Did Jesus ever say anything regarding homosexuality?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've read the standard works all 4 books of scripture and never saw Jesus ever mention His stance on homosexuals, like if they're sinning or condemned or if He loves them. I haven't seen Jesus' position one way or the other. And I've never heard Joseph Smith or the pioneer prophets mention anything about homosexuals. It seems the main mention of homosexuals is from Spencer W Kimball and on so is the church's stance on homosexuality a modern day prophet thing or has it been the stance forever and I just haven't noticed? I'd love references.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget: " 38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

OT revelation (and hence Christ) makes a very clear stance on homosexuality.  In Latter-days, there have been many stance made, such as the "Proclamation to the World".  I recommend https://mormonandgay.lds.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Don't forget: " 38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

OT revelation (and hence Christ) makes a very clear stance on homosexuality.  In Latter-days, there have been many stance made, such as the "Proclamation to the World".  I recommend https://mormonandgay.lds.org

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You get some references from LDS leaders in the early-to-mid 20th century, but nothing that I'm aware of before that and nothing from Jesus as recorded in the NT.  Paul, of course, condemns it very strongly; and with regard to early LDS history it's not that people were OK with it, it's that there was such a strong consensus against it that no one thought it was necessary to condemn it further (same reason modern GAs aren't spending a lot of time condemning slavery.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like with every sin, it's about being cut off from blessings.  Aside from promiscuity, the fact that our greatest reward is eternal progressions, something not biologically possible (and presumably spiritually possible), it makes no sense for the Savior or any of his servants to promote a life choice that hinders our eternal potential.   That said, culturally, we as Mormons recommend and even requires for membership (and covenant) lots of things that limit our life choices, from drinking coffee, to premarital sex, to wearing modest clothing.  It's still a choice.  if you want to covenant with the Lord, there are certain obligations that must be met.  And although I think the Bible makes the position clear on homosexuality (even if not directly addressed by Jesus in his mortal ministry), you won't find specifics on the Word of Wisdom in the Bible either, but it is still required to covenant with God and His church revealed through His prophets.

Edited by bytebear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

I've read the standard works all 4 books of scripture and never saw Jesus ever mention His stance on homosexuals, like if they're sinning or condemned or if He loves them. I haven't seen Jesus' position one way or the other. And I've never heard Joseph Smith or the pioneer prophets mention anything about homosexuals. It seems the main mention of homosexuals is from Spencer W Kimball and on so is the church's stance on homosexuality a modern day prophet thing or has it been the stance forever and I just haven't noticed? I'd love references.

 

It is important to understand the mission and purpose of the Messiah when we attempt to decipher his message.  For example Jesus said he did not come into the world to condemn the world but that through him the world would be redeemed.   In essence he did not come to tells us every little detail as to why the world is corrupt or to point out why the “ways” of the world are not profitable.   He came into the world to tell us of the way of truth and light.  He came to show us the way to exaltation and eternal life (Celestial).

Part of his message is that any deviation from the path of truth and light will result in a damnation or limit to what light and truth a person can enjoy in eternity.  One element of eternal truth and light is the marriage of a man and a woman – this is the only eternal covenant by which mankind can have increase – or if you will – propagate the divine species of G-ds.  

It does not appear to me that the priority of Jesus in his role as the Messiah is explain perversions – his role is to teach correct principles and have us govern ourselves.  It is my personal belief that G-d will allow us to govern ourselves and indulge all manner of pleasures as we so desire or are inclined to find attraction to or orientation with.  It is also my personal belief that any person by the sure force of their will can determine what they will be – including their sexual orientation – no one or any exterior thing can determine what a person is or will become – each person determines their path – this is the great gift of agency.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

It is important to understand the mission and purpose of the Messiah when we attempt to decipher his message.  For example Jesus said he did not come into the world to condemn the world but that through him the world would be redeemed.   In essence he did not come to tells us every little detail as to why the world is corrupt or to point out why the “ways” of the world are not profitable.   He came into the world to tell us of the way of truth and light.  He came to show us the way to exaltation and eternal life (Celestial).

Part of his message is that any deviation from the path of truth and light will result in a damnation or limit to what light and truth a person can enjoy in eternity.  One element of eternal truth and light is the marriage of a man and a woman – this is the only eternal covenant by which mankind can have increase – or if you will – propagate the divine species of G-ds.  

It does not appear to me that the priority of Jesus in his role as the Messiah is explain perversions – his role is to teach correct principles and have us govern ourselves.  It is my personal belief that G-d will allow us to govern ourselves and indulge all manner of pleasures as we so desire or are inclined to find attraction to or orientation with.  It is also my personal belief that any person by the sure force of their will can determine what they will be – including their sexual orientation – no one or any exterior thing can determine what a person is or will become – each person determines their path – this is the great gift of agency.

 

The Traveler

Yes, whereas it is the gift of agency to choose the right, it also is the mechanism that rewards or damns us in eternity. Agency allows us our own decision making ability. But choices according to ones own will and pleasure do not justify  nor define morality. How one chooses sexual orientation is not a green light to eternal life. We cannot justify the want of the flesh over commandments. The commandment is that man should leave his mother and father to find their own help meet and mulitply and fill the earth. Their lawful wedding unite them as "one flesh". This is the command for man to pair with a woman not for men to be with other men or women to find other women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 If we love the lord, we will condemn homosexuality desires for the Lords will. This is what love is. Abandoning your desires for the Lords no matter how strong they are.

The desires of the flesh are unquenchable, but the blessings of the lord are eternal. It all comes down to faith. All fleshly desires can be abandoned knowing that giving into them is the difference between eternal salvation and eternal damnation. We should set our sights on the kingdom of God and not pleasures that are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. It is all about enduring to the end. Each of us has blockades which stop us getting closer to God. 

He who is the tree with its roots deeply grounded in the earth, unwavering in the mighty storm, will grow up towards heaven and inherit eternal life.

Edited by Ronin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2016 at 2:26 PM, Zarahemla said:

I've read the standard works all 4 books of scripture and never saw Jesus ever mention His stance on homosexuals, like if they're sinning or condemned or if He loves them. I haven't seen Jesus' position one way or the other. And I've never heard Joseph Smith or the pioneer prophets mention anything about homosexuals. It seems the main mention of homosexuals is from Spencer W Kimball and on so is the church's stance on homosexuality a modern day prophet thing or has it been the stance forever and I just haven't noticed? I'd love references.

I think He taught about it in the form of keeping the commandments, most obviously not committing fornication or adultery, and extolling the virtues of marriage to the point of describing Himself as a Bridegroom and the Church as a bride. Human sexuality is fluid and individual expression can fall along a wide scale of extremes, and sexuality is not addressed in scripture. But the covenants for the sons and daughters of God are concrete.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning marriage, Jesus quoted Moses, saying that a man leaves his mother and father (cut the apron strings boys!), clings to his wife (marriage), and then the two become one flesh. This means no messing around before marriage, or outside of marriage, and that marriage is between a man and his wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I find it utterly ridiculous that LDS would even question the Lords stance on homosexuality. With so many witnesses by prophets and apostles in these latter days against homosexuality, for one to deny such is to deny everything about our religion and beliefs.

I don't see anyone doing that here.  If you're referring to something seen elsewhere, I agree, it does seem ridiculous.  (Though I will note that sometimes we don't do the greatest job of teaching from the positive doctrine as opposed to the negative sin, and we often don't do a good job of connecting the two.  By "we" I mean teaching at a local level, particularly teaching teens.  That said, I think we're quickly getting better at this.)

As for this thread, perhaps, rather than questioning it, some here are looking for help in how to teach this doctrine to others not of our faith (some of whom do indeed question it and go to great lengths to find any other interpretation).  Or are simply wondering.

Note: No one seems to have mentioned it, but homosexuality is pretty strongly condemned in the Old Testament ("pretty strongly" might be an understatement).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if I should enter the discussion or not. This discussion always seems to generate more heat than light, so I am not optimistic that this discussion will be any different. At the risk of being a glutton for punishment, I will venture a couple of pushbacks.

15 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I find it utterly ridiculous that LDS would even question the Lords stance on homosexuality. With so many witnesses by prophets and apostles in these latter days against homosexuality, for one to deny such is to deny everything about our religion and beliefs.

Do we really see this question as so central to our theology -- to our "gospel" -- as to make it an ultimate litmus test?

On 11/23/2016 at 1:19 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Concerning marriage, Jesus quoted Moses, saying that a man leaves his mother and father (cut the apron strings boys!), clings to his wife (marriage), and then the two become one flesh. This means no messing around before marriage, or outside of marriage, and that marriage is between a man and his wife.

I have often wondered if it must necessarily follow from "God approves of and encourages heterosexual marriage" that "God forbids homosexual marriage." It doesn't always seem to me that it must.

On 11/22/2016 at 5:36 PM, Ronin said:

 If we love the lord, we will condemn homosexuality desires for the Lords will. This is what love is. Abandoning your desires for the Lords no matter how strong they are.

The desires of the flesh are unquenchable, but the blessings of the lord are eternal. It all comes down to faith. All fleshly desires can be abandoned knowing that giving into them is the difference between eternal salvation and eternal damnation. We should set our sights on the kingdom of God and not pleasures that are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. It is all about enduring to the end. Each of us has blockades which stop us getting closer to God. 

He who is the tree with its roots deeply grounded in the earth, unwavering in the mighty storm, will grow up towards heaven and inherit eternal life.

A couple of thoughts on this one.

1) I find it interesting that the Church has been very clear over the last few years that homosexual "desires" are not sinful or wrong in and of themselves, emphasizing that behavior is what is sinful. Do we believe that God is asking homosexuals to completely abandon their desires?

2) In many ways, this is the explanation that I have the hardest time with, because this one hits the closest to home for me. I mostly object to the way we make this a "desires of the flesh" are somehow incompatible with spirituality and salvation. If it is good for LGBT to abandon their desires, then it also seems to follow that it is good for me to give up my sexual desires. I am not sure that I am ready to give up my sexuality. If I am not expected to abandon my desires, then why am I allowed to pursue my sexual desires while a few others are denied that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I think the word they use is "attraction", and I think there's a difference.

2) One is ordained of God and will lead to exaltation (if the appropriate laws are obeyed), the other is not and will not.  That is the simple difference.  Further, just to be clear, the minute one acts on any sexual desire outside the bounds of marriage as defined by God (or even unrighteously within it), the difference disappears - thus, depending on exactly what your desires are (and I don't want to know), you may very well be expected to abandon them.

There is no shortage of things we are expected to abandon.  IMO, same-sex attraction is just one of them.

Strictly from my own perspective, given the Plan of Salvation and the doctrine of eternal families, it is as obvious (to me) as can be why sex between a lawfully married man and woman is not sin (apply caveats here), and sex between anyone else under any other conditions is sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MrShorty It's not just that the LORD approves of heterosexual marriage. That is the created order. Genesis 2 is not part of the detailing of Moses' law. It is the story of creation. This is how God intended it to be. Even with the compromises, such as Moses allowing for relatively easy divorce, no Jew ever proposed permitting same-sex marriage. Then there is how these marriages have played out in actual practice. Lesbian marriages fail at 700% the rate of heterosexual ones. Gay ones survive better because most are "open" relationships. The spouse is simply the one that his partner goes home to.  "What happens outside stays outside."  None of this meshes with God's order for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

It's not just that the LORD approves of heterosexual marriage. That is the created order. Genesis 2 is not part of the detailing of Moses' law. It is the story of creation. This is how God intended it to be. Even with the compromises, such as Moses allowing for relatively easy divorce, no Jew ever proposed permitting same-sex marriage.

My reactions to using the creation narrative to defend this go down two different paths -- both starting from trying to decide exactly how we should read the creation narrative. If we read it that what God created is exactly how it was intended, how much growth and development should we allow beyond the initial creation? The Amish decided 19th century was as far as we should go. In many other areas, we have gone far beyond what God initially created. Other Christians don't need to deal with the question of polygamy, but, for LDS, God created one man and one woman, but later allowed and/or commanded one man and many women. It seems clear to me that, in other ways, our reading of the creation does not limit us strictly to the conditions as God created them. I don't understand why this specific part of the creation is non-violate.

The other part of my reaction to the creation narrative is simply that I don't know how literally to take the creation narrative. I am way beyond any kind of "6 24 hour days 6000 years ago" young-earth creationist reading of the narrative. I find myself with mostly a figurative reading, trying to understand which parts are literal and which parts are real, and how it meshes with how life seems to have "evolved" from simpler forms into what we have today. When I think through all of that, I tend to have difficulty concluding that God condemns homosexuality as vehemently as we do.

Of course, it is not all about whether I understand it or not, or demanding that God provide and explanation. God can command what He wants without proffering detailed explanations. The challenge boils down to one of discerning the will of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, zil said:

1) I think the word they use is "attraction", and I think there's a difference.

I would be interested to understand what we think the difference is between attraction and desire. I'm not sure how much of the difference I see in these two concepts is real and how much is semantic and how much is degree.

6 hours ago, zil said:

thus, depending on exactly what your desires are (and I don't want to know), you may very well be expected to abandon them.

Without going into all of my own frustrated desires, maybe let's start with this one -- Does

On 11/22/2016 at 5:36 PM, Ronin said:

All fleshly desires can be abandoned knowing that giving into them is the difference between eternal salvation and eternal damnation.

suggest that we should aspire to and embrace and encourage sexless marriages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MrShorty said:

1) I find it interesting that the Church has been very clear over the last few years that homosexual "desires" are not sinful or wrong in and of themselves, emphasizing that behavior is what is sinful. Do we believe that God is asking homosexuals to completely abandon their desires?

I think if we parse those statements very carefully, the gist of them is not that the desires themselves are "right" or non-problematic.  Rather, the point of such statements is that one is not per se sinful merely for having those desires.  Once we start entertaining and cultivating those desires, and hoping--not for deliverance from them, but for their eventual fulfillment--that's where sin enters. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Attraction appears to be a chemical reaction which comes and goes and over which we don't have much, if any, control.  Desires are something which can change through the Atonement. (I have personally experienced this, though I decline to share any details here.  Suffice it to say that God changed my heart.  My part of this was to pray daily for this change, for about 2-3 years.)  I will add that the scriptures include examples of people whose hearts had changed, that they had no more desire to sin.  (See also the post JAG just made.)

2) I see no reason to "embrace and encourage sexless marriages".  The same logic I mentioned earlier, and the same doctrines, make it equally obvious to me that sex within the bounds the Lord has defined is good - because it is in harmony with those doctrines - and necessary to at least one of them.

(That a desire can be abandoned does not mean it should be.  Whether it should be depends upon whether or not it is a righteous desire.  I could abandon my desire to serve the Lord, but that would be a bad idea.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning the creation story, I'm not too concerned over whether the earth is 6,000 years old (YEC), 30,000 + (day/age theory), or billions. However, the creation does tell us what his sinless world looked like. Jesus cited the same verses in his defense of marriage (and opposition to easy divorce). My non-LDS view of polygamy is that, like divorce, God permitted it. It's not his ideal, imho, but it carries much more support than same-sex unions do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2016 at 0:05 AM, prisonchaplain said:

Concerning the creation story, I'm not too concerned over whether the earth is 6,000 years old (YEC), 30,000 + (day/age theory), or billions. However, the creation does tell us what his sinless world looked like. Jesus cited the same verses in his defense of marriage (and opposition to easy divorce). My non-LDS view of polygamy is that, like divorce, God permitted it. It's not his ideal, imho, but it carries much more support than same-sex unions do.

I think it depends on how one reads the creation narrative, and the devil can be in the details. Perhaps I allow too much secular influence, but the frequently disputed secular consensus seems to be that there is a biological/genetic/embryonic element to homosexuality. If God created mankind, did his creation include these biologic/genetic/embryonic factors that predispose one towards homosexuality? I also recognize that there is a significant discussion to be had around some of the problems with the "God made me this way" philosophy. For example, this thread:

I expressed some of my difficulties with discerning how this applies to homosexuality there. I'm still wrestling with the questions around deciding which parts of human sexuality are good, bad, and neutral, and I find that the creation narrative does not really help me understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2016 at 11:03 PM, zil said:

2) I see no reason to "embrace and encourage sexless marriages".  The same logic I mentioned earlier, and the same doctrines, make it equally obvious to me that sex within the bounds the Lord has defined is good - because it is in harmony with those doctrines - and necessary to at least one of them.

I sometimes wish I understood our doctrines and theology around sex with as much certainty as you do. After years of trying to understand it -- perhaps because much of my own journey has involved unlearning the "good girl syndrome" things (as they apply to boys and men), I still find myself confused by our rhetoric and dialog around sexuality and continue to see things like this that I find contradictory. Perhaps part of the reason I am "pushing back" on this topic is an effort to find more clarity on this and similar topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2016 at 10:57 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I think if we parse those statements very carefully, the gist of them is not that the desires themselves are "right" or non-problematic.  Rather, the point of such statements is that one is not per se sinful merely for having those desires.  Once we start entertaining and cultivating those desires, and hoping--not for deliverance from them, but for their eventual fulfillment--that's where sin enters. 

Your post reminded me of a short scripture study I did years ago (I don't know if I have mentioned it on this forum). I wanted to better understand our concept of lust, since it always seemed to be conflated with the concept of sexual desire. I started that study in the LDS Topical Guide under "lust". Interestingly, the first entry pointed to Ps 78, which has nothing to do with sex. Ps. 78 contains recollections (for lack of a better word) around the Exodus, and the concept of "lust" appears in here in reference to the Israelites desire for food. One reference leads to Ex. 16 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/16?lang=eng, where the Israelites complain about a lack of food, and God introduces them to manna. The other reference leads to the incident with the quail in Num. 11 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/num/11?lang=eng. I have not fully thought through this train to a satisfactory conclusion, but I find it interesting that God seems to condemn the Israelites for desiring a little variety in their diet. I have preferred a varied diet over a one dimensional diet since I was a toddler preferring to eat exclusively Mac And Cheese. As noted, I do not have any firm, satisfactory conclusions, but there seem to be some interesting interactions between attractions, desires, and sin that I don't fully understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning lusts of the flesh... These are more than just sexual desires..  These are what we refer to as "the natural man."  The natural man came about as a consequence of the fall of Adam exercising his agency.  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/natural-man?lang=eng

In my understanding this means that everything the flesh desires which is contrary to God's plan is abomination and can lead to spiritual death if/when acted upon... Not only homosexual desires/attraction, but heterosexual desires outside of covenants, desires for vengeance rather than to forgive, worldly desires for power/influence/recognition, lack of gratitude for God's blessings... Etc.. So many things, so diverse and abundant that we can hardly name them all...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share