Comments about ‘Mormon Media Observer: Post on CNN's belief blog seems an assault on biblical authority’

Thanks for your well-reasoned article. I have a feeling, however, that we will see a lot more arguments in the coming years that will seek to downplay scriptural condemnation of sin--if not disregard it entirely.

Can someone tell me what the Book of Mormon says about homosexuality? A book/chapter/verse?
The bible is clear, that homosexuality is wrong, but it certainly doesn't place it very high on a scale of 1 to 10. Leviticus equates it to eating shell fish (also wrong!).
I have also yet to have heard specific examples of religious organizations having to marry gay people or the precedent that will set that. There have been instances of Churches that took state money and stopped their operation in order to not service gay people (the Catholic Adoption agency in CA). BUT they were taking public funds. They stopped and presumably still operate without public funds.
Seems like Gay Marriage is a red herring, while our politicians divide us on moral issues, Corporations take advantage of not being in the spotlight are laughing all the way to the bank.

Great article. The Book of Mormon does really support the gospel teachings found in the Bible. It shows us the Heavenly Father's plan for us and teaches the consequences of sin. No wonder it was translated for our day.

I don't think that Mr. Williams really appreciates well reasoned arguments in the way he professes. For example, he protests the CNN article without providing anything well reasoned...even from a Mormon point of view. "Sure, anytime the Book of Mormon mentions whoredoms, I'll just throw homosexuality in there and argue that the BoM supports the teachings of the Bible". That's objective! If he actually read the article he would also have to conclude that whoredoms mentioned in the BoM could also include most divorcees who re-marry.

What Mr. Williams is really saying is that when anyone ever challenges the prevailing interpretations of scripture, through reasoning and textual analysis, he is just going to hunker down and insist on holding to his a priori's.

A quote from the author: "I found its [i.e. the Book of Mormon's] compelling, regular condemnation of all sexual behavior outside marriage through the broad term 'whoredoms.'"

So then, let us Gay folk legally marry so that our adult, consensual acts of romantic and erotic love are not counted as "whoredoms". Otherwise, you continue to put out our eyes and then make a parade of our blindness.

The Book of Mormon also doesn't specify Grand Theft Auto or Wire Tapping. It does talk about fidelity to your wife and children (Jacob, Chapter 2).

Our modern revelations (D&C 89) has no longer forbidden the eating of shellfish or pork, but no where in modern revelation or the Book of Mormon was the pronouncement against homosexuality ever withdrawn. And so yes, when ever the Book of Mormon mentions whoredoms, we can throw in homosexuality, beastiality, swinging, pornography, bondage, and so forth. The Book of Mormon teaches us to seek for the spirit, to pray for confirmation and to always repent and do better. From this we may rightly assume that anything that degrades us, others, or dulls the spirit should be avoided, regardless of how popular it has become.

You're on target, Lane. So are you "ulvegaard." The Book of Mormon condemns whoredoms which is any intimate sex outside of marriage.

Connell, I've looked it up in several dictionaries and the word "marriage" is defined as between one man and one woman and that's what it means in the Book of Mormon and the Bible and in Shakespear and in most of our literature. Your modern, politically correct redefinition of the word in order to justify homosexual marriage does not change the meaning of the word "marriage." You might as well say that stealing is wrong except if you are stealing from people with brown eyes! Then it is OK. Stealing is still stealing and whoredoms are still whoredoms.

JSB -

The Mormon precedent for plural marriage came from Joseph Smith's inquiry into the Biblical models of marriage which defy your dictionary definition!

Ulvegaard -

Section 89 is theologically seperate dietary code from the Jewish customs taught in the Old Testament. As such it makes no effort to withdraw any doctrines taught under the Old Covenant. It was Peter who recieved the revelation to revoke the label of "unclean" regarding certain foods and practices. Furthermore, a careful reading of the CNN authors argument mentions that many practices forbidden by Paul in the same context as homosexuality (such as hair length and divorce), are not relevant practices by modern Christian interpretation - including Mormonism.

As far as I am aware The Book of Mormon itself offers no specific definition on "whoredoms", but makes reference to those who solicit "harlots". I'm afraid that any scriptural argument is inherently weak when it comes to making a case against homosexuality - however, of all the scriptures in the LDS cannon, those that are uniquely LDS (BoM, D&C, and PoGP), they are the most weak on the subject!

Over the years I have come to realize that those who may KNOW something is wrong but want to do it anyway will seek ANY possible avenue to make it legal in their own minds. The Bible is very specific about the subject of homosexuality. It is NOT acceptable behavior to God. RE: Gen. 19:5; Lev. 18:22; Deut. 23:17; Is.3:9 (2Nephi 13:9); Rom. 1:21-32; 1Cor. 6:9; 1Tim. 1:10; Jude 1:7 just to name a few scriptures that explain how God feels about this subject. As no scripture has ever been forthcoming that has changed God's opinion on the subject and God has not died and left someone else in charge, I deduce that God STILL holds the opinion that this is an abomination and should not be practiced by those professing to love and follow God's teachings. Not wanting something to be true does NOT make it any less true. Not believing something doesn't make it any less true, just as wanting to participate in a sinful action does not make it any less sinful because you want to participate.

Mormoncowboy:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, ESV).

The phrase, "men who practice homosexuality," translates two Greek terms which "refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts" (ESV footnote). It is extremely difficult to explain this away as simply a cultural prohibition. Romans 1:26-28 indicates that male and female homosexuality are "contrary to nature."

Midvaliean:

I would disagree that Leviticus equates eating shellfish with homosexuality. The death penalty was not prescribed for eating shellfish. Israel was to regard shellfish as "detestable" (Leviticus 11:10-11). God saw homosexuality as an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). These are two different Hebrew words, obscured by their identical translation in the KJV.

I have, in past, written in disagreement with brokenclay. In this case, I appreciate bc's explications of Biblical texts prohibiting homosexuality.

While LDS scriptures do not necessarily speak of homosexuality (though as dotp notes above, 2 Nephi 13:9 quotes Isaiah 3:9 which speaks of the sin of Sodom showing itself in people's faces), it is wise to remember that the presumption in all LDS scriptures is that marriage is between a man and a woman, and there are repeated counsels to cleave to one's wife, eschew adultery and fornication (the latter would include homosexuality), and that marriage sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise is eternal, and providing eternal increase (thereby excluding same-gender marriage).

The 2nd volume of the Church Handbook of Instructions is available online, and it clarifies anything about homosexuality or same-gender marriage that any practicing Latter-day Saint need have.

Brokenclay:

I only speak english, so admittedly I can't offer any personal analysis on the root meanings of phrases and words used in the scriptures. Suffice it to say, I read a fair share of commentary, such as that in the CNN article, that suggest that the terminology and interpretations are not as clear as many Christians would suggest. If you read my comments carefully you will note that I never took opportunity to try and state a position on what the Bible is actually saying, because in reality I don't actually care. What I have noted is that there is room for debate, simply put.

Jeff:

There is wealth of biblical commentary debating what exactly was the "sin of Sodom". There really is no such thing as "Biblical authority", as even Joseph Smith pointed out, "the preachers of religion of the different sects understand the same passages of scripturally so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling this question by an appeal to the Bible". I would just add that variance observed in "asking God" is just as great.

I looked for Jesus's own unequivocal words hating gays and could not find any. I know the most important part of Jesus's teachings was Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.

I am a heterosexual who values his decades-long marriage.
I would not want someone to have prevented my marriage and I will not prevent the marriage of consenting adults.

I believe in civil society encouraging gay monogamy by allowing marriage and
leaving the question of religious marriage to the churches.
My view is reflected in this quote,
"Make no mistake: This is an argument about the socialization of homosexuality, not the homosexualization of society. It demonstrates the spread of conservatism, not radicalism, among gays."