Close Topic Options

Gay Mormon? - Page 6

These are the references to homosexuality in the scriptures according to the Topical Guide: Gen. 19:5; Lev. 18:22; Deut. 23:17; Isa. 3:9; Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 1:7; 2 Ne. 13:9. These can be sorted into 4 categories: 1. The account of Sodom; 2. Leviticus 3. Mentions of Sodom; and 4. The Gospels.

Disregarding my opinion on the story of Sodom mentioned previously, the story is far from explicit in the actual reason for Sodom being destroyed. The account suggests that the men visiting Lot want Lot to send the visiting angels out so that the men can rape them. God's vengeance was not because of homosexual acts, it was for disrespect and vile lust. The sin was an attitude, not an activity. None of the scriptures that mention this incident in passing do anything to suggest anything different from this analysis. A man who rapes another man in prison is not a homosexual; He is a rapist and a predominator.

The laws laid out in Leviticus were specific to the Hebrew covenant and are not applicable now.

The mentions of men "defiling themselves with mankind" in the Gospels are the only scriptures valid in the argument that the scriptures condemn homosexuality. However, anyone who knows the history of the compilation of the Bible would know that it is an unreliable source for determining true doctrine. The bible message was selected by an uninspired, politically-bent group of men centuries after the death of the last apostle. No portion of the New Testament is doctrinal without the support of modern revelation.

And has there been a single revelatory word since the Restoration on the subject of homosexuality? Is there any official revelation denouncing it? I challenge anyone to find just one. The Book of Mormon is silent (Minus the one mention of Sodom in Nephi which is a quote of Isaiah and not Nephi's words). So is the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. As far as I know, Joseph Smith never mentioned it. In the restored church, there is no Doctrine against Homosexuality. All we have is the tradition we've borrowed from the apostate Christianity.

Mormon Gay

Before I find any quotes, I would like clarification.

In my opinion, same sex attraction is not necessarily a sin but homosexual activity it is.

Are you referring to same saxe attraction or homosexual activity or both?

Gay Mormon? Studies Doctrine Mormon

I'm referring to both of them: same sex attraction and homosexual activity.

Page 6 Mormon Gay

TheMark:

There have been plenty statements about homosexuality as a sin:

To name a few...

Mormon Gay

I mean to say, is there any reference to homosexuality that states that it is an actual revelation from God.

In comparison, there were many opinions stated by earlier church leaders that explain why the doctrine prohibiting blacks from the priesthood is in place. I don't think any of those leaders ever suspected that there would be a later revelation officially giving blacks the previously denied priesthood. For over a century, the opinion that blacks should not have the priesthood and opinions supporting it were taught similar to how the doctrine of homosexual acts being a sin is taught today. The pamphlets put forth by the church, I don't think, are "official" revelations. If there is a quote supporting that fact, I'm willing to hear it. There's a big difference between "inspiration" and "revelation."

If I'm mistaken about anything, please correct me. I'm on this site to learn as much as I am to give my opinion.

Gay Mormon?

Themark aren't you mixing up apples from oranges? (With the issue of blacks and the priesthood)

Are you saying the prophet has to say the words "Thus say the Lord" for you to believe is a sin?

Gay Mormon - Page 6

In comparing homosexuality and blacks in the priesthood, you are in fact comparing apples to oranges, the reason blacks were refused the priesthood was a matter of worthiness and not a matter of any particular sin. Homosexuality is a matter of sin. I would also like to clarify what I mean by worthiness, I'm not saying that blacks were inferior or bad people, I do have faith that god had some purpose in restricting the priesthood, and I'm sure there is a reason why they were restricted, just as I'm sure there is some purpose in condemning homosexuality and maybe at some point in the future god will lift that condemnation or maybe not. I don't know. I think it is a waste of time to question the prophets if you have a testimony of them and it can lead to apostasy.

Gay Mormon Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 6

I don't believe I am mixing apples and oranges. My point is that I believe the two have a common factor which is that the church leadership has expounded explicitly that blacks would never have the priesthood and the exact reasons why they wouldn't, and the church leadership has expounded explicitly why Homosexuals should not have intercourse with each other. Obviously, the supposed fact that blacks were inherently unworthy of the Priesthood has been repealed. It isn't doctrine (It really isn't by the way). It was only thought to be doctrine. I have no reason to believe that it is impossible that the doctrine against homosexual acts will have the same result.

I'm saying that there must be piece of revelation that vanquishes all doubt that the current attitude of the church is not merely the same sort of cultural attitude that kept the priesthood from the blacks. "Thus saith the Lord" would help. I'm debating with myself over whether the Proclamation on the Family qualifies.

Is there nothing worse than apostasy?

Here is something that I consider to be a Divine Truth:

When a doctrine is found to be out of harmony with one's experience of the Creation, that one is left with a choice. Either he must choose that the experience of the Creation is somehow false or he must choose that the doctrine is somehow false. One is liberty, the other bondage. I do not believe the church's doctrine of homosexuality is in harmony with many people's (Including Homosexuals themselves) experience of the Creation. This has resulted in the apostasy and liberalization of a great number of Saints. Are they wrong?