate the righteous. The remaining denizens were found severely wanting and thus condemned to utter and amazing destruction. See Gen 19:1-11. Thus homosexual lifestyle is rejected (as is affirmed by the Proclamation on the Family). Yes... the documented word "know" equals "sexual intercourse and depravity". And, Lot's response: Please take my virgin daughters instead. The story makes total sense, no reason we should question it. And, obviously, we should use the story to condemn loving, committed gay couples for the rest of time because when it comes to homosexuality, there is no difference between rape and marriage. Edited October 23, 2019 by rockpond 3
longview Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 11 minutes ago, rockpond said: - - - And, Lot's response: Please take my virgin daughters instead. - - - Which is an indication of Lot's spiritual immaturity as shown in several instances in Genesis. Which goes to show the less diligent we are in seeking after God and trusting in His commandments and counsels, the more we are wallowing in confusion and shifting on our sandy foundations.
Popular Post rockpond Posted October 23, 2019 Popular Post Posted October 23, 2019 17 minutes ago, longview said: Which is an indication of Lot's spiritual immaturity as shown in several instances in Genesis. Which goes to show the less diligent we are in seeking after God and trusting in His commandments and counsels, the more we are wallowing in confusion and shifting on our sandy foundations. Offering your virgin daughters to a gang of rapists is "spiritual immaturity"? I have other words for it. As I indicated, I'd be careful in how far you extrapolate the story of Lot for the purpose of understanding God's commandments and counsels. 5
CV75 Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 On 10/17/2019 at 4:51 PM, aussieguy55 said: Can anyone here point me to any work that LDS scholars have done to deal with these passages? https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-14-number-1-2013/reexamining-lot An excerpt: "At dark the men of Sodom surrounded the house and called for Lot to bring his guests outside for sexual purposes (see Genesis 19:4–5). According to the received text, Lot offered his two virgin daughters in place of the three holy men since ancient hospitality required guests under his roof to be protected (see vv. 1–8). [42] The Joseph Smith Translation describes a very different response by Lot. In the Joseph Smith Translation, the citizens of Sodom considered Lot an outsider living in their society; they were angry that he was judging their purposes in wanting the men and threatened to do “worse with [him], than with them” (JST, Genesis 19:10; footnote 1a). They then announced, “We will have the men, and thy daughters also; and we will do with them as seemeth us good” (JST, Genesis 19:11; p. 798; emphasis added). [43] Lot offered neither his guests nor his daughters." 1
katherine the great Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 3 hours ago, longview said: Another DOCUMENTED detestable thing Sodomites did was to demand sexual intercourse and depravity with exalted beings who had come into town to make an "assessment" and to evacuate the righteous. The remaining denizens were found severely wanting and thus condemned to utter and amazing destruction. See Gen 19:1-11. Thus homosexual lifestyle is rejected (as is affirmed by the Proclamation on the Family). So, by that logic, if they had demanded sexual intercourse and depravity with female exalted beings, thus heterosexual lifestyle is rejected? 🤔 3
CV75 Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Offering your virgin daughters to a gang of rapists is "spiritual immaturity"? I have other words for it. As I indicated, I'd be careful in how far you extrapolate the story of Lot for the purpose of understanding God's commandments and counsels. The JST is instructive in this regard (Lot did not offer his daughters after all; see post above). The text (and versions promulgated by Josephus and Philo) does support the idea that in this context "strange flesh" refers to same-sex acts in opposition to the duality of male-female sex ( https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/19854/jude-7-what-does-strange-flesh-mean ). 1
CV75 Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 (edited) On 10/17/2019 at 4:51 PM, aussieguy55 said: Can anyone here point me to any work that LDS scholars have done to deal with these passages? Not sure if this counts (FAIR) but here is another source: https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/starr-justin-BiblicalHomosexuality.pdf Edited October 23, 2019 by CV75
CV75 Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 On 10/17/2019 at 4:51 PM, aussieguy55 said: In the last few days the Anglican archbishop of Sydney Australia spoke where he told those in the church who accepted same sex relationships to leave the church. I’m taking note of this phrase in your OP: “If the biblical authors did assume homosexuality was evil, we do not theologize off of their cultural assumptions, we theologize off of the texts we have in the canon. The author attempts to introduce some new arguments into this long-standing and passionate debate” I think the bolded part is debatable, as theological reasoning is probably better accomplished by understanding the whole of religious tradition that has passed down through living people than from modern reinterpretation of ancient, lifeless text. The texts from which the Bible was compiled were, for the most part, passed down through the ages, reflecting the surviving mores of the covenant people. As Nephi would put, trying to understand the text is less profitable than having an understandable “manner of prophesying.” Also, to theologize solely off “the texts we have in the canon” would exclude a good deal of apocrypha that reflects the same values as traditionally interpreted from the canon. Not the scholarly resource you might be looking for, but as the thread seems to have taken a turn toward debating morality on textual grounds, I think the scholarly treatments of homosexuality in the Bible, especially for purposes of theologizing, need to include the surviving traditions over biases and proof-texting arising in recent decades. 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 (edited) On 10/19/2019 at 2:50 PM, Bill “Papa” Lee said: Double post, deleted. Edited October 23, 2019 by Bill “Papa” Lee
longview Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 2 hours ago, katherine the great said: So, by that logic, if they had demanded sexual intercourse and depravity with female exalted beings, thus heterosexual lifestyle is rejected? 🤔 I will help you go one step further. Anything not in keeping with legal and lawful wedded marriage ordained of God is less than ideal. 1
aussieguy55 Posted October 23, 2019 Author Posted October 23, 2019 Jesus tells is disciples that those who reject his message will suffer more than the people of Sodom (Matt 10:15) (Luke 10:12) "14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." 1
Tacenda Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, longview said: One who does not believe in keeping records (such as rejecting scriptures). I don't trust scriptures unless they direct you to do good. When I read the horror of many that hurt women, or children or is racist or homophobic, I don't give them any adherence whatsoever, I attribute those to merely men. Edited October 23, 2019 by Tacenda
Sanpitch Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 13 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I don't trust scriptures unless they direct you to do good. When I read the horror of many that hurt women, or children or is racist or homophobic, I don't give them any adherence whatsoever, I attribute those to merely men. You're a smart lady, Tacenda.
rockpond Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 35 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said: Jesus tells is disciples that those who reject his message will suffer more than the people of Sodom (Matt 10:15) (Luke 10:12) "14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." Verses which lend additional support to the idea that Sodom was destroyed rejecting the Lord's messengers, not for homosexuality. 2
rockpond Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 40 minutes ago, longview said: Anything not in keeping with legal and lawful wedded marriage ordained of God is less than ideal. While this statement is true, the account of Lot in Genesis 19 does nothing to support your conclusion: "Thus homosexual lifestyle is rejected (as is affirmed by the Proclamation on the Family)."
aussieguy55 Posted October 23, 2019 Author Posted October 23, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, CV75 said: I’m taking note of this phrase in your OP: “If the biblical authors did assume homosexuality was evil, we do not theologize off of their cultural assumptions, we theologize off of the texts we have in the canon. The author attempts to introduce some new arguments into this long-standing and passionate debate” I think the bolded part is debatable, as theological reasoning is probably better accomplished by understanding the whole of religious tradition that has passed down through living people than from modern reinterpretation of ancient, lifeless text. The texts from which the Bible was compiled were, for the most part, passed down through the ages, reflecting the surviving mores of the covenant people. As Nephi would put, trying to understand the text is less profitable than having an understandable “manner of prophesying.” Also, to theologize solely off “the texts we have in the canon” would exclude a good deal of apocrypha that reflects the same values as traditionally interpreted from the canon. Not the scholarly resource you might be looking for, but as the thread seems to have taken a turn toward debating morality on textual grounds, I think the scholarly treatments of homosexuality in the Bible, especially for purposes of theologizing, need to include the surviving traditions over biases and proof-texting arising in recent decades. I was quoting from Gnuse's paper which I uploaded earlier. I notice there has been 4 downloads . Edited October 23, 2019 by aussieguy55 update
Amulek Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 31 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I don't trust scriptures unless they direct you to do good. Excellent. Then it should be easy for you to put this whole controversy to rest then. All you need to do is point out the scripture where God directs that same sex sexual behavior is good (even if only under certain circumstances). Surely, God ought to be the final arbiter of what is / isn't "good," so if something were really good for us I'm certain He would have mentioned it somewhere, right?
CV75 Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: While this statement is true, the account of Lot in Genesis 19 does nothing to support your conclusion: "Thus homosexual lifestyle is rejected (as is affirmed by the Proclamation on the Family)." I wouldn't say it does nothing, but that it is obviously debatable. Jude 1:7-11 and onward for example, supports the idea that homosexual sex was at least part of their problem (many, many other kinds of sins are listed as well). That some focus solely on the homosexual aspect, I think, may be a product of insecurity and denial wherein they find something easy to condemn that they themselves are certain enough they do not do. Or they have determined, for whatever reason, it is among the most egregious of the sins with which to make a point. Edited October 23, 2019 by CV75
aussieguy55 Posted October 23, 2019 Author Posted October 23, 2019 5 hours ago, CV75 said: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-14-number-1-2013/reexamining-lot An excerpt: "At dark the men of Sodom surrounded the house and called for Lot to bring his guests outside for sexual purposes (see Genesis 19:4–5). According to the received text, Lot offered his two virgin daughters in place of the three holy men since ancient hospitality required guests under his roof to be protected (see vv. 1–8). [42] The Joseph Smith Translation describes a very different response by Lot. In the Joseph Smith Translation, the citizens of Sodom considered Lot an outsider living in their society; they were angry that he was judging their purposes in wanting the men and threatened to do “worse with [him], than with them” (JST, Genesis 19:10; footnote 1a). They then announced, “We will have the men, and thy daughters also; and we will do with them as seemeth us good” (JST, Genesis 19:11; p. 798; emphasis added). [43] Lot offered neither his guests nor his daughters." Is there any manuscript or legend evidence for Smith's revision?
rockpond Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 1 hour ago, CV75 said: I wouldn't say it does nothing, but that it is obviously debatable. Jude 1:7-11 and onward for example, supports the idea that homosexual sex was at least part of their problem (many, many other kinds of sins are listed as well). That some focus solely on the homosexual aspect, I think, may be a product of insecurity and denial wherein they find something easy to condemn that they themselves are certain enough they do not do. Or they have determined, for whatever reason, it is among the most egregious of the sins with which to make a point. Yes, thousands of years later, Jude cites at least two of their sins as fornication and “going after strange flesh”. Same sex gang rape (if that’s what he’s referring to with the strange flesh comment) condemns gay married couples in the same way that fornication condemns opposite sex married couples. Therefore, Genesis 19 does not “reject the homosexual lifestyle” as @longview claimed.
longview Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 3 hours ago, Sanpitch said: 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: I don't trust scriptures unless they direct you to do good. When I read the horror of many that hurt women, or children or is racist or homophobic, I don't give them any adherence whatsoever, I attribute those to merely men. You're a smart lady, Tacenda. Terrific motto for the Telestial Kingdom! 1
longview Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 3 hours ago, rockpond said: 3 hours ago, longview said: Anything not in keeping with legal and lawful wedded marriage ordained of God is less than ideal. While this statement is true, the account of Lot in Genesis 19 does nothing to support your conclusion: "Thus homosexual lifestyle is rejected (as is affirmed by the Proclamation on the Family)." 16 minutes ago, rockpond said: 1 hour ago, CV75 said: I wouldn't say it does nothing, but that it is obviously debatable. Jude 1:7-11 and onward for example, supports the idea that homosexual sex was at least part of their problem (many, many other kinds of sins are listed as well). That some focus solely on the homosexual aspect, I think, may be a product of insecurity and denial wherein they find something easy to condemn that they themselves are certain enough they do not do. Or they have determined, for whatever reason, it is among the most egregious of the sins with which to make a point. Therefore, Genesis 19 does not “reject the homosexual lifestyle” as @longview claimed. I consider the APEX of sins to include murder, fornication, out of wedlock births, homosexual and other unnatural fixations. It is a progression. Collectively it leads to greater and greater violence and unreasoning hatred. The main reason God tearfully had to wipe out Earth with the flood. Just as He will burn up the world before the Millennium. Thus adherence to the Proclamation on the Family goes a LONG way to nipping the problem in the bud. This and other principles of the Gospel provide for greater peace and happiness.
Recommended Posts