Abraham as a type of homosexual compassion from Latter Day Saints

[ute4ever]

Spencer Kimball gave his opinion that the grievous sin ravashing Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality.

In Genesis 18-19 we learn that the Lord told Abraham of his intent to destroy the city. Abraham pleaded with him not to do so, if he could find fifty worthy inhabitants, and the Lord agreed. Abraham then kept pleading with the Lord to lower the number, even down to 10, and the Lord kept agreeing.

I look at Abraham like the LDS members today who do not agree with Prop 8 and have compassion upon "the city."

I wonder, is it the case that in Sodom, there were literally less than 10 inhabitants who were not engaged in homosexual relations? Or, could it be that a "straight" person who is compassionate towards the cause of homosexual equality, and does his part to speak out for and aid the equality, essentially turns a blind eye to church leaders, and thereby "becomes one" with "the wicked?"

[Solon]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Spencer Kimball gave his opinion that the grievous sin ravashing Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality.

In Genesis 18-19 we learn that the Lord told Abraham of his intent to destroy the city. Abraham pleaded with him not to do so, if he could find fifty worthy inhabitants, and the Lord agreed. Abraham then kept pleading with the Lord to lower the number, even down to 10, and the Lord kept agreeing.

I look at Abraham like the LDS members today who do not agree with Prop 8 and have compassion upon "the city."

I wonder, is it the case that in Sodom, there were literally less than 10 inhabitants who were not engaged in homosexual relations? Or, could it be that a "straight" person who is compassionate towards the cause of homosexual equality, and does his part to speak out for and aid the equality, essentially turns a blind eye to church leaders, and thereby "becomes one" with "the wicked?"

I recently heard an interesting argument. The sin of the men of Sodom - as explained in Gen. 19, anyway - wasn't homosexuality. It was (attempted) rape. There's a similar story in Judges 19. Male-on-male rape isn't about sex or sexuality. Like any rape, it's about power, submission, and violence. With all due respect to Kimball, I think this explanation fits better in the context of the ancient near east.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Spencer Kimball gave his opinion that the grievous sin ravashing Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality.

In Genesis 18-19 we learn that the Lord told Abraham of his intent to destroy the city. Abraham pleaded with him not to do so, if he could find fifty worthy inhabitants, and the Lord agreed. Abraham then kept pleading with the Lord to lower the number, even down to 10, and the Lord kept agreeing.

I look at Abraham like the LDS members today who do not agree with Prop 8 and have compassion upon "the city."

I wonder, is it the case that in Sodom, there were literally less than 10 inhabitants who were not engaged in homosexual relations? Or, could it be that a "straight" person who is compassionate towards the cause of homosexual equality, and does his part to speak out for and aid the equality, essentially turns a blind eye to church leaders, and thereby "becomes one" with "the wicked?"

Well we read in the BOM about how when the people became wicked that murders and all manner of bad things took place. I have always assumed that a good chunk of the wicked were passively involved in those sins by failing to stop them or maybe even by acquiescing.

This is a tough issue because the "doctrines of men", so to speak, on prop 8 are pretty persuasive. I'm the last person to say follow the prophet no matter what, but for me personally this is very much like when the Savior said love those who hate you. In other words, its easy to love them who love you, its hard to love your enemy. It is easy to follow the prophet when you agree intellectually with what he says, but very tough when you don't.

It is hard for some mullahs to understand the ambivalence some of us feel because it has never occurred to them to have a thought that didn't come to them authoritatively. And don't mean that to sound harsh, there are just many who don't form their opinion until they have first consulted authority on the matter. Still, for me personally, I have chosen to resolve my doubts in favor of following the prophet, respect those who don't feel they can do that, and hope they accord me the same.

As I have said before, I sincerely hope that we in the future find some more effective way to embrace gays. I don't see how this can happen as they will always be offended by our stand that homosexual relationships are sinful. But with God nothing is impossible. The problem is certainly beyond my abilities to solve.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

I recently heard an interesting argument. The sin of the men of Sodom - as explained in Gen. 19, anyway - wasn't homosexuality. It was (attempted) rape. There's a similar story in Judges 19. Male-on-male rape isn't about sex or sexuality. Like any rape, it's about power, submission, and violence. With all due respect to Kimball, I think this explanation fits better in the context of the ancient near east.

This explanation is something I've heard touched upon before but I do not know where. It makes sense in what little I know of Middle Eastern cultures.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This explanation is something I've heard touched upon before but I do not know where. It makes sense in what little I know of Middle Eastern cultures.

A woman at Penn State is preparing this for a Master's Thesis and I had to prepare some feedback at a little colloquium we hold for junior graduate students . She definitely has an axe to grind, but she has some pretty interesting sources to back up her point about male-on-male rape of foreigners in the ancient and modern Middle East.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Solon

A woman at Penn State is preparing this for a Master's Thesis and I had to prepare some feedback at a little colloquium we hold for junior graduate students . She definitely has an axe to grind, but she has some pretty interesting sources to back up her point about male-on-male rape of foreigners in the ancient and modern Middle East.