Jump to content

Homosexuality and the Bible


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

It doesn't really matter what the intent is of those that wrote the Bible about homosexuality.  People believe what they want to believe.  The Church has dug it's heels in on this issue despite the fact that Christ never mentioned that homosexuals should be barred from full blessings of God.  Nor did the Book of Mormon.  Nor did the Pearl of Great Price.  Nor did the D & C.  There is noting in the scriptures that prohibits gay couples from being allowed the full blessings of the priesthood and temple covenants.  In fact, there is absolutely no revelation prohibiting gay couples from those blessings and ordinances.  Nothing.  Just the opinion of fallible men.

Maybe God is preparing the Church and waiting another generation until the Church members can accept that gay families can be valued just as much as their own families.    Does any of this have any familiarity to anyone?  

I’m open to any changes. Any. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Dr. Daniel McClellan is offering an one hour class on the subject on January 19, 2023 from 7-8:30p. You can register 

http://dan-mcclellan.square.site

he has on his youtube channel videos on the subject. his premise seems to be that the meaning of "mishkevei ishah" (“after the manner of lying with a woman”-this is not his comment) should be considered in comparison to "mishkav zachur" (**** intercourse). If I understood him correctly he essentially explains that only the top has done anything wrong.

If I understand him correctly, he asserts that because no other societies prohibited homosexuality or that other societies permitted male-male **** intercouse between different social classes, then we should not presume that God prohibited the House of Jacob from engaging in homosexual acts. Again, this is if I understood him correctly.

 

(I used this https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/resources-ideas/source-sheets/tol-parashot/aharei-mot-k-doshim.pdf   for the definitions of the Hebrew terms)

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Dr. Daniel McClellan is offering an one hour class on the subject on January 19, 2023 from 7-8:30p. You can register 

http://dan-mcclellan.square.site

"29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.

"30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not."

I'm sure he is pointing out a scholarly interpretation of how the biblical text does not directly define consensual gay sex as a sin, among the "so many ways" to commit sin. But the topic is not to share scholarly interpretations of how the biblical text defines the commandments/covenants/orders of God, among which is marriage between a man and a woman.

 

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, california boy said:

It doesn't really matter what the intent is of those that wrote the Bible about homosexuality.  People believe what they want to believe.  The Church has dug it's heels in on this issue despite the fact that Christ never mentioned that homosexuals should be barred from full blessings of God.  Nor did the Book of Mormon.  Nor did the Pearl of Great Price.  Nor did the D & C.  There is noting in the scriptures that prohibits gay couples from being allowed the full blessings of the priesthood and temple covenants.  In fact, there is absolutely no revelation prohibiting gay couples from those blessings and ordinances.  Nothing.  Just the opinion of fallible men.

Maybe God is preparing the Church and waiting another generation until the Church members can accept that gay families can be valued just as much as their own families.    Does any of this have any familiarity to anyone?  

Three guesses, and the first two don’t count:) 

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Including the holy act of making enemy captives into your concubines.

Ha-ha, it sure does, but as he states elsewhere (the other thread), this is supposed to have something to do with no one fully understanding "the [so-called] Bibles' original authoritative intent," especially on matters of sexual ethics and social mores. And apparently this class is part of a political thrust in the name of scholarship.

Otherwise, I would have simply taken his scholarly interpretation of how the biblical text does not directly define consensual gay sex as a sin at face value. He can see it as a sin religiously, support same sex marriage politically, and dissect biblical text and context concerning sex between men academically.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, california boy said:

It doesn't really matter what the intent is of those that wrote the Bible about homosexuality.  People believe what they want to believe.  The Church has dug it's heels in on this issue despite the fact that Christ never mentioned that homosexuals should be barred from full blessings of God.  Nor did the Book of Mormon.  Nor did the Pearl of Great Price.  Nor did the D & C.  There is noting in the scriptures that prohibits gay couples from being allowed the full blessings of the priesthood and temple covenants.  In fact, there is absolutely no revelation prohibiting gay couples from those blessings and ordinances.  Nothing.  Just the opinion of fallible men.

Maybe God is preparing the Church and waiting another generation until the Church members can accept that gay families can be valued just as much as their own families.    Does any of this have any familiarity to anyone?  

Of course there are many other things that are not mentioned in the standard works but that does not mean they are all ok.  In my view is there even the smallest hint that consensual gay relationships could be ok?  I can’t see it.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Of course there are many other things that are not mentioned in the standard works but that does not mean they are all ok.  In my view is there even the smallest hint that consensual gay relationships could be ok?  I can’t see it.

But that isn't the point.  The Church has drawn a line in the sand to exclude a whole classification of people simply because they are gay couples rather than straight couples without any revelation either. Just assumptions of fallible Church leaders that grew up with prejudices against homosexuality.  They have no scriptural or revelatory basis to make such an assumption.  Even more than that, I think most people can now see that gay couples can have very successful and loving families.  Should not those families be able to participate in the blessings of the temple and priesthood?  If you say no, what the heck are you basing that on?

This is what sounds familiar.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Ha-ha, it sure does, but as he states elsewhere (the other thread), this is supposed to have something to do with no one fully understanding "the [so-called] Bibles' original authoritative intent," especially on matters of sexual ethics and social mores. And apparently this class is part of a political thrust in the name of scholarship.

Otherwise, I would have simply taken his scholarly interpretation of how the biblical text does not directly define consensual gay sex as a sin at face value. He can see it as a sin religiously, support same sex marriage politically, and dissect biblical text and context concerning sex between men academically.

If you expect me to do a “both sides” thing here you will be disappointed. The opposite of this would be the Church in the 70s and 80s redefining homosexual activity from a somewhat sinful indiscretion into a threat to everything the church holds dear. They did that based on the scholarship and political winds at the time.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

So much speculation about a class that hasn't even been taught yet. I anticipate, albeit reluctantly, that hackles will raise and familiar CARM style nuh-uh's will ensue. 

This will likely be part of it (if I were to speculate):

 

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

This will likely be part of it (if I were to speculate):

 

I completely agree with him. Either scenario is absolutely plausible. The hardliners in either direction will be the ones chomping at the bit. It is odd to me that theology attempts to construct a moral framework or compass by which others are to uphold and/or observe. Oh well. Not my monkey and not my circus.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

This will likely be part of it (if I were to speculate):

 

I don’t see it in the text. The idea of sexual and romantic relationships being the highest and purest is a largely modern thing. It is possible the relationship was sexual but I don’t find it particularly likely.

My dating life has been complicated by when I share my bisexuality I often suddenly find them scrutinizing ALL of my friendships. This is so common it is practically a bisexual meme: “There are NO FRIENDS! ONLY PREY!” It has made me less tolerant of suspicion in general. Now I don’t laugh it off a bit if they are jealous of my female friends.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

So much speculation about a class that hasn't even been taught yet. I anticipate, albeit reluctantly, that hackles will raise and familiar CARM style nuh-uh's will ensue. 

he has posted videos on the subject of the upcoming "class"; he has made his thoughts known. In 2012 he referred to a highschool student as bigoted for qouting the Bible for an assignment about the "con" of allowing homosexuals to adopt.  In September 2022, he released a video wherein he asserts that only his favored interpretation of Biblical passage addressing male-male coupling is correct - despite the fact that issue is not a settled. He also is not shy with his animus towards conservatives. 

When he has put his thoughts out in the open, we can have confidence his posisting on the subject.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, provoman said:

he has posted videos on the subject of the upcoming "class"; he has made his thoughts known. In 2012 he referred to a highschool student as bigoted for qouting the Bible for an assignment about the "con" of allowing homosexuals to adopt.  In September 2022, he released a video wherein he asserts that only his favored interpretation of Biblical passage addressing male-male coupling is correct - despite the fact that issue is not a settled. He also is not shy with his animus towards conservatives. 

When he has put his thoughts out in the open, we can have confidence his posisting on the subject.

Amazing, I must have missed the biblical passage covering adoption.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, california boy said:

But that isn't the point.  The Church has drawn a line in the sand to exclude a whole classification of people simply because they are gay couples rather than straight couples without any revelation either. Just assumptions of fallible Church leaders that grew up with prejudices against homosexuality.  They have no scriptural or revelatory basis to make such an assumption.  Even more than that, I think most people can now see that gay couples can have very successful and loving families.  Should not those families be able to participate in the blessings of the temple and priesthood?  If you say no, what the heck are you basing that on?

This is what sounds familiar.  

 

There church has drawn a line in the sand because there is nothing in the scriptures that suggests that gay couples are equivalent to heterosexual couples in marriage or that gay married couples can be in compliance with the law of chastity  Whether gays people can have loving and successful relationships is not relevant. I am sure there are married couple who are swingers who have successful and loving relationships.   I am basing my views on the scriptures, teachings of the prophets, and overall history.  Gay marriage is relatively new. 

 Here is where I see a problem in your position.  Bob declares that one should seriously consider the possibility that Jesus was transgender    Steve asks Bob on what basis should one consider this question seriously.  Bob says if Jesus was not transgender, the scriptures would declare it.  Since the issue is not directly mentioned, the question should be taken seriously.  I think this argument is nonsense.  There is simply nothing in the scriptures to remotely take this issue seriously. 

Your position seems to suggest that things become ok if the people involved are consenting and love the action they choose to do.   I see no indication in the scriptures that something become ok and not sinful in the party in question is consenting the behavior.  So now I turn the question to you.  What are you basing that gay relationships are remotely compatible with the scriptures and in compliance with the law of chastity?  One what basis should gay couples be able to participate in temple blessings. If I say to you "Should not people who are swingers who are very successful and loving families be able to participate in the temple and priesthood?"  If you say no, what the heck are you basing that on.  These swingers are in loving and successful relationships and that seems to be the standard you are applying to be temple eligible. 

Understand, I am not against gay marriage being legal.  I think people should be free to do whatever they want.  However having something legal and something being sinful are two different things.  To open the law of chastity to include gay stuff would simply open Pandora box to many other things.  Why would it not. 

 

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to comment
1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Here is where I see a problem in your position.  Bob declares that one should seriously consider the possibility that Jesus was transgender    Steve asks Bob on what basis should one consider this question seriously.  Bob says if Jesus was not transgender, the scriptures would declare it.  Since the issue is not directly mentioned, the question should be taken seriously.  I think this argument is nonsense.  There is simply nothing in the scriptures to remotely take this issue seriously. 

This is an insane comparison.

Saying that Jesus was silent on an issue (from the scanty record we have) is not the same as inventing a whole new attribute of Jesus out of whole cloth. I mean the latter would even be a cliche after what some Shaker groups proclaimed about Ann Lee.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, california boy said:

It doesn't really matter what the intent is of those that wrote the Bible about homosexuality.  People believe what they want to believe.  The Church has dug it's heels in on this issue despite the fact that Christ never mentioned that homosexuals should be barred from full blessings of God.  Nor did the Book of Mormon.  Nor did the Pearl of Great Price.  Nor did the D & C.  There is noting in the scriptures that prohibits gay couples from being allowed the full blessings of the priesthood and temple covenants.  In fact, there is absolutely no revelation prohibiting gay couples from those blessings and ordinances.  Nothing.  Just the opinion of fallible men.

Maybe God is preparing the Church and waiting another generation until the Church members can accept that gay families can be valued just as much as their own families.    Does any of this have any familiarity to anyone?  

KJV Revelation 22:

10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Edited by gav
Added a couple of verses
Link to comment
11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you expect me to do a “both sides” thing here you will be disappointed. The opposite of this would be the Church in the 70s and 80s redefining homosexual activity from a somewhat sinful indiscretion into a threat to everything the church holds dear. They did that based on the scholarship and political winds at the time.

I do not understand what you mean by my expectations, the “both sides thing here” or the “opposite of [what?].” But I do think that arriving at the Church’s current stance on consensual gay sex involved more than academics and politics. There are some consistent doctrinal principles that have not changed in relation to these teachings. In the same way, we also now have addiction recovery classes for things that used to be taken as somewhat sinful indiscretions. The Church does respond to the pressures and problems people face with the compounded deleterious effects of "somewhat sinful indiscretions" over time on individuals, families, society, etc., support by science or politics notwithstanding. And this approach allows saints believing consensual gay sex is a sin religiously, supporting same sex marriage politically, and engaging in biblical academics on the subject.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, provoman said:

he has on his youtube channel videos on the subject. his premise seems to be that the meaning of "mishkevei ishah" (“after the manner of lying with a woman”-this is not his comment) should be considered in comparison to "mishkav zachur" (**** intercourse). If I understood him correctly he essentially explains that only the top has done anything wrong.

If I understand him correctly, he asserts that because no other societies prohibited homosexuality or that other societies permitted male-male **** intercouse between different social classes, then we should not presume that God prohibited the House of Jacob from engaging in homosexual acts. Again, this is if I understood him correctly.

 

(I used this https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/resources-ideas/source-sheets/tol-parashot/aharei-mot-k-doshim.pdf   for the definitions of the Hebrew terms)

You have not understood me correctly. I have been consistent and clear about my position and about my non-devotional & non-dogmatic methodological approach in my several videos on TikTok.

 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

 

There church has drawn a line in the sand because there is nothing in the scriptures that suggests that gay couples are equivalent to heterosexual couples in marriage or that gay married couples can be in compliance with the law of chastity  Whether gays people can have loving and successful relationships is not relevant. I am sure there are married couple who are swingers who have successful and loving relationships.   I am basing my views on the scriptures, teachings of the prophets, and overall history.  Gay marriage is relatively new. 

So since there has been no revelation on gay marriage, you are basing your beliefs on. what? fallible men and their own prejudices.  I can understand that.  Not the first time members have taken that position.

 

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

 Here is where I see a problem in your position.  Bob declares that one should seriously consider the possibility that Jesus was transgender    Steve asks Bob on what basis should one consider this question seriously.  Bob says if Jesus was not transgender, the scriptures would declare it.  Since the issue is not directly mentioned, the question should be taken seriously.  I think this argument is nonsense.  There is simply nothing in the scriptures to remotely take this issue seriously. 

Well actually you would have to admit that there is nothing in the scriptures EITHER way.  So you have no scriptural support in any modern scripture for your position either.  Yeah I agree.  

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Your position seems to suggest that things become ok if the people involved are consenting and love the action they choose to do.   I see no indication in the scriptures that something become ok and not sinful in the party in question is consenting the behavior. 

Except you have no modern scripture or revelation stating that homosexual behavior is sinful do you.  Once again, you are basing this on fallible men.  That is fine.  But you can't claim that God has revealed that belief.

What we do have in the words of Christ is to look to see if something bears good fruit.  Hummm.

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

So now I turn the question to you.  What are you basing that gay relationships are remotely compatible with the scriptures and in compliance with the law of chastity?  One what basis should gay couples be able to participate in temple blessings. If I say to you "Should not people who are swingers who are very successful and loving families be able to participate in the temple and priesthood?"  If you say no, what the heck are you basing that on. 

Well, if the temple and priesthood is important for one's salvation, and if that salvation is important for all of God's children, then I think you have your answer.  It is the same question one asks if it is important for Blacks to hold the priesthood and receive temple blessings

You are comparing apples to oranges.  Adultery has been condemned in all scripture and that condemnation is quite clearly spelled out.  Now if a gay couple was having sex outside their marriage, you might have a point.  Can you point to a scripture that says clearly that married gay couples are committing a sin?  How about a revelation?

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Understand, I am not against gay marriage being legal.  I think people should be free to do whatever they want.  However having something legal and something being sinful are two different things.  To open the law of chastity to include gay stuff would simply open Pandora box to many other things.  Why would it not. 

Understand, that I really don't care whether the Church accepts gay marriage.  Is all I am pointing out is that the Church has followed this exact path before.  The only difference is there were a heck of a lot more scriptures supporting their position that Blacks could not hold the priesthood and interracial marriage was sinful.  There was even a claimed revelation on this doctrine.  

The Church does what it wants.  But on this issue it doesn't even claim that this position of gay married couples being in sin came from any thing they can even point to except the opinion of fallible leaders.  I don't really blame you for holding that position.  I remember being a missionary defending the false belief that God didn't want blacks to have the priesthood.  I had a revelation to support this belief.  I even had the words of Christ to support that position that I was taught to quote investigators.  (Matthew 15)

Quote

 

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

 

I was taught to explain to investigators that the woman was from Canaan which means she was probably black.  And it just wasn't time for Blacks to receive the gospel.  I thought what I was teaching came from God.  It was not.  I was just relying on the same things you are now currently relying on.  Maybe that is enough for you.  I totally understand.

 

 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, InCognitus said:

This will likely be part of it (if I were to speculate):

 

A few thoughts:

1. "Reluctant to Answer": Dan states that he is "reluctant to answer" requests to address the relationship between David and Jonathan because he "{doesn't} really have a good answer" because he questions whether "we have the scholarly tools to be able to excavate that precise relationship."

I think this sort of cautious circumspection makes a good amount of sense.  It is sort of strange, then, to see him cast it aside to draw what he presents to be clear and definitive conclusions about Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.  In this TikTok video he begins with "nobody's exactly sure" about what these passages "mean."

He goes on to say that anyone who says they "suggest a general prohibition on all homosexual activity don't have a strong argument to make."

He notes that both passages use a phrase found nowhere else in the Bible (miš·kaḇ'iš·šāh).  He then points to a "parallel phrase" that is "slightly different" (miš·kaḇ zā·ḵār) (see, e.g., Numbers 31:18).  He argues that based on the way this other phrase is used "we can conclude that whatever the concern is with this prohibition {in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13}, it is aimed at the penetrator, not the penetrated." 

This conclusion, though, creates a "concern" as to Leviticus 20:13 ("If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death").  I think his point here is that the "penetrator/penetrated" distinction does not jibe with this verse's condemnation of both parties (that is, the "penetrated" has also committed an "abomination," which undercuts Dan's argument that the "prohibition ... is aimed {only} at the penetrator."  Dan addresses this response by suggesting that the condemnatory portion of Leviticus 20:13 is, according to "some scholars," a "later editorial addition {to the text} that does not fit what is being said in the prohibition," which Dan says he "think{s} that {conclusion by some scholars} is probably correct."  He therefore concludes: "So in the original versions, they only prohibited being the penetrator."  I suspect Dan is getting this line of reasoning from Saul Olyan's “’And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying down of a Woman’: On the Meaning and Significance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13,” published in the Journal of the History of Sexuality 5.2 (1994), pp. 179-206 (available online here).

Dan also argues that these two passages "have no parallel anywhere else in biblical literature," that other laws "around" them do have parallels "in other legal corpora," which to him "suggests that they are limited to the Holiness Code, the subset of the priestly stratum."  He therefore concludes that "whatever exactly they are prohibiting, it was not something that was ever brought up before, it was written in the post-exilic period by whoever was responsible for the Holiness Code," and that the prohibition "is unique to that literary stratum."  He also suggests that this prohibition is unique because it is not reflected in legal sources in other cultures's legal sources.

This is certainly an interesting argument, but there seems to be a decent amount of conjecture and daisy-chaining going on:

  • The reliance on the interpretation of miš·kaḇ zā·ḵār as dictating the interpretation of miš·kaḇ'iš·šāh
  • The argument that the prohibition only pertains to the "penetrator" and not the "penetrated" (Olyan admits that "{c}ommentators for more than two millennia have struggled to interpret these laws," with varied and divergent conclusions reached by them).  
  • The "later editorial edition" explanation for the bilateral condemnation in Leviticus 20:13 (which Olyan only characterizes as a "suggestion" on his part ("The emphatic attention to the culpability of both partners also leads me to suspect editorial recasting...If my suggestion of editorial reworking is correct...")).  This line of argument is aptly characterized as "speculative and unproven."
  • The argument that the prohibition has "no parallel anywhere else in biblical literature."  (If we could repose confidence in the notion that we all "literature" from this period was preserved and passed down to us, this argument might be more persuasive.)
  • The argument that the prohibition is suspect because it was not reflected in the laws of other ancient legal sources.  (Same as above.  Moreover, few people rely on biblical pronouncements because their antiquity alone, but rather primarily due to the Bible's status as scripture.)

Dan is, based on a lack of "scholarly tools," circumspect and reticent to draw definitive conclusions as to the relationship between David and Jonathan.  Again, I think that is a reasonable and prudent position to take.  In the immortal words of Lt. Commander Data: "The most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is 'I do not know.'"  And sometimes, we likewise need to conclude with "I do not know" as well, as we sometimes lack sufficient data, means, etc. to reach a reasoned and evidence-based conclusion.

Dan's circumspection and reticence are, however, set aside when it comes to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.  Again, he begins with "nobody's exactly sure" about what these passages "mean," but he nevertheless proceeds to disregard that uncertainty and - through serialized speculations and interpretations - he draws a number of conclusions that he presents as being fairly definitive.  I am curious as to the disparity here, as if we lack the means and data to draw definitive conclusions as to the origins / legitimacy / interpretation / meaning of the relationship between David and Jonathan, cannot the same be said about conclusions regarding Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13?  Why is Dan "reluctant to answer" as to the former topic, but fine with speculating and drawing (seemingly definitive) conclusions about the latter topic?

2. "Absolutely Plausible": Dan also states that characterizing the relationship as being homosexual in nature is "absolutely plausible," but that if it "originally did" describe such a relationship, it has been "preserved down to us in the shape it has, over the thousands of years, precisely because it can be re-read as reflecting a {very close and powerful} platonic relationship."  He also states that it is "absolutely plausible that it {the biblical narrative about the relationship} was originally composed that way {as describing a platonic relationship}," but that he "{doesn't} know that a strong case can be made that we should give preference to one reading over the other."

Again, this seems pretty reasonable.  And circumspect.  He does not want to draw conclusions about the relationship that exceed the reach of the data, that go into conjecture and speculation.

But then he seems to be fine with reaching conjectural/speculative conclusions about Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

4. "Our Own Experiences and Interpretive Frameworks": Dan concludes by suggesting that if we read about this relationship and "get the impression" that there can "only be one {interpretation of the relationship} and not the other," that this "may have more to do with our own experiences and interpretive frameworks, and our own desire to make the text meaningful or useful to us."

This is a pretty solid point.  So I am wondering if it ought to be applied to Dan's approach to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.  And if not, why not.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

 

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
14 hours ago, provoman said:

he has posted videos on the subject of the upcoming "class"; he has made his thoughts known. In 2012 he referred to a highschool student as bigoted for qouting the Bible for an assignment about the "con" of allowing homosexuals to adopt.  In September 2022, he released a video wherein he asserts that only his favored interpretation of Biblical passage addressing male-male coupling is correct - despite the fact that issue is not a settled. He also is not shy with his animus towards conservatives. 

When he has put his thoughts out in the open, we can have confidence his posisting on the subject.

I was kind of taken aback when I saw that Dan McClellan's YouTube channel has the user name maklelan, which is the user name of a poster ( @maklelan ) who hasn't posted here since November 2016. He quit in a huff because his vehement anti-Trump posts weren't getting the traction he wanted. His last post, after expressing shame at being a Mormon possibly because Utah was supporting for Trump, and that some MDDBers weren't in agreement with his views, was: "I am done with this website."

I suspect this Dan McClellan and @maklelan are the same guy. 

Let us not diverge into politics with this. I just thought the coincidence was interesting enough to share.

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...