The Human Construct of Homosexual Sin

It's common knowledge in Christianity and various other religions that homosexuality, or in some cases homosexual behavior, is a sin against God. Normally I've heard people claim that the Bible says it is a sin or in my case as a Mormon I often hear that both the scriptures and the Prophets have said it is a sin. I want to examine those claims more closely in order to show that homosexuality is not a sin and that a legitimate homosexual relationship is also not sinful. Furthermore I intend to show that all claims to the contrary are human constructs or as we say in the Church: the wisdom of man. I do not believe that God is the author of the perceptions against LGBT persons world wide. The God I worship will not condemn a soul for being born gay, or transgender etc. because to do so would make God a "respecter of persons" which He is not.

Everything in this article comes from a Mormon perspective, so I can understand how people from other faiths may easily dismiss certain arguments that I will make here. There are certain teachings among Mormons in regards to homosexuality that are unique to our religion. To anyone else from any other faith who might read this I would ask that you look at the methods I use to break down the verses of the Bible that I quote and ask yourself if these same methods can be applied to better understand your own religious teachings, whatever they may be. If a Biblical verse appears to imply a condemnation against homosexuality but when dissected and examined in detail that verse no longer carries that meaning then we can assume that the verse had been misread or misinterpreted in the past. I tend to quantify the individual phrases, words and questions in all verses that I read, I take down definitions, wordings from alternative languages, and cross reference similar wordings between verses across the Bible or other scriptures. I invite anyone to do the same with their own religious records and quantify the particular and powerful meanings of what you believe. You might be surprised to find many things different than you were told or than you had previously assumed. God is just and righteous in all His forms.



In the LDS Bible there is a section titled: Topical Guide which contains a list of topics and cross referenced scriptures from both the Old and New Testaments. Click HERE to see the list of scriptures under "Homosexual Behavior". It's a short list, so let's go through it.

Genesis 19:5 - And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 
At first glance this is obviously is from the famous story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the two cities destroyed by God because of their wickedness and homosexuality. But if you read the surrounding verses in Genesis chapter 19 you may easily come up with various alternative theories to simple homosexuality.
You may be aware that the word "know" in the Bible often refers to sexual activity. But in the context of this story it refers to rape. The men of Sodom demanded to "know" Lot's male visitors by force, when Lot objected and offered them his daughters "and do ye to them as is good in your eyes" (Genesis 19:8) the men of Sodom responded with force complaining that he was stranger to their city and yet felt empowered to a be a "judge" over them in their own city. They became angry at the perception of being judged and said they would do worse to Lot than were going to do to the male visitors. Everything in this story is about forced sexual intercourse, rape. The very fact that the men of Sodom claimed that they were going to "deal worse with [Lot], than with them" (Genesis 19:9) shows that their intent was entirely hostile and violent. Let's be clear about one thing, rape is almost entirely NOT about sex or sexual attraction, rape is about power. Rape is the attempt to prove that a person is able to take everything from another person at will in a full and violent display of power. The fact that the men of Sodom chose to display that violent power over other men would show that they felt their power supreme above all others in the world, that other men were not the equals to the men of Sodom.
But let's step aside for a moment and consider that there is an almost identical story in the Old Testament to the famous story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the book of Judges. This second story is less famous and is not considered an example of homosexual depravity because in the end the victim of such violent rape was in fact a woman. That story is found in Judges 19. A Levite's concubine runs away to her family only to later be brought home by her husband after he goes to speak "friendly" to her. The two stop in the Israelite city of Gibeah, of the Tribe of Benjamin, to spend the night. From there the story continues much like that of Sodom and Lot. The men of the city come demanding the male visitor, the Levite, that they might know him (Judges 19:22). As with the story of Sodom the men of Gibeah demanded to rape the male visitor; but unlike in Sodom they eventually accepted the unwilling sacrifice of the concubine who was pushed out the door by her husband and raped her until death. As a consequence of this evil the armies of Israel were assembled and the Tribe of Benjamin was almost entirely exterminated and remained a broken tribe for a long time afterwards. The situation in Gibeah was almost identical to the evil in Sodom but the crime was actually committed against a woman, proving that the sin of Sodom was rape not homosexuality.

So with the understanding that the Sin of Sodom refers to rape instead of homosexuality, the meanings of several other scriptures traditionally taken to condemn gays as an absolute evil are changed. Going back to the Topical Guide in the LDS Bible we'll see Deuteronomy 23:17, Isaiah 3:9 and 2 Nephi 13:9 as all referring to the Sin of Sodom and thus are removed from the list of scriptures condemning homosexuality since those scriptures instead condemn rape and rapists.

Now the Law of Moses does legitimately command that men not have sexual relations with other men claiming it was an abomination. Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." This is perhaps the only scripture that is difficult to challenge directly. Most of the chapter deals with incest with one short verse claiming homosexuality to also be a sin and abomination. I will not address the topic of incest, only homosexuality. But let's look at both Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 a little more closely. Chapter 18 is basically a shortened version of the exact same material found in chapter 20, only chapter 20 has some additional information and extra commandments not found in chapter 18. Leviticus 20:18 teaches that if any husband and wife have sex while she is on her period they both must be "cut off from among the people". Typically that phrase has two meanings, exile or death. Considering that every other declared abomination in both chapters is punishable only by death it is safe to assume that the couple were supposed to be killed if they had sex during the woman's period. How much does that sound like the God you know through the New Testament?
The price of sin in the Old Testament is most frequently death but is that really what God expects for His children? Or did God give laws that He knew He could get His children to obey and not necessarily what He wanted them to do? Matthew chapter 5 is a perfect example of the principle I want to explain. Jesus Christ presents the famous and beautiful Sermon on the Mount, well known for statements like "Blessed are the meek" etc. But perhaps less well known are the statements after those famous Beatitudes, where Jesus cites various commandments of the Law of Moses and replaces them, fulfilling their intent and purpose. The commandment to not murder was expanded to include a condemnation against calling someone a Fool etc. The commandment to not commit adultery was also expanded to say that if you looked on a woman with lust you have already committed adultery in your heart. But perhaps the most significant changes relating to this article are found in Matthew 5: 31-34:

"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:"

These two changes are significant because they do not simply expand on previously existing commandments found in the Law of Moses. Instead, Jesus removes and replaces two commandments with the exact opposite requirement that God had previously held as a statute for righteousness. This in and of itself proves that some of the Commandments He gave to Moses for the Israelites were not His first will but were allowances made for the Children of Israel in their circumstances. If there are two such commandments then could there be more?

The answer to that is yes. I'll share the summary of the story found in Acts chapter 10. Cornelius was a Roman Centurion in the land of Israel after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was blessed with a vision from God that told him to call for Simon Peter an Apostle and Disciple of Jesus. Cornelius did as he was instructed and Peter came. But something miraculous happened to Peter just before Cornelius' messengers arrived. "And [Peter] saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:" (Acts 10:11), In short Peter was granted a vision from God. In this vision were many different animals that were declared unclean and unlawful to eat under the Law of Moses, but God in the vision commanded Peter to eat. Peter responded with obedience to the Law of Moses stating that he could not eat anything that was common or unclean. To this God responded saying: "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." (Acts 10:15). At first glance this new commandment removes the dietary requirement traditionally found in the Law of Moses, and is yet another example that God has and does give commandments to His children that are not ultimately His will but are meant to be stepping stones for His children. But Peter realized a second application of this new revelation which he showed in his conversation with Cornelius: "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (Acts 10:28). 

For those who may not be aware, it was customary among the Jews to forbid entrance into the home of a Roman or other Gentile for fear of being "contaminated" by the wickedness of those gentiles. There are multiple examples of this prejudice being demonstrated in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, entering the house of a sinner was also perilous for a Jew and was frequently used as a complaint against Jesus himself who ate with sinners and gentiles in their houses on multiple occasions. This principle is expounded further in verse 34 of the same chapter: "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:". 

God replaced His own previous commandments in favor of others that more truly reflected his own Will and Testament. God does not want humanity divided by fear, hatred or prejudice against each other, no matter the reason.

Now those reading this might agree that hating gays or mistreating them is inappropriate; that is true and doctrinal. I wish it was a view that was more acted upon than said in the Mormon faith and in all faiths everywhere but still it is a true statement. However, many faithful people all over the world honestly believe, without malice or hatred, that homosexual behavior is still a sin. From a Mormon's standpoint I contend that that is in fact impossible. Homosexual behavior traditionally has been considered a sin but so was eating unclean meat or mingling with gentiles or having sex during a woman's period. Let's consider the wording in Acts chapter 10 a little more closely for a moment. All of God's creations are included in the effect of Peter's vision, animals previously unclean and forbidden were now made clean and available and Gentiles (indeed all of humanity) were welcomed to God and not to be called common or unclean. This doesn't mean that there was no more sin but instead it means anything created by God is not automatically unclean. How does this apply to homosexuals? Because according to God's Prophets and Apostles in the present day at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have declared on multiple occasions that gays do not choose to be gay and are not expected to change. If being gay is not actually a choice and God does not expect it to be changed by us or by others then where is the difference between a gay man such as myself or any other and Cornelius, a gentile traditionally refused the blessings of the Gospel?

Mormonsandgays.org is an official website published by the Church and its Apostles, at the top of the homepage it is stated directly that homosexuals do not choose to have such attractions. For the record, I believe personally that this site is a work in progress according to the human understandings of Church leaders, this stance of kindness and moderate acceptance displayed on this site is considerably different than the stance some years ago. Among other things addressed on this site, is a section called "Our Common Humanity" recognizing that homosexuals and presumably other members of the LGBT community are people just as much as the "faithful", deserving of the same respect and courtesy as anyone else. That term, "Our Common Humanity" rings a familiar bell with Peter's words: God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Perhaps both Peter and our modern Apostles have already answered our question with these statements: If a homosexual does not choose to be gay then perhaps we should not call him or her unclean. If eating an animal previously called unclean is not a sin then perhaps a homosexual relationship isn't a sin either. If God is indeed no respecter of persons, then he would not diminish one entire group of human beings and withhold from them the blessings of the Celestial Kingdom or Exaltation over something that they could not change, especially when they were not expected to change it.

That last statement does still need some citation. It comes from the General Conference of the LDS Church dated October 2015 in a speech given by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Twelve Apostles. The talk is titled: Behold thy Mother. There is a passionate story of a family whose son was struggling emotionally and spiritually because of his sexuality and how the family and the young man's Church leaders gave a great outpouring of love and affection to him regardless of his status as a homosexual. Elder Holland expressly states that the young man did not have a miraculous change of sexual feelings and that none was expected or assumed. If homosexuality was indeed the sin everyone so frequently claims it to be, a sin worthy of Apostasy, of death, of suffering and of burning in eternal damnation then why would God continually demand such powerful love and mercy from His servants towards people like me? If homosexuality truly was sinful to practice in a legitimate and faithful relationship then why is wanting to do so not a sin? There can only be one answer, that homosexuality really isn't a sin but is instead a human construct that God needed to allow for a time, until human maturity caught up a little to His enlightened and perfected state. God has changed his commandments to His children many times before, even in modern Church history and He undoubtedly will do it again on many topics until we are ready to learn as He has learned.

There are other verses that I could delve into but I'm afraid that this is more than long enough for a blog post and I suppose I will leave you with one last consideration. Several of the scriptures cited against homosexuality talk about Lust. The definition of that word includes: "uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite". Prostitution, or being slutty, is considered a sin because it takes for granted the gift that sex truly is. Often these scriptures that are used against homosexuals are actually referring to Male Prostitution. If you take one thing out of this article I hope it is that the scriptures do not always mean what they first appear to say, it takes persistent and diligent study to dissect the scriptures and learn their true meanings and power. I have obviously not gone into every such scripture in this article since I'm short on space but perhaps I will another time. Still I hope you will contemplate on what I have said here and apply it to your lives. 

Sincerely, 

Samuel