| The question which forms the basis of my objection to a bias against homosexuality is: "Why is an expression of love wrong?" Beg the question. I cannot blindly place faith in a God who shuns Homosexual behavior without providing any reason. Is it the greatest good to condemn a sexual preference with "I said so. . ." logic? I recognize that Gays are often maligned as children, which is believed to causate their sexual preference. Even if this is true, is this any reason to justify further persecution? I realize that you don't "hate" gays; this realization is identified in the last paragraph, yet the church teaches that only married individuals can be "sealed", which requires Gays to either deny who they are and enter an Heterosexual marriage, or relegates them to an inferior position within the church (ie. they can only recieve an endowment) Since such a bias is wthout merit both ethcially and logically, it seems that God would have informed his prophet, Gordon Hinkley of such. If Mr. Hinkley missed part of God's message, God would have patiently reiterated the importance of committed relationships, whether Gay or Straight. Please realize, Elders and President Eccersly; I do not think you are bigots, but I do think that you are mistaken regarding the non-legitimacy of a committed Gay relationship. I have prayed much about our conversations; the Holy Spirit has led me to reject the doctrine of the Latter Day Saints. I have more empathy for you than most, since I, too was once myopic in my beliefs on the veracity of Plymouth Brethren doctrine. Thank you for your time & friendship. Sincerely, Jed Strohm The above was written to some Mormon Elders. The Mormon belief system regards the BoM as superiour to the Bible. Since the BoM does not speak of the Gay lifestyle, I resorted to philosophical arguments. Some christians have asked me how I explain the Bible passages that allegedly condemn Gays. My response:
The Bible is said to condemn homosexuality in several places. These are identified below; an improved interpretation follows. There are several commandments in Leviticus condemning homosexuality. I believe these laws were overturned along with the dietary laws, and various laws against women. 1) Other laws were abolished besides the dietary laws. a) Hebrews 4 nullifies the Sabbath; we no longer kill people for working on the Saturday. (Exodus 31:12-15) b) OT sexual laws (Leviticus 18:19, 29; Leviticus 15:19-24) are not followed, even though not directly reversed in the NT. Note that the sex law in Leviticus 18:19, and the penalty identified in v. 29 are equalized with homosexuality, mentioned in v. 22.
The New Testament provides us with instructions on how to live that conform to the new covenant. A more notable OT example: Homosexuality is allegedly condemned in Genesis 18 & 19. (Sodom and Gomorrah) 1) There is no mention of defining homosexuality as "the very grievous sin." (Genesis 18:20) In my opinion, the sin referred to is the sin of rape, which the denizens threatened to do to the angels, a fate Lot offered to subject his daughters to. This brutal behavior has nothing to do with the question of whether genuine love between consenting adults (regardless of gender) is legitimate or not. 2) A charge of homosexuality could be applied under the auspices of bisexuality, or homosexuality. If the former, the denizens refused Lot's daughters, so that is not a possibility (Gen 19:9) If the latter, the population of Sodom and Gomorrah would die out rather quickly, since all the men were at Lot's door (Genesis 19:4) so there would be no young for God to destroy (due to a lack of procreation). 3) We're left with the conclusion that the men of Sodom & Gomorrah were only interested in raping the angels, an expression of power, not sexual gratification. 4) This desperation for power, at the expense of other people is why God destroyed those evil cities. 5) Ezekiel identifies another sin for which God destroyed S & G. Namely, arrogance, and an unwillingness to help the poor. (Ezekiel 16:48-19) Something for us Americans to think about  .
6) Jude 7 mentions "sexual immorality and perversion" but there is no specificity. Rape is a sexual perversion.
Paul is also cited as providing justification for homophobia. 1) Romans 1:26-27, is the most widely cited biblical source that I've encountered. Several phrases are explained below: 2) "vile affections" is defined as "natural use into that which is against nature." Someone who is naturally attracted to the opposite sex who engages in same-sex behavior could be classified in this way. The converse is also true. 3) "men. . . burned in their lust for one another. . .working that which is unseemly." Again, similar to Sodom and Gomorrah, this does not seem like a respectful scenario. "They receive . . . recompense" These consequences are usually defined as venereal diseases and AIDS. These diseases are the consequences of promiscuity, not homosexuality. In fact, non-promiscuous lesbians have the lowest risk of STI. This identifies my interpretation that the punishment is due to sexual profligancy, rather than gay behavior. 1) Paul again lists homosexuality in I Timothy 1:10. However, the original Greek word is better translated "one who assumes a dominant role", with connotations of pedophilia. Once again, this is an example of a disrespectful scenario, which God disapproves of; an inclusion of a consensual, loving homosexual relationships is not sustainable.
| 
