Does anyone know of strong scriptural support (outside of the Law of Moses) for the idea that homosexual acts are sins?
Gay Sin
98 thoughts on “Gay Sin”
Comments are closed.
Does anyone know of strong scriptural support (outside of the Law of Moses) for the idea that homosexual acts are sins?
Comments are closed.
Jesus explicitly prohibits “fornications” in Matt. 15:19, which Greek term “porneia” would include any form of illicit sexual activity, to include homosexuality. See the Strong’s entry for the term.
Paul also rejects the behavior: Rom 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:10, see also Eph 4:17-24, Eph 5:3-12.
Kurt,
While those scriptures do deal with morality in general, I would not consider any of them to be strong support for the idea that homosexual acts are sinful.
Then read again, Kim. Read to the end of the first chapter of Romans. I dare not quote it here for fear of offending some.
Sorry, Jack. I see nothing in the first chapter of Romans that strongly supports the idea that homosexual acts are sinful. I read right up to verse 32.
Kim,
So how are you reading them? The Greek expressions and your translation / exegesis?
Mogget,
I do not have a exegesis. I’d be happy for someone to point me to a good one for those scriptures.
Kim,
Thanks for asking! The best place to start is probably Joseph Fitzmyer’s volume on Romans in the Anchor Bible series. It’s not that the others are unimportant, but that Paul’s work in Romans is foundational to his theology, including his hamartology, in many respects.
If you’re genuinely interested, drop me an OT in a thread over on Faith Promoting Rumor and I’ll be happy to enter into an intelligent dialogue on the Greek and the relevant exegesis, including the voluminous secondary literature.
Some of the scriptures Kurt gives are a bit of a stretch, but Romans Chapter 1 is pretty clear to me. I don’t see how anyone could read the last six verses of the chapter any other way than a clear declaration that homosexual acts are sins.
Well, it seems to me that interpretation of those last six verses depend on one’s interpretation of a woman’s “natural use” to mean that men have sex with her. Unfortunately, it’s somewhat vague whether that is what the verse means.
How horrible, this scripture! It does seem to mean that men shouldn’t sexually desire each other, but if it is interpreted that way, then “the natural use of women” would be to have sex with men. Since I don’t believe that, and I doubt the church does either, it lends itself to less obvious interpretations.
The strongest word that makes it seem sexual is “lust”. The
KJV online dictionary defines lust as
1. Longing desire; eagerness to possess or enjoy; as the lust of gain.
2. Concupiscence; carnal appetite; unlawful desire of carnal pleasure.
3. Evil propensity; depraved affections and desires.
The bible usually relates women to raising families and being wives, so if we interpret the natural use of women to mean their role in the family, then men could be “leaving the natural [use of women as comfortors, peacemakers, pacifiers], burned in their [evil propensity] one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly…
In this interpretation, it could be men leaving their families to do evil things towards each other alongside other men, for instance wars, fighting, arguing, one-upmanship, etc.
burned in their lust one toward another,
That seems pretty clearly sexual to me. I’m no expert but I think the Bible uses “lust” as a sexual word. I don’t think it uses it to cover fighting and corruption or it if it does it uses a modifier, such as “lust for battle” to spell it out.
As for “natural use” what’s the exegesis there?
I think that the passage in Romans 1 is probably the stongest biblical passage to condemn homosexuality. Other references tend to be less convincing, or have exegetical/translation issues. Paul is speaking of non-Jews, whom he considers God to have left to their own devices, wherein, bereft of the restraining presence of God, they degenerated into lustful depravity and homosexual activity, among a general list of other vices, including pride, deceit, envy, wisperings, and lack of mercy.
The way Paul describes the homosexual conduct is consistent with the way the Catholic and LDS leaders have long viewed homosexuality–as the behaviour of heterosexuals who have turned from what is natural to that which is unnatural, ie., same-gender sex. As recent as a decade ago LDS general authorities have deliberately refrained from using the word homosexual as a noun, using it only as an adjective, describing behavior. The attitude in the LDS faith and throughout much of Christendom is that there is no such thing as a homosexual person. There are only heterosexual people who are tempted to engage in homosexual behavior.
The only problem is that this thinking simply isn’t true. Gay people have been homosexual from the moment of their earliest sexual stirrings. Before ever experiencing a homosexual act, they have been attracted to members of the same sex. There is no turning from what is natural to that which is unnatural. What is ‘unnatural’ for a gay man is having sexual relations with a woman. Let’s be honest, are truely heterosexual people really tempted to have gay sex? Surely the ‘ick’ factor alone should make ‘temptation’ a no-brainer.
Paul wrote many wonderful passages of scripture. But I don’t think he entirely understood homosexuality, or whatever it was that he observed (or heard about) in his travels throughout the Mediterranean. In fact, I don’t believe the Bible has much at all to say about homosexuality as we know it today.
MaNahvu is correct. If you wish to avoid a bilibcal condemnation of homosexual behavior, whatever its origin, you will have to declare the Bible inapplicable to your situation.
The NT condemns the act, without worrying about its origin or nature. The idea that one is born a homosexual is modern — Paul would never have distinguished between homosexual behavior from someone born homosexual, and the same act from someone out for a thrill or whatever.
How we’re going to handle the issues that this modern idea of being born a homosexual is something we’ll have to work out together. But the NT condemns the act.
I agree that this scripture seems to condemn homosexuality, but I still think it has the problem that if you define it this way, you are defining the natural use of woman to be having sex with men. Are you all ok with this interpretation? Isn’t another way of thinking possible that doesn’t interpret women so negatively?
And here are two scriptures that use lust in being tempted towards sin in general:
James 1:
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Psalms 81:
12 So I gave them up unto their own hearts’ lust: and they walked in their own counsels.
I think it is a little forced to say that Paul is saying this is the only natural use of the woman. This is not an absolute, just an explanation in the context of describing homosexual behavior.
For those of you interested in truly exploring how Egyptian, Greek and Roman societies viewed the difference between homosexuals (eununchs) and homosexual behavior by straight men, I would refer you to a wonderful website created by Faris Malik. If you take the time to explore his thesis, it will provide a very clear and well documented perspective.
http://www.well.com/~aquarius/
Michael
I read Faris Malik’s research and found it very persuasive. It is about 7 years old now and I am surprised that it has been so completely ignored by both gay activists and scholars skilled to give it a critical review or debunking. It is important research because, if he is correct in his thesis, it means that the master Himself directly praises and blesses homosexuals as individuals.
Mogget
I think it should be noted that, at least in the case of Romans 1, Paul is not directly condemning homosexual behavior. He is not saying, for example, that the 3 great threats to the church are feminists, inellectuals and homosexuals (although he did speak directly about the place of women elsewhere). Paul is speaking here about faith and lack of faith. He mentions homosexual behavior as being present in a non-Jewish society who, because they do not have faith in God, exhibit a range of negative behaviors from boasting to murder. This is not a direct condemnation of either boasting, murder or homosexuality. Rather, Paul is condemning faithlessness.
It is clear that Paul sees homosexual conduct as being evident in heathen societies. And here it should also be noted that homosexual behavior is not the cause of the societal corruption, lack of faith is the cause. Even though homosexuality tops Paul’s list of social ills, he has not singled it out as being any more terrible than murder, or boasting, for that matter. The most we can conclude from this passage is that Paul saw the practice as unnatural.
Contrast Paul’s mention of homosexuality here with Jesus’ direct and absolute condemnation of divorce in Mark 10:11, 12 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery against him”. There it is, as plain as can be, without any qualifiers or exceptions.
If we are looking for strong scriptural support for the condemnation of divorce, we have clearly found it here, and by the Master himself. The Romans passage is not nearly as absolute or authoritative.
It is interesting that Christianity has, for the most part, entirely welcomed divorced and remarried individuals into full fellowship and given them a place at the table of sacraments, even with such an absolute denounciation by Jesus. Yet even with lesser scriptural support, gay people are frequently fired from their jobs, denied their civil rights, treated as lepers, and either kill themselves or are murdered by those who believe God has condemned them to eternal torment.
Mogget,
To complete the logic in your thesis (as I read it), homosexuality=faithlessness.
Also, while you are correct that divorce is thoroughly condemned by the Savior, it should be noted that christianity (in general) does not believe it to be a good thing. (though you are certainly right to suggest that it is terribly abused) Whereas, the proponents of homosexuality tend to justify it as something “natural” if not good.
Jack,
To complete the logic in your thesis (as I read it), homosexuality=faithlessness.
No, that was not Mogget’s analysis. And I would not characterize my logic that way. The way I view Paul’s passage is,
faithlessness–>social ills, which here includes homosexual behavior.
MaNahvu–
First of all, let’s be clear that I am not responsible for what fundies and other morons do with this passage. I am quite clear on the historical context in which it was created, and quite clear on how that context has shifted.
So spare me the guilt, the theological hair-splitting about “just unnatural,” and comparison with all the other sins. Yes, I know. I’ve read it all. On both sides.
In historical context, Paul condemned homosexual behavior as a manifestion of a failure to know God.
We don’t live in his historical context. How shall we handle it? I no expert, but I’m pretty sure it’s not by playing patsy with the critical reading.
Mogget
Whoops! I intended no offence. In fact I should not have even included your screen name in my analysis above. I was intending to build upon or add to your comments. I highly value your comments.
MaNahvu–
I’m glad to hear your thoughts. I actually think we agree, on what’s important — that that passage ought never be used against homosexuals.
And it is ironic that a passage which forms a piece of such a sublime argument on the universal need for grace gets so often turned against folks by others who are just as needy when it comes to salvation!
Now I dunno about others, but for myself, I prefer to confront the bigots. But maybe that’s just my bloodthirsty ways…
MaNahvu,
Sorry for the mixup.
Mogget,
I find it ironic that you consider all who read the scriptures differently than you do to be morons and bigots.
Jack,
Whereas, the proponents of homosexuality tend to justify it as something “natural†if not good.
Yes, this is what the gay community has been saying for years. Do they feel this way because they simply want to sin and fight against God? Or can we allow the possibility that they may have personal insight into the nature of homosexuality that Paul did not possess?
I hesitate to criticize Paul, but his assertion, that homosexual activity results from a lack of faith, simply does not reflect the real life experience of millions of people all over the world who are devoted to their God, yet discover that they are not attracted to the opposite sex. In fact, to apply Paul’s understanding to gay people who love and honor God, only deepens their pain and estrangement with God.
Jack,
Sorry to sound so strong. My point was that I don’t appreciate the use of this scripture to hurt people.
Really good question, Kim.
MahNahvu,
For the record–
I am convinced that many homosexuals serve the Lord with all their hearts while carrying the burden of not being able to reconcile what, to them, seems to be a natural sexual inclination with what is deemed appropiate by the church. Though I am not convinced that SSA is inborn (as I do not believe that there is sufficient data to make a clear case for it), I have no doubt that in most cases SSA has a very early onset and therefore can become almost integral, as it were, to one’s core identity.
That said, as it relates to the topic at hand, All I can say is that the scriptures and modern counsel on the subject still hold sway on my opinions. I think it has become all too easy of late to blame all on nature. (and I do blame quite a bit on nature!) We thereby relenquishing ourselves of the responsibility we have to work against the appetites of the flesh (even if only to bridle them) however “natural” they may be. We claim that we have a “right” to who we are because of this modern strain of biological determinism.
As one who has suffered because of depression and anxiety I understand what it feels like to be abused by an ideology which has little tolerance for any weakness due to nature. Even so, I am not exempt from doing all within my power to live according to divine counsel. And this, as I see it, is what’s at the heart of this debate–that is, the proponents of SSA are quick to seek justification for such and slow to seek reconciliation with divine counsel on such.
Mogget,
I agree with you.
I think I need to make it clear that when I commented on MahNahvu’s path of logic regaring the passages in Romans, I was only trying to level the playing field–placing SSA on equal grounds with everything else Paul speaks of. It had nothing to do with a belief that homosexuality must always be a product of faithlessness. That would be silly.
A fairly good cross section of viewpoints on the Romans 1 passage, both conservative and liberal, can be found at this (mostly) neutral, Canadian site:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm
The link takes you to a short intro. There you can access the three sections:
Introduction: Overview, important words, Context
Interpretation by religious conservatives
Interpretation by religious liberals and others
When Paul wrote his letters to the members of the Church in different parts of the world, they were just that. Letters. They were not adopted as scripture until many years later when the Bible was being put together. I am certain that Paul never thought that his simple letters would be one day used as “scripture” to be infalable.
At the time Paul wrote the word orientation in relationship to gays was not used. When we talk of Gay Marriage, we are not talking of lust but of two people loving one another and commitment. This is NOT the kind of thing Paul is referring to.
The major problem with acceptance of Gay people in the Church is the belief of a Heavenly Father, and a Heavenly Mother. Where is there a place for Gay men in that picture.
However, one must realize that the concept of an average LDS family in the next life is one father and fifty or more wives. (even though the church does not practice poligamy presently…. it still believes in it for the next life). With so many women being taken by so few men… what will the rest of the men being doing? There will not be enough women to go around.
We have also heard of ministering angels who do are not married but can go to the celestial kingdom. Perhaps these spirits who come to earth with attractions to the same sex will help to solve the surplus of men left and be able to have special duties of service as ministering angels.
I find that making the church an “exclusive club” for hetro sexuals is not scriptural. Christ taught to love and accept all people the way they were created.
Thirty years ago, when I was a young man, the church taught that if one married that their same sex attractions would go away. THEY DO NOT! Now, 30 years later…. after numerious divorces, the church is presently teaching that they do not recomment “fast fix” marriages. What happened? Did Heavenly Father change his mind?
From a religion that accepted blacks Joseph Smith ordained black men to the priesthood), then rejected them (In 1858 Brigham Young forbid the ordination of Blacks) and then accepted them again in the last century….. from a church that had plural marriage where our former Church President married his last wife, in her mid teens when he was almost 50…. and divorced two other 17 years olds who were more interested in young men their own age….
I would say the church’s attitude is a bit hypocritical. They have spent millions of dollars of MY tithing money to fight against Gay people who want only the right to love one another… and to be loved and accepted for the way they were born.
I understand that the proclimation on the family was writen by commitees…and NOT received as revelation. One of those commitees was made of lawyers who made certain that there was nothing in it that would cause a law suit. Yet in spite of this, it is posted in churches, framed in members homes, and used to fight gay people’s rights. It is anything but pro family. I have personally helped two young men to stop taking their lives because they thought they were evil. I have seen young men turned out of their homes not because they were evil…. but because as a gay person, they were perceived to be evil. I have seen fathers turn against mothers and mothers turn against fathers because one was blaming the other for their childs same sex attraction. I have seen entire families leave the church because they could no longer support a church who would not accept thier child. This is NOT a proclimation for the family!!!!!
My prayer is that one day all of Heavenly Father’s children will be accepted the WAY THAT HE MADE THEM!
Kim:
I think you initial question has been answered. The fact that the comments have broken down to discussing whether or not Paul new what he was talking about show that the evidence is there in the scriptures, now if we can just explain it away.
I do not believe that there is much dispute about homosexual behavior being a sin according to the teachings of the church. There are many statements by modern day prophets that would support this. A search at lds.org will produce a lot. I remember several statements by SWK to this topic but will not drag them out here. So why the question? Is there a desire to pressure church leaders and members to change the doctrines and teachings of the church on this issue?
I would like to put in a plug for http://www.evergreeninternational.org. I feel this is a good reference that is consistent with church teachings and my personal beliefs and opinions. Of course, evergreen has their experts and the gay\lesbial activists have theirs and these groups of experts will disagree. For now I will stick with scriptures and modern prophets.
“There are many statements by modern day prophets that would support this. . . So why the question?”
I wanted to see what scriptural basis there was for this idea.
There have been many inconsistnacies with what modern prophets have said. In addition, Modern prophets, although we have been told that the Lord would not let a prophet lead the church astray, have made many large mistakes and poor judgements. They have made satements that simply do NOT reflect our Heavenly Father’s will. They are human and make mistakes like we all do.
I recently read a statement by the Prophet John Taylor who said that no government would ever be able to change the laws of poligamy because it was a higher law that should never be changed…. for God would not let any government rule against his laws. A few years later… the manifesto was made. The fundamentalist LDS faith use the statement made by John Taylor to make Wilford Woodruff into a fallen prophet.
Statements taught about gays are much the same. When I was young, I was taught that homosexuality was totally curable and that if one were faithful, and they got married, they would be able to overcome their same sex attraction. Dallin Oaks changed that teaching making it false. He mentioned in his article printed in the ensign several years ago… that it was quite likely that gay people were born with the tendancy to be gay, but that they should never the less be responcible for this tendancy. He then went on to say that the church did NOT support fast fix marriages…but celibacy!!!! This is totally the opposite of what modern day prophets taught 30 years ago… so I am afraid that None of you can support what the prophets teach about homo sexuality. If you support the brethren at the time of President Kimball… then you would not be able to support the brethren now. If you support the brethren now… then you can NOT support the brethren who taught at the time of President Kimball. People can be excommunicated for not supporting the brethren. Does that mean that the entire membership of the church should be excommunicated for not being able to support the brethren? To me what it means is that I can no longer trust what the brethren teach on this topic. Most especially since it does not go along with most research that has been found on this topic.
I have found that 95% of the members do not like to hear these things… because it threatens all the things that they have been taught all their lives. However, it is dangeriouls to follow the brethren in all they say. They DO make mistakes.. and they can sometimes make very large ones.
For example, when I was a young man, my mission president’s former councilor tried to have sex with me. Later on this man was made a stake president councilor and then even a patriarch. When he was sustained to be the Stake Patrarch many people in the audiance at that stake conference raised their hands in oposition. Ezra Taft Benson was presiding and he had personally nominated this man in addition to the names that had been suggested. President Benson knew this man well because he had served as a councelor to his son in law in the stake presidency. President Benson was President of the quarum of the 12 at the time of the stake conference mentioned. He told those who opposed this man that they must be mistaken… that this man was called by revelation. This man was ordained anyway. About 4 years ago, one of the hundreds of young men who he had tried to have sexual contact with did not go to a church leader to tell them (as I had done), but went directly to the police and made charges. I was contacted by the police to also testify for this. The man who was making the investigation for the police department told me that the church had done all that it could to cover up the truth of this story, so that they would not be implimented however, the former stake patriarch was excommunicated for life just the same. Why was it that a prophet of God could not believe the 12 or so people who raised their hands in opposition to his calling. Perhaps it was because this man had served as a councilor to his son in law in the stake presidancy and he knew him personally and had a hard time to believe it…. but then…. where was the revelation? Hundreds of lives and testimonies were effected by this lack of revelation.
So I am very carful now as to what I believe when the brethren talk. I have to be….otherwise I would have lost my testimoney all together. I am strong believer in NOT following the brethren blindly. If I believed that… then I would have had to loose my testimoney when I was sexually abused by my mission president’s former first councilor.
They have made some VERY serious mistakes….. and their teachings on same sex attracted people is one of their largest mistakes. This I am most certain of.. as are, I’m sure many members …. but most of them who feel that way will keep their mouths closed. Many keeping their mouths closed in pain and anguish.
The ‘therapies’ offered at Evergreen are barbaric. Anecdotal evidence of Evergreen’s participation with faculties at BYU in the torture of gay men is repulsive.
No self-respecting member of the world community would align itself with an organization which is such a front for hatred.
Thank you Rick! You said it better than I could have ever said it. Evergreen gives many LDS young men false hopes of being able to change, and then……..when they discover the terrible truth that they are not able to…. they start to punish themselves by feeding themselves with self hatred or being unworthy because they are too sinful. This is most unfortunate and has done a great deal of harm.
You mentioned BYU. It is most unfortunate that the view points of church leaders must be sustained by all findings at BYU. Anyone doing research at BYU has to be certain that whatever they find…. it must fall within the teachings of the church. THIS is NOT the way scientific evidance is suppose to be found!!!
“so I am afraid that None of you can support what the prophets teach about homo sexuality.”
Dean, following this logic, none of us can support what the prophets teach about anything. Everything could be wrong.
If someone doesn’t believe in the church altogether, that’s fine. But this is not a church where you can pick and choose which teachings you will believe or what commandments you will obey.
I fail to see any contradiction to what is being taught in the church today and what was being taught when SWK was the prophet. Things may be expressed a little more politically correct, and we may be admitting that we do not know all the answers in this area, but other than that what the church teaches on this topic is the same.
Please explain that the church has not changed its teachings to the thousands of men and their families who got married back in the days when the church taught it was a good thing to have “fast fix” marriages. (I was one of them) The husbands who endure their marriages instead of enjoying them, the wives who know something must be wrong because their husbands are not interested in warming up to them. Husbands who have left their families in pain. The wives and children left husbandless and fatherless. Tell them that the church has not changed their teachings… please. I do NOT think that they will agry with you. Their entire lives have been altered by a teaching that no longer is there. How do you expect these people to regain trust in what the prophets teach when they have lived a lie all their lives to their spouse because they were taught by a prophet that if they got married that things would get better…. and they did not!!!!! Then to find that ouuuups… sorry… we made a mistake!!!!! Please, I ask you…. explain that!!!
As for the logic about everything being wrong… it is not me who created the problem. If the teachings are not consitant … if they change… if mistakes are made.. then the problem exists. We asa members can not take the blame for what has happened … we only have to find ways to keep our faith in spite of it. That may be difficult for many…. it has been for me in the past few years.
However, one must realize that prophets are men… they are NOT God. They make human error. It is NOT our responcibility as members to follow like lost sheep. We must learn to question, to pray, and to think for ourselves. The problem is… as LDS people… if we do not follow each and every thing that the prophets say… we are concidered to be unworthy…. Apostates, we are not following the brethren. This, unfortunately does not alowe people to think for themselves. Even worse, when we do have doubts… when we have questions or worse yet answers that do not go along with the teachings… there seems to be little room for grey. The leaders tell us that we are entitled each to personal revelation. If there is a problem about a church doctrine, just pray about it. However… you better be sure that you get the right answer. When you are trying to find perfection with inperfect people… including prophets…. watch out. There will always be flaws. There have been flaws… and there will continue to be flaws. For those of us who find them, it is harder to hold on to our faith because of the teaching that we MUST follow like sheep every word that comes from the prophets. This, I find, is dangerious. Blind faith is NEVER a good thing.
Eric Russell said:”this is not a church where you can pick and choose which teachings you will believe or what commandments you will obey.”
Someone better inform the many ‘buffet believers’ who take what they like and ignore the rest of the church.
If you *have* to take it or leave it, I think you’ll be alienating many believers who have a testimony of the church but who do not agree with many of its’ historic or political leanings…
It seems to me that it is quite fashionable on the Bloggernacle to justify gay sin. Is that the case? I apologize if I am off base Kim, but the premise of this post seemed like you might be trying to avoid scriptural evidence rather than establish it. Again if this is not the case I am sorry.
But would it not be as valid for a mass murderer to say – I can’t help the way God made me, I have always had feelings of violence, I could not be happy if I did not murder? Why is justifying gay sin more compelling? I am not say they are equivalent by any means, just that the logic seems similar. I am not trying to be hateful here, just trying to understand.
Why do we not justify incest? Could a father not say – I have always been sexually attracted to my children, I can not help that God made me that way, the church should not teach that this is wrong? Why would this be logically different?
Why not justify not paying tithing, or violating the WoW, or the sabbath day? Why not justify stealing? Again, I am not saying that the seriousness of these sins are all equivalent. I have my sins too, but I do not justify them. I hope to be able to overcome them.
Some sins are more tempting than others. This may be very different for every individual. But just because I have a strong temptation for certain sins does not mean that my efforts should be made to justify them.
Once more Kim I do not want to imply that this is what you are doing, just that the direction of this post seems to have made me consider these questions.
“Someone better inform the many ‘buffet believers’ who take what they like and ignore the rest of the church.â€
Rick, they are informed nearly every General Conference and constantly throughout the scriptures. And in multiple SS/EQ/RS lessons throughout the year. Even in Primary.
Also, I don’t think the church asks you to believe anything other than what it asks you to believe. In other words, we are not asked to believe historic teachings that are no longer taught.
“For those of us who find them [flaws], it is harder to hold on to our faith because of the teaching that we MUST follow like sheep every word that comes from the prophets. This, I find, is dangerious.â€
Well Dean, look. This is really a tautology. Obviously, if you don’t believe that the Lord desires us to obey the commandments given us through the prophet, then you’re not going to believe that you need to obey the commandments given us through the prophet. The Lord is aware of the faults of his servants, yet he has still commanded us to obey the prophets. If we don’t believe that, why believe any of it?
“the premise of this post seemed like you might be trying to avoid scriptural evidence rather than establish it.”
That’s not the premise I wanted to establish. It just seemed odd to me that a doctrine that elicits such a strong stand from church leaders didn’t seem to have a very solid scriptural basis. I wanted to make sure I wasn’t off base here.
Eric, the whole problem is that although they’re reminded constantly, members still only stick with what they demm to be the important parts of the church’s teachings and ignore the rest.
If the chruch really cared about the all or nothing approach, they’d do something about it…but they don’t.
It’s just like many aspects of the church: plenty of lip service, but followthrough is lacking.
There are just 6 verses in the entire Bible that appear to condemn homosexuality.
• Genesis 19:1-3 – Actually condemns a lack of hospitality and homosexual gang rape. It does not condemn homosexuality as we know it.
• Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 – Refers to homosexual activity as a to’evah, “ritually improper”, a command given to the priests, from the Holiness Code. This set of restrictive proscriptions were “fulfilled in Christ,” Includes kosher laws and commandments to burn prostitutes and stone to death women caught in adultry.
• Romans 1:18-22 – The crime is idolotry and faithlessness, not homosexuality. The mention of homosexual activity is secondary. It is described as “not ordinary”, or “unnatural” behavior.
• 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 Tim. 1:8-11 – Included in the list of behaviors that will disqualify a person from entering the kingdom of God, are two words, for which the meaning of the original Greek has been lost. Translations vary widely. One seems to imply effeminacy or softness. The other, often thought to be coined by Paul himself, reads literally “man-bedders”. Conservative Christians think these words refer to homosexuals, both male and female. Liberal Christians see the terms pointing to male homosexual rape, sexual slavery, or child abuse. These are not conclusive texts from which to castigate and marginalize an entire segment of society.
There you have it. Six verses out of 31,174.
Now consider that there are 321 verses in the Bible that condone slavery. Why don’t we see committed Christians carrying signs and banners that say “protect the institution of slavery” instead of “God Hates Fags!”
Kim,
I do not think you are very far off base. There is little in the scriptures that are substantially against same sex attraction. I have read many things about this… mostly , I admit, from non member bible scholars. Many … even most that I have read, conclude that the scripture in the old testiment indicate that inhospitality… not sex. Another interpritation I have heard which would work for both old and new testiment, is that in the days of the Bible, same sex attraction as it is referred to in the Bible is not the same as it is today. Now many are seeking monogomus relationships… loving and fullfilling relationships. The scriptures in the Bible seem to be talking about sex for the pleasure of sex… lust…. simply using someone for pleasure. This would be sin no matter wheather it was same sex or different sex orientations. It is VERY interesting that there is nothing in the Book of Mormon about same sex attraction, nor in the doctrine of covenents or the Pearl of Great Price. There is, however some very strong scriptures against poligamy in the Book of Mormon!
As for my views on not believing all the prophets say on this subject… I must say that THIS has hurt me profoundly. I shapped my entire life by following the leaders blindly … even though I felt I was gay since birth… or most certainly from the age of two when I had my first gay thoughts….. I felt that I WAS WRONG…. and that somehow the brethren were right… but I would wait until the next life to have all my questions answered.
Then, one day, a well meaning friend gave me an Ensign with an article in by Dallin Oaks. As I have mentioned more than once previously… Elder Oaks mentions that we could possibly be BORN with the tendancy to be gay!!!!! In addition… he said that we should NOT have fast fix marriages and should remain celibate!!!
I WAS LIVID!!!!! I had married expressly on the premisis that I was following the brethren… who said if I just got married and kept the commandments…. my homo sexuality would vanish! It never did… but I just felt it must be MY fault…. I must be doing something wrong.
It was at this point that after 40 years of faithful attendance and being a temple worthy High Priest, I stopped going to church and stopped paying my tithing. My entire life had been effected by prophets that I had followed…. only to find out that they changed their minds…. The major reconpense from this is that I did have two beautiful daughter that I raised by myself from the age of 3 and 5, plus my chinese foster son who was one of the boat children from Viet Nam.
I did not ask for this to happen. My faith in a shambles… and it still is.. I now call myself a cultual Mormon. I feel cheeted, lied to, and now that i am exed… left out with not a hope to ever return… and the desire to return deminished by what I personally see is false teaching. HOW COULD THE BRETHREN TEACH SOMETHING LIKE THAT ….. ON MARRIAGE…. ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT TOPICS… AND THEN CHANGE THEIR MINDS!!!!!!!
As mentioned in another section, I am presently married to a wonderful man. He is kind, well educated, and comes from a good family.
Now then…. there is the other aspect of being gay that perhaps none of you have thought of. People act the way they are treated. If you treat someone like a slut.. they will become one. A gay LDS person … especially in my day… had no options to meet other LDS gays in a church setting. So…. instead of finding that one special person in a setting where it is the goal to NOT have sex before marriage… they are forced to seek that special someone in the harsh cold gay environment. So many of the LDS gay men and lesbians loose their chastity not because they really are seeking for that.. but because there are so few alternatives for them.
It is becoming better.. but not because of churches.. but because gay people themselves are creating better environmental places for gay men to meet.
In any event… I now some gay men who were exed after being faithful to each other for years. When their Bishop discovered that they were more than just room mates… they were thrown out.
Outside of the scriptures, Quinn, who was a church historian for BYU and then exed partially at least because he is gay.. has written a book about LDS gays. He mentioned that the first president of the Primary Association was a Lesbian… and her secretary (I believe it was that) who later became her councilor… was her partner. They slept in the same bed… and they openly expressed their love for each other.
One of the Smith’s who was a patriarch to the church was gay. And the list goes on. There are and have been many wonderful members who are and were gay. Quinn was brave enough to write a book about some of them. If you would like to find more about LDS and gays… look up Affirmation Mormon and go to their reading and educational section.
So Dean, may I ask some questions?
Did you love the woman you married? If the answer is no, why marry her? No one forced you to marry someone you did not love.
So why did you leave this woman to be with someone you were more attracted to? How is this different from a man who, when his wife gets older and less attractive leaves her for some other woman he finds more attractive?
Marriage and life are about more than sex and attraction.
Thank you MahNahvu for your comment. It really sums up how I feal on the issue.
Thank you Eric for your questions.
When one is gay.. and you have been taught all your life that marriage is the Heavenly Father’s plan to the celestial kingdom…. one thirsts to have all that the gospel tells us we should have if we are worthy. I was so obsessed with wanting to find a wife… and to be a husband … to be like everyone else… that I was more in love with love than with my wife. That is not to say that I did not love her….. but I did NOT love her the way a man should love a woman…
The first time we layed together.. there was something missing… there was ALWAYS something missing. With my present partner…. everything seems so totally normal for me. Everything is in place except for exceptance from my former faith.
I have met several LDS gay men who have left their wives and they still love them…. and their wives still love their former husbands… but not in the same way. It has been hard on them. Many are still very close and good friends.
These men do NOT leave their wives because there is someone more atractive… but because they are not capable of loving her the way a man should love a wife. All of the ones I have talked to who have left their wives did NOT leave their wives because they had met someone else…. but because both the wife and husband could feel something was simply NOT working… something was missing!
Putting it in a different perspective, Eric, pretend that same sex attraction was the normal….and hetro sexual behavior was forbiden. You had tried and tried to love someone of the same sex… but some how it just would not come…. but you HAD to try it… because EVERYONE else said that that was the way YOU should be.. and YOU wanted to be just like everyone else… so …. you got married to another guy.. and you started to have sex with him… but things just did NOT click. Your partner noticed that things were just not working the way that they should no matter what he did to try to stimulate you…. and although you loved each other.. there was just no passion… something was deffinately missing. Sex is not bad… it is one of the basic ways of expresing our love to our spouse.
I hope that this answers your question. I am not sure what else I can say to help you understand from this side of the situation.
As for my experience, I did not leave my wife. After 6 years of marriage… when she was 30 and I was 34, she passed away from Cancer. My children were ages 3 and 5 when she left us. One year after she died I took on a Chinese foster child who was born and raised in Viet Nam.. and escaped by himself without his family on a boat. He was one of the boat children. I raised my three children alone although my foster son, who spoke not a word of English, was already high school age. My two daughters are still faithful. One daughter is president of her ward relief society… she supports her husband in his calling as second councelor to his Stake President. My other daughter just graduated from University as a French Immersion Teacher. She has been through the temple and loves the church. My foster son, although baptised by his own choice when in his teens.. is no longer active. He is married and in addition to my four grandchildren, I have three beautiful foster grandchildren. My foster son is a certified public accountant. He stayed with me until he graduated from bussiness school.
I might add that my children all knew I was gay when they were in there teens. My grandchildren are beeing told as they turn into teen agers as well.
I feel blessed to have such good children and grand children who love me just the way I am…. and they love my same sex spouse as well…. they have to…. he is wonderful!
As mentioned in another note that I wrote in another section.. I attend the Community of Christ now… which is the former Reorganized Church. Although it is not the same as the LDS church…. it is the closest that I could find and feel welcomed without conditions. They have been more than accepting and kind to me.
I hope that that answers all your questions Eric.
I am sorry to hear about your wife. I am also embarrased by assuming that something more similar to adultry happened, it may not have been the case. I hope everyone understands that I was mainly trying to make logical arguments and ask logical questions. I think you should also be glad to explain yourself a little more. Your explanation make you more ‘real’ to me now.
I have no idea why some people have same gender attraction. I do believe and try to defend the teachings of my church. I continue to have a difficult time understanding why this area of sin should be any different from other types. They all have their lure that affect different people differently. There are certain sins that if left to my own nature I would probably pursue, but deny myself of these things because of the teachings of my church. I believe that better long term happiness will result. I believe that would be the same with all sins and with all people.
Eric: “I continue to have a difficult time understanding why this area of sin should be any different from other types.”
I think many people question whether it really is sinful.
Homosexuality as a sexual orientation has not been addressed in the scriptures. The biblical writers appear to only speak of the behavior, which, when it is mentioned at all, seems to occur only in the context of promiscuity, prostitution, pederasty or rape, not in the context of love, honor and faith. Similarly, LDS leaders have not been willing to believe that a homosexual orientation even exists. So it is a condition for which there is no spiritual paradigm, no cohesive theology, no pat answers, either in mortality or thereafter. Many people, who seek to find a place for homosexual orientation in religion, question the validity of homosexual behavior as sin, when the prohibition appears to be based on observation of the behavior in a sinful setting, and not in a faithful, committed, spiritual context.
Similarly, for much of the 20th century mental health professionals believed that homosexuality was a mental and emotional pathology. Yet all research on homosexuality as pathology before 1957 was based only on samples of people in mental wards, military prisons, or those already in treatment. No wonder everyone thought homosexuals were all sick, only sick people had been evaluated. It wasn’t until Evelyn Hooker’s famous study published in 1957 that mental health researchers tested samples from people well-adapted in society. Hooker’s study and many others during the 60s and 70s converged at the conclusion that homosexuality evidenced no pathological characteristics that were significantly different from heterosexuals. This evidence led the American Psychiatric Association, in 1973, to remove homosexuality from its official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders.
Given the turnaround of the scientific and psychological communities on the issue, and the weak evidence in scripture, I think people do wonder if the “sin factor” is really the “ick factor” and the result of a lack of insight by church leaders and society regarding homosexuality.
This is a great pattern to follow. If you want to justify a sin, then ignore modern day prophets, deliberately mis-interpret scripture (just saying it doesn’t say what it says will do), and rely on the sure foundation of something like subjective applications of psycological research and theory.
So if a heterosexual with lust issues thinks pornography will make him happy, just ignore modern day prophets, claim the scriptures don’t specifically prohibit it (and if someone finds anything just explain it away) and find some ‘expert’ who says its good for you and pow, a justified sin. Just insert any sin you want into this pattern and live however you choose. It’s almost like having your own religion – or no religion at all.