Skip to content


  1. Elaine Nelson
    19 October 2012 @ 9:11 pm

    To classify homosexuality as a "disturbance" is a subjective and pejorative term that should not be used about any individual.  In psychiatry:  someone who is "disturbed"  is usually either mentally or emotionally disturbed and carries with it a very different meaning.  The choice of words is most important and the declaration that there are "disturbed" individuals who may attend church is a distortion and very derogatory and in need of psychiatric help; but psychiatrists do not characterize homosexuality in this manner.  Leave it to religious leaders to diagnose conditions which they do not understand, nor wish to study.

  2. Bea
    19 October 2012 @ 9:48 pm

    How ironic it is that on the day the GC released this information regarding the church's stand on homosexuality, our United States of America is calling attention to  "Spirit Day" (today)  to support this gays and lesbians from harrassment that has led to so many suicides. 

      The GC, BRI Theologian Ekkehardt Mueller stated that the church is "taking a stand for what is right regarding the church's stand/policy regarding homosexuality. To describe homosexuality as a disorder or disturbance (the same thing)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   For shame that in this day and age we as the body of the church have to read such dispicable rubbish.  This is harrassment at its most severe -because it is supposedly a spiritual body that is touting this.  It is one thing to be mortified when we put our feet in our mouths – this is of an extreme dysfunction to be voting to  proclaim this harrassment from each and every SDA church to the entire world.  And expecting each family to embrace this in our own homes, to our children – who then can do their verbal damage to other children.  This is where I say – it is time for each person to take a stand against this awful stand regarding homosexuality. 

    When America is alert to the need to deal with harrassment – I can't believe this fall session came up with this pathetic statement regarding the church's stand is regarding homosexuality.  When we know better – we should DO better.

  3. Truth Seeker
    20 October 2012 @ 12:09 am

     "Ekkehardt Mueller, a theologian at the GC’s in-house Biblical Research Institute, stated that a clear identification of homosexuality with sin “is necessary in this context [because] homosexuals today would deny any notion of sin and would say ‘this is how we are created, God has created us this way, and therefore we have the right and duty to this lifestyle,’ so I would be opposed to the amendment.”"

    Very good, sir. Stay with the Bible not with our decadent culture.

    • Stephen Ferguson
      20 October 2012 @ 2:57 am

      "Stay with the Bible not with our decadent culture."

      Yes, if only we could return to the good old days when young single men sowed wild oats before marriage, older men remained married for life but had mistresses, wives got the beating they deserved for burning the toast and children suffered in silence without reporting abuse.  

  4. Elaine Nelson
    20 October 2012 @ 2:00 am

    The G.C. also gave information that while homosexuality is being explained in the SDA colleges, they recommend against it being explained to K-12 students as they might not be ready; despite those years are when bullying begins!  This church is returning back to the 19th century (maybe to recover its original milieu?).

  5. Truth Seeker
    20 October 2012 @ 3:03 pm

    "Yes, if only we could return to the good old days when young single men sowed wild oats before marriage, older men remained married for life but had mistresses, wives got the beating they deserved for burning the toast and children suffered in silence without reporting abuse."

    If you really believe that gross exaggeration, Ferguson, contact me as I have a bridge to sell.   

    • Stephen Ferguson
      20 October 2012 @ 3:05 pm

      Not according to the award winning TV show 'Mad Men' 🙂

  6. Elaine Nelson
    20 October 2012 @ 5:45 pm

    The "good ol' days" when men like Abraham had several wives and unnumbered concubines; when only men could own property; when committing adultery meant taking another man's wife; when a man could divorce a wife for the slightest thing he disliked.  Yeah, bring back those good ol' days described in that book that is so revered.  Great moral guides contained:  take for wives the virgins left when all the males have been slain.

    Isn't it strange how those who promote the Bible as the Word of God and the answer to all life situation, never cite those stories?

  7. tooblessed
    20 October 2012 @ 9:51 pm

    Let's refocus please. The state of the "good ol' days" isn't the issue.Homosexuality has been part of man's practiice since day one and God's word has been equally against that practice since the beginning. We live in an age of demanded openess and equality. Clarity is needed on the expectations of both sides and action plan(s) that will achieve whatever is ultimately agreed to.

  8. Bea
    22 October 2012 @ 5:22 pm

      The SDA church, this last week, has re-inforced and even "taken a stronger stance than before (re: homosexuality) … to remain faithful to scripture". – while at the same time "recognize the need to minister with compassion…to those who practice homosexuality." 
    Last evening quite by accident I happened upon a documentary regarding Gays/Christians by Lisa Ling – very sensitively done and mind provoking starting with a stark history segment.  The history of homosexuality includes brain surgery (lobotomy) and electric shock therapy in the early last century. The movie shows the desperation gays feel in their attempt to turn straight so they can "stop sinning and be Christian".  It graphically shows the damage  religion plays  – heaping shame and guilt upon this community of God's children. 

    In the end it was shown over and over again the "impossible task" of trying to change their sexual orientation so they could stop the "sin" of being gay.  They realized it was not about choice but about who they really are and that it is not sin.

  9. earl calahan
    23 October 2012 @ 3:06 am

    i'm appalled that the GC is continuously raising the gay/lesbian sin problem, while not making an issue
    of all other sinful practices that members committ. What are they afraid of ? Is the gay lifestyle a
    more greivous sin than adultery? of murder? of envy? of covetousness? of theft? of lust? of greed? of or any other sin? i think not. All are sins, according to the Bible. Every one of us is a sinner who is guilty of several of these sins. Everyone; and the penalty is death, we deserve it according to the Bible. But God paid the ransom to save us, in His body, shedding His blood that sin demanded. Every sinner that accepts that sacrifice by faith is accepted as having never sinned. What is your SIN?
    Get off our backs GC, you are guilty.

  10. Edwin A. Schwisow
    23 October 2012 @ 3:48 am

    Religion has a natural tendency to exact accountability—as in, "If you are gay, surely you or your parents have sinned. Repent and straighten out!"

    An enlightened religion will be true to the evidence and to the compassion and acceptance of Jesus….

  11. Trevor Hammond [22oct1844]
    23 October 2012 @ 4:03 am

    Dear earl calahan

    Sexual immorality is particularly a special category of sin which Paul speaks of in 1Cor 6:9,10.  At first glance it does look as though all sin is just the same as perhaps the 'sticking gum under the church pews' sin.  However 1Cor 6:18, 19, 20 reveals that sexual sins are particularly offensive to the Holy Spirit.  This would include homosexuality among this lot.  Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for homosexual practices in particular among other evils.  Democracy, just like in its Grecian heyday is a breeding ground for homosexual behaviour which is a grave sin, again, among others.  Perhaps the hijacking of the word 'gay' has made many to believe that this particular sinful practice isn't sinful and that it is a virtuous Christian grace like perhaps having a pure mind in Christ.

    • Edwin A. Schwisow
      23 October 2012 @ 4:40 am

      As I read the sad story of Sodom, it appears that what brought on destruction was the sin of inhospitality to divine wayfarers. Were there indeed fewer than 10 non-homosexuals in Sodom (see Abraham's plea for mercy for even 10 righteous souls)? I very much doubt it. Sodom's problem was its refusal to treat innocent and needy visitors in a manner consistent with the Second Great Commandment to regard one's neighbor as one regards him/herself.

      • Anonymous
        23 October 2012 @ 2:49 pm

        Really, Ed? If you find comfort in the idea that God's rationale for destroying twin cities, and all of their inhabitants, was their lack of hospitality, and not their depravity…well, go for it. But it seems like quite a stretch to me. My reading of the Bible rather strongly urges that it was depravity – not a disproportionate number of homosexuals – that did in Sodom. Superimposing 21st Century moral reasoning on 2,000 B.C. culture to make sense of divine justice, as portrayed in the O.T., strikes me as Quixotic, to say the least. 

        • Elaine Nelson
          23 October 2012 @ 7:40 pm

          Apparently one's opinions about the Bible's explanation as inhospitality as being the sins of Sodom were pride, gluttony, arrogance, complacency  No where in the Bible is homosexuality connected with Sodom.

          Why not give the Bible references indicting Sodom with homosexuality?  Inquiring minds would like to know; somehow, my concordance must be missing such texts.

        • Edwin A. Schwisow
          24 October 2012 @ 8:42 pm

          The Lord Jesus in Matthew 10:11-15 clearly uses the example of Sodom in relation to inhospitality: "And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence….And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for that city."

          That the Sodom account is repeatedly referenced elsewhere in the gospels by Jesus as an example of a city that showed great inhospitality suggests that this is the primary lesson the Lord extracted from the legendary fate of the City in the Valley.

          • Anonymous
            26 October 2012 @ 5:04 pm

            "Jesus…clearly uses the example of Sodom in relation to inhospitality."

            Thank you, Ed, for pointing out Matt. 10: 11-15, and leading me to a deeper insight about the lesson of Sodom than I think is reached by your explanation: "inhospitality", or mine: "depravity". As I read Jesus' words, He seems to be talking about the nature of the judgment that will rain down on the "unworthy" – those who reject the knock of God's Spirit on the door of their hearts.

            I don't think it makes sense to argue that God destroyed Sodom because there weren't enough hospitable people there. Nor do I think it makes sense to argue that homosexuality was the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. I used the word "depravity," and Elaine's well-trained, Pavlovian instincts heard the dog-whistle of homosexuality. In fact, I explicitly rejected, in my penultimate sentence, the notion that homosexuality was the reason for the destruction of Sodom.

            The deeper lesson of Sodom, which I believe Jesus recognized and underscored, is that the hearts of the Sodomites were so hardened that they could not recognize or be open to the presence of God when He visited them in natural human form. The transcendent God generally appears incognito in some sort of natural form. Depravity is the inevitable result of this heart-hardening refusal to see The Word made Flesh as The Word of God. Once God is rejected, humans become preoccupied with god creation, pleasure-seeking and using other humans as objects. Divine judgment comes, as in the days of Noah…as in the days of Babel…as in the days of Sodom…, when the cup of iniquity is full, when the "unworthy" – those who will not open their hearts to God's Spirit – reach a critical mass known only to God. 

            So to my way of thinking the great sin is not, as Elaine has urged on another blog, "disobedience" to God. It is "inhospitality" to God qua God – concluding that, because He appears in familiar form, He can be dealt with as nothing more than an element of the natural world, to be conquered and subjected to the demands of human reason, need, and want. "He who has ears, let him hear."

          • Edwin A. Schwisow
            26 October 2012 @ 8:18 pm

            Yes, "inhospitality" may indeed be a bit of a euphemism I used for something so terrible I dare not describe it in a general publication like this Web site. Let me simply generalize by calling it "a depraved disregard for human needs and life, with emphasis on destroying the dignity of those who are seen as being insufficiently subservient."

            "Inhospitality?"  Yes, the terrible kind that not only kills, but "sends out a message" of lethal warning to anybody else tempted to try to break into the inner circle of privilege and power. This was more than a hazing among playful, randy satyrs—it was a lynching involving mob torture, humiliation, and sure execution.

          • Anonymous
            26 October 2012 @ 10:10 pm

            I guess we just see this from somewhat different perspectives. Ed. You seem to look at the issue as disregard for human need. In order to preserve your emphasis on inhospitality, you wrench the term, from its common meaning of passive indifference and neglect, to connote active violence and oppression. By such a Humpty Dumpty process, words mean whatever we want them to mean, and thus lose common understanding altogether.

            Your acknowledgement of the Sodomites' violent encounter with Lot and his celestial visitors should lead you to recognize that the story is no more about hospitality than the story of The Cross is about hospitality. It is the story of what happens when humans see God as a means to their ends, and God doesn't cooperate. They crucify Him. The story of Sodom prescinds the story of Jesus. It is not a tale of oppressor class vs oppressed; of political class warfare. These are the tropes of militantly secular deconstructionism that would simply put the oppressed in the seats of the oppressors. Rather, it is a tale of what happens to humans when they refuse to see God and admit Him into their lives. 

            In emphasizing that homosexuals are as loved by God, and bear the imprimatur of His image as much as heterosexuals, the GC policy, it seems to me, renders moot the issue of whether particular aspects of their life style warrant endorsement or opprobrium.

          • Elaine Nelson
            26 October 2012 @ 11:02 pm

            Concluding that the men of Sodom were homosexuals is to ignore the very old
            form of domination:  men raping men.  This occurs in prisons but does not indict them as homosexuals.  It is the worst form of male domination, and heterosexual men have engaged in it since time immemorial. 

            It is rather strange that no where does the Bible condemn Lot's daughter for their incestuous relationship with their father.  It was probably a myth explaining the two branches resulting:  Moabites and Edomites. 

            The Bible never condemns human love, but homosexual rape is as far removed from monogamous mutal unions as is married sex from rape.  The only thing in common involves sex–which God saw was good and necessary for multiplying the human race.

          • Edwin A. Schwisow
            27 October 2012 @ 3:12 am

            The portion of the book of Genesis that refers to the destruction of Sodom and the cities of the Valley contains a number of accounts that link godly men like Abraham and Lot with strong regard for the wayfarer, while those of an ungodly ilk disregard and in fact compound the need of the stranger for safety and comfort. In such cases (for example, Jacob and Esah meeting on the road to Canaan) angels frequently intervene (Jacob wrestling with the angel; Esau being addressed by and angel in a dream).

            This is an aspect of basic Abrahamic faith that Jesus linked strongly with behavior of his followers (the Goats and the Sheep in the Judgment, for example). Good neighborliness is a fundamental attribute of those who “love their neighbor as themselves,” and extend that hospitality even to the otherwise hated wayfarer (the Parable of the Good Samaritan).

            Perhaps we have left topic just a bit, but I have enjoyed the discussion…..

          • Anonymous
            27 October 2012 @ 5:11 am

            Really Ed? You're comfortable with the idea that God utterly wiped out two cities simply because they weren't neighborly enough? Wow! What can I say? Doesn't sound like a very enlightened, compassionate, accepting God to me. Remember your first post on this blog several days ago?

            And you thought traditional Adventists were tough. At least they precede their judgment with, "Repent and straighten up." God doesn't even give Sodom a chance to repent. At the Mad Hatter's postmodern tea party, the homosexual lifestyle should be accepted, but Hell fire and damnation if you aren't neighborly.  The White Queen reigns.

          • Edwin A. Schwisow
            27 October 2012 @ 5:59 am

            I am uncomfortable (as perhaps you are) with the fact that Adventism preaches destruction of the entire world in a soon-coming conflagration. Yes, we are wrestling with issues of disproportionate punishment. Perhaps we should hold off on that subject and let the main thread prevail, here.There will be time for the other in good time….

  12. Elaine Nelson
    23 October 2012 @ 4:04 am

    Has anyone ever accused a religion of being "enlightened"?

    They church must have an explanation for every condition that is not perfect.
    "Sin" being the common denominator, lists must be drawn up, penalties decided upon, confessions and penances to be paid.

    How far from the days of accepting Christ.

    • Anonymous
      23 October 2012 @ 3:18 pm

      Elaine, I think the GC statement is saying exactly the opposite of what you suggest. It appears to be saying that acknowledging certain behaviors to be sinful does NOT mean that "lists must be drawn up, penalities dcided upon, confessions and pennances [exacted]." Much as you would like to define the Church by the grotesque images and caricatures of institutional leadership in the photo album of left wing Adventism, the Church has changed, and is changing – too slow for some of us, and too fast for many more.

      Institutions are by their very nature conservative. That doesn't mean they refuse to change. It just means they need to manage change in a way that preserves their identity and vitality. You profess to be tolerant and broad-minded. Yet you love to caricaturize, judge, and condemn those who reject your destructive revolutionary zeal. You want to redefine sin so you can still treat sinners – those who reject your ideology – with opprobrium. The Church statement suggests that changing our hearts and attitudes towards those whose sins we find particularly odious is more important than redefining sin.

  13. Bea
    23 October 2012 @ 10:26 pm

    We all agree it is not a sin to be left handed  –  correct?  Then let us all attempt to re-program our minds that homosexuality is not a choice (like divorce or adultry or stealing) but something that cannot be decided upon like being left-handed. 

    • Anonymous
      24 October 2012 @ 12:36 am

      Agreed, Bea. But you have conflated a status – homosexuality – with behaviors – adultry and theft. It is the behavior, not the status, that creates issues. Greed and envy are not choices either. I doubt that the attraction pedophiles have for young children may not be a choice.

      I do not intend by these analogies to denigrate homosexuals, but to suggest that the issue is more what we do about that which comes naturally, and how we act on natural impulses, neither of which should adversely affect our ability to extend the hand of Christian fellowship to others who gravitate towards socially stigmatized behaviors as a result of nature or nurture.

      I do think it paradoxical that the same folks who claim that gender differences, which are obvious and profound, are the result of environment – not hard-wiring – also insist that those who choose a homosexual lifestyle are genetically hardwired for homosexuality.   

      • Kevin Riley
        24 October 2012 @ 4:54 am

        As a social scientist, I find it hard to believe that anyone still believes there is a choice between 'nature' and 'nurture'.  Everything we do that involves our minds and our bodies is a mixture of the two.  And perhaps we could someday move beyond binary thinking?  All of life is not able to be reduced to two polar opposite choices.

        I was under the impression that the Bible clearly dealt with behaviour in all the texts usually used by both/all sides to argue the issue of homosexuality.  And I am not persuaded – by the Bible, science or reason – that one can really separate 'being' from 'behaviour' in any meaningful way.  It seems to me (perhaps erroneously) that a lot of reduction and elision goes on when this subject is discussed – no less by 'professionals' than by partisans of both/all sides.

        • Anonymous
          24 October 2012 @ 3:15 pm

          You're right, Kevin, that all of life cannot be reduced to two polar opposites. You implicity violate your own principle by suggesting that I was doing that. All of us often put things into categories in order to better understand them. Sometime that process distorts as much or more than it clarifies. Relying on false choices to make a point is common fallacy.

          Having said that though, I don't understand why you think genes and environment can not or should not be examined as distinct influences on human characteristics and behaviors. Science and behavioral studies have been doing that for a long time haven't they? The fact that the Mississippi River is a mixture of the Ohio, Missouri, Red, and Arkansas Rivers doesn't preclude one from studying those tributaries as distinct entities or drawing conclusions about their effects on the larger body of water.

          My default understanding of scripture is that it sees human nature as sinful, without distinguishing heredity from environment. But doesn't the Bible proclaim the ability and moral duty to rise above sinful nurture and nature? "By beholding we become changed;" "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." What constitutes sin, and how we go about overcoming its gravitational pull, can be debated. But it seems to me that a persistent theme running through the sacred texts of JudeoChristian religions, is the alteration and change in the trajectory of the natural physical and spiritual orders as a result of divine-human encounters. 

          I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "being" and "behavior" cannot be separated in any meaningful way. If you are advocating determinism, I strongly disagree. If you are simply observing , to use my analogy, that, once its tributaries have flowed into the Mississippi, they can no longer be separated in any meaningful way, I would agree with you. 

          • Kevin Riley
            24 October 2012 @ 10:31 pm

            I am not saying that 'nature' and 'nurture' cannot be examined separately.  What I was trying to say is that most things – and certainly complex issues like human sexuality – are not the result of just one of those, but of both.  My comment on separating 'being' and 'behaving' was meant to say that I don't beleive Scripture – or reality – makes a distinction between the sinner and sinning.  Actions are not disembodied entities, and what one does is not separate to what one is.  We can consider them separately, but the whole 'love the sinner, hate the sin' approach not only appears to be beyond most people's capability, but is hard to defend logically. 

          • Tapiwa Mushaninga
            26 October 2012 @ 6:59 am

            It is a gift from God

  14. Bea
    24 October 2012 @ 3:58 am

    Nathan – I read your entry several times, unearthed my husband's old Hebrew and Greek textbooks for greater understanding, as well as Websters' (most impressed with your wealth of vocabulary).  Alas, what you said is of such importance to my understanding that I must bow before you and beg you to clarify (I want to understand every nuance)  –  what did you say?

  15. Elaine Nelson
    24 October 2012 @ 5:36 pm

    Trying to parse the human is an impossibility from the beginning.  And to choose to stamp every individual born as sinful from birth (yes, I know Paul taught that, as well as Augustine in his doctrine of Original Sin), but humans are not essentially evil.  Can you look in your new baby's face and say she is evil, simply by being human?  That's the meaning of Original Sin.

    This separation into two distinct divisions:  good and evil, dark and light was a new and totally different concept into Judaism influenced by their Persian Exile.  Prior to that time, there was no concept of a devil; God was in control of everything and hence, no need for a devil.  But once this idea caught on with Judaism it entered into their writings and became an irresistible force from which man could not escape.

    Christianity adopted it from Judaism, along with many of their beliefs and it grew into full flower after the canon closed.  Once man has been stamped with "sinfulness" from birth, there is no escape; sin then is not an act, but part of every human and cannot be surgically or religiously removed; there is no escape.  Even if one tries to eliminate sin through a religious experience:  baptism, conversion, changing habits, sin is always there inside us.

    This is the curse religion has introduced into humanity.  Prior to Judaism there was no such concept.*  Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism and other much earlier religions had no reasons for this idea called "sin."  Those were ethical religions, based on the ideology expressed in the Golden Rule:  an idea praised by all religions today but has been put on the back burner. 


    Christ preached ethics:  how we behave with our fellow man is far more important than what we profess to believe in the form of doctrinal statements.
    They are meaningless, as He also explained.  We humans have greatly complicated what should be a very simple message, and look at the results:  people are increasingingly saying they are non-religious and have no affiliation with organized religion–with young people leading the way out.

    *In all the Ten Commandments, it is actions that are commanded; in the hundreds of rules comprising all the Law given by God to the Israelites, they were calls to actions:  IOW sin was never anything but DISOBEDIENCE.

  16. Tim
    26 October 2012 @ 5:44 am

    Nathan wrote:


    "Superimposing 21st Century moral reasoning on 2,000 B.C. culture to make sense of divine justice, as portrayed in the O.T., strikes me as Quixotic, to say the least."

    Agreed, just as superimposing 2,000 BCE moral reasoning on 21st Century culture to make sense of divine justice strikes me as quixotic (it's not capitalized unless it's the first word in a sentence or you're literally refering to the character by name), to say the least.

    I support the SDA church in the complete freedom to decide what behaviors it will or won't tolerate from its members, just as I do any religious organization or cult. If people long to join organizations that tell them how and what they should think, more power to them — it can be tough having to make our own decisions, and it's really comforting when others offer to make them for us. However, the SDAs around here should be cognizant of the fact that society will progress with or without you — if I were still SDA, I'd be praying pretty hard for that pesky rapture to roll around sooner than later as the opinions the church has instructed me to hold grow more bizarre and backwards over time.

  17. Ceci
    27 October 2012 @ 1:20 am

    It is so sad that we trust our leaders to come together in meetings for important changes and decisions, but somehow they seem so detached from reality….when is our church going to move forward and truly take care and minister to each other….we seem to be going backwards instead of letting the Spirit really lead and live and treat others the way Jesus would.   Can't believe no one got up and spoke up about the disturbance word used in the statement, what kind of people are really leading our church.  This is so sad, stuck in the dark ages when there's so much to be done, and if they would allow, God would guide them to make truly love statements representing real Christianity which would also then be reflected in our churches, very disappointing and discouraging……

  18. Trevor Hammond [22oct1844]
    27 October 2012 @ 5:04 pm

    Regarding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah:

    1] The context of Jesus’ usage of Sodom was to compare its destruction for the terrible sin and depravity and thus illustrate the gravity of those who grieve the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts of those wearing the shoes of the Gospel.  The focus of what Jesus said was not about what sins Sodom was destroyed for but to show how grave must be the actions of those who do even worse than Sodom and what they will receive.

    2] Sodom was not destroyed because the homosexuals wanted some action with the newcomers.  They were already going to be destroyed for their wickedness [before] the visitors arrived.

    3] Lot, as a bona fide member of the community of Sodom was very hospitable and warm towards the visitors.  He pleaded with them not to sleep in the street but to come to his home.

    4] The Sodomites refused to repent and turn from the perversion and depravity and showed their true colours when the visitors arrived.  They showed no remorse, by their own actions and got caught in the act of declaring to practice their perversion. 

    5] The perversion of the city most definitely had a bad influence on Lot’s family as with most depravity in Society.  The visitors literally had to drag them out of Sodom as Lot and Co were dithering and dawdling.  His wife disobeyed the strict instruction not to look back and his daughters – well they were depraved nonetheless as seen by their later actions.  Their escape from Sodom’s destruction displays God’s desire to save according to his promise to those who allow him even though reluctantly at times.

    6] Homosexuals will also have to repent and turn from their ways, just like everybody else – period.

  19. earl calahan
    27 October 2012 @ 9:35 pm

    i've always had a problem understanding the Sodom & Gommorah story. i have decided it is allegorical. That it is gennerally about man's inhumanity.Today it is estimated that homosexuals make up perhaps 10% to 15% of the general population. Doubt the towns mentioned were a homosexual  majority. i find it most difficult to accept the supernatural of the pillar of salt/Lot's wife tale, even though it occured in the area of the Dead Sea. i also doubt the story of Lot having sex with his daughters without knowing it. He would have been just as guilty as the inhabitants of Sodom, and deserved the same penalty. Lot also had other progeny & their families in Sodom. It would appear that not 10 were worth saving. There must have been innocent little children & babies (the sins of the fathers passed on to the progeny?) there. This tale has its equal in Noah's time. How different are conditions with God's children today as compared with Sodom & Gommorah? How different are we compared to Noah's day? Could the early tribes of Joseph Smith's  imagination possibly be a parallel to the early books of Moses?