Jared,

As an English prof, a far better word for f***king is copulating. It sounds much nicer and has the same lusty meaning.

Jared,
In other words it was a White wash.
Made up of males who are middle to upper class.
Ones who may or may not be faithful to their wives.

Thanks for your honest reporting.
I am not sure if people know what copulating means as the other word is considered to be normal in most work places.

Ron Lawson put it, this way.

"Yet the main message of Adventism to its gay and lesbian members—a slogan that appears in some form in almost all official statements that bear on ho­mosexual­ity, and is repeated again and again in publications and sermons—is that Adventists “love the sinner, but hate the sin.” This attitude, in fact, judges the faith and lives of the people whose sin is “hated,” and may best be translated as “we will truly love you only when and if you meet our stan­dards.” It thus offers conditional rather than unconditional love. This is neither welcoming nor caring."

This conference could prove to be worthwhile if it demonstrates the futility of trying to live by antiquated commands. The attempt to "use" the Bible to promote certain doctrines, should exhibit the selective use of "proof texts" by which to clobber those less conversant with the Bible.

While carefully "choosing" texts, and interpreting them with a bias, other texts written at the same time are glossed over and called out-dated and totally irrelevant: i.e., how many would suggest that the test for a wife's fidelity should be used today? How many are willing to be prosecuted for wearing clothes of two different fabrics (there goes all of us!), how many resort to the Bible for the proper healing of various diseases?

This "pick and choose" method was shown as devoid of reason, logic, and Christian love, and directed to OTHER PEOPLE'S SINS. Why anyone with good reasoning ability would be influenced by such biases is questionable.

The conference was biased from the start, as stated in the agenda.
So what else is new? This is the usual method of most such "conferences."

In my part of the world, the "f" word comes from the gutter and would never be used in polite society even informally.

If you do not know what the word 'copulate' means get your dictionary out. How many years of university education did you say you had Noel? Do you know what the word conjugate means?

Among the list of presenters was a certain Dr Carlos Fayard of the Dept of Psychiatry, LLU School Medicine, whose special interest, I noted, is integration of religion and psychotherapy. However, there has been no mention of him expressing his opinion in any of the postings so far so I'm just wondering if he made it to the conference. I also looked up the AU behavioral science faculty roster and found a certain Dr Lionel Matthews, professor of sociology, whose expertise is reportedly family relations and gender roles. Was (why wasn't) Dr Matthews, or any of the other AU behavioral science professors, present at the conference?

Well, now that Natural Law has made its entrance into SDA theology, I anxiously await the next conference devoted to exploring why SDA Natural Law theology cannot permit the use of contraceptives, because it "frustrates" the natural purpose of copulating.

Interesting, I get the impression that few opinions were changed. I, for example, support civil unions. I believe property rights and other civil liberties should be available to same sex couples. I have witnessed several very unfair
financial break-ups, in which there was no legal recourse.

I do wonder about marriage--In the typical marriage ceremony the phrase: "Whom God has joined together, let no man break asunder." Is that phrase used in same sex marriage services--if so upon what Scriptural basis? Tom

Bigotry is a powerful force that no religion so far has been able to control.

I'm sure that similar conferences must have been held in the past to justify in religious terms both segregation and the ban on interracial marriage.

It used to be fashionable to accuse Christianity of being responsible for untold wars and abuses. That is to misunderstand things. What Christianity can properly be accused of is its inability to control bigotry and bloodlust in its own adherents--and its tendency to justify these passions with sanctified language. It's often been a perverse version of 'If you can't beat them, join them.'

Matthew's Jesus accuses the Pharisees of loading burdens upon others that they're unwilling to shoulder themselves. This is certainly the case in the matter of conservatives and gays. With Paul they acknowledge that celibacy is too heavy of a burden to impose upon heterosexuals. Then they turn around and tell gays that they, of course, are expected to shoulder precisely such a burden.

Bigotry is still bigotry even when it mascarades as theology.

Excellent report. Thank you Jared!

I also have cousins and friends active in Kinship and I can affirm the observation that SDA Kinship and IMRU, while by no means ideal in all respects, have been there when no one else has. Because of that I value them.

From a letter today in the NYTimes:

"The pivotal exchange in one of the lawsuits now challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage shows that the opponents of gay people’s freedom to marry still can’t give a real answer to the key question posed in yet another court by yet another judge: “What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry?”

"The anti-gay forces’ lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, replied, “Your Honor, my answer is: I don’t know ... I don’t know.” Mr. Cooper eventually told the judge that the government should be able to exclude gay couples from marriage in order “to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions.”

But even Justice Antonin Scalia, no friend of equality for gay people, wrote in Lawrence v. Texas: “What justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution’? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.”

The reason smart lawyers like Mr. Cooper don’t give a better answer to why marriage discrimination should be allowed to continue is that there isn’t one.

Will someone offer an answer to this question?

To Peter,

My choice of verbiage was deliberate and I stand by it not because I find the word helpful or good, but because I feel it best captures the crudeness with which copulation was described during much of this conference. It felt about as irreverant as the word sounds when it rolls (or tumbles) off the lips.

I recognize that I write for a mature audience that can appreciate linguistic nuances between terms for "have sex." I chose my words with that in mind.

I recognize too that my verb of choice does not make appearances in polite conversation. You may now get a sense for my purpose in using it.

Yes, Jared could have used the word copulating. He also could have said sexual intercourse. However, the F word pretty accurately conveys the disdain and crudeness that most straight Adventist have toward homosexuals. They tend to think that F word is all that they do!

Great report, Jared.

Joselito,

Fayard did make a presentation, which I attended. It has not received my attention for two reasons:

1. It was a relatively brief portion of a long conference, and many details from the conference went unreported owing to the economy of words.

2. From my vantage point, Fayard did not offer insights that seemed otherwise missing during the conference and therefore indespensible.

A summary of Fayard's presentation can be found here.

Thanks for your thoughts Jared. Those of us from the traditional side of this issue would do well to read your comments in order to understand how we can more effectively communicate with those wearing pink carnations, as it were. Hope you can share with us about the EGW Conference soon! :D

David Hamstra
apokalupto

David,

Thank you for your many thoughts and thoroughness in reporting on the conference. You did excellent work!

Strengths:

1. Conference organizers stated their commitments/biases at the outset. The first page of the heavy conference binders handed to atendees admitted that participants were selected on the basis of their acceptance of and adherence to "a biblically-faithful view on homosexual practice, as measured by a consensus within the Christian Church for the last two millennia, as well as by the virtually unanimous view of the worldwide Adventist Church."

Weaknesses:
7. The conference seemed a cross between a revival meeting and a pep rally. It was not scholarly except in the sense that some of the presenters are recognized as scholars,
9. The conference marginalized voices of opposition.

If #1 was a strength how could #7 & #9 be weaknesses?
Kind of silly to expect a conference well advertised as #1 to actually be an equal representation debate format.

Kinship has a big annual meeting. Do you ever fault it for not being a scholarly meeting? Or that it marginalizes the opposition and is just a big pep rally for gays?

Doesn't represent a high level of cognitive ability especially when one is a theology student and thinks that crude language being part of his vocabulary and public review is fine so long as he makes his point and puts a couple stars in to sanctify it.

Michael:

Usually our greatest strengths are also our greatest weaknesses. We may attempt, but cannot be all things to all people.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Jared,

Great report on the conference. Though it didn't seem to have been a ground breaking event where "Official Church Postions" on homosexuality are concerned. I think it is important to that our church leaders have finally decided bring their heads up out of the sand. There seems to finally be a realization among them that homosexuality affects the SDA Church more directly than they would have liked to admit.

As for your choice of words, well, I must say that sometimes it is necessary to be harsh in order to draw attention to an issue. The way I see it, when homosexual relationships are described as being WORSE than beastiality during a conference and nobody bats an eyelash, then yes the word f****ing is quite appropraite. It shines a very bright light on the hateful and ignorant perception, that homosexual individuals are unable to become emotionally involved in loving and committed relationships.

To view a group of people as being less than animals in the name of one's faith is far from Christian. If the glare of the spotlight that brings attention to this fact makes someone have to squint their eyes and turn away then so be it. May that moment serve as a time of reflection of what it means to be a loving Christian.

Several of those attending remarked on the patriarchal attitude that permeated the conference. While most obvious in the presentations by Scot Zentner, it seemed to underlie the thinking of most of the presenters.

Also obvious was the tunnel-vision emphasis on the "sexual acts" of homosexuals, as if that were all that defined them.

Michael, the weaknesses might not have been noted had it not been billed as a "scholarly" conference.

I kind of have to laugh at all this as we are actually so late to the party so to speak. Why not catch up to the other Christian denominations and go straight to the topic that is threatening to split those denominations. How do you feel about gay, lesbian or transgendered Pastors? Simply by observing the other churches we know it is going to end up there. After all it is really no big deal if there are gays or lesbians or transgendered folk in the congregation, the question always comes down to will they have complete acceptance in all areas including leadership roles.

Ron

I'm saddened to hear how the church has responded to homosexuals. I am especially disturbed by Dwight Nelson's sermon and how he responded to that student. The anger I feel towards people in power who do and say things like he has is deep. There are too many people who show no love and acceptance for those who are "different." While I do not struggle with homosexuality, I have had to deal with the way that church leaders deal with the human condition. Church leaders turned the other way when abused happened in my life. I find that the church either sends fire and brimstone or totally shuns people, even those who were the victims. I personally don't feel like I want to be a part of this denomination any more because of how I've been treated by the so called remnant of God.

Michael and David,

The issue of this being billed as a scholarly conference compared to the conference's un-scholarly nature is, as Carrol suggests, the problem. It would extend beyond an inability to be "all things to all people." One would not expect a conference to be able to "do it all." One should, however, be able to expect a conference promoted as being scholarly to be such.

I have already listed some factors that made this conference un-scholarly. Michael, I wonder whether there is some confusion as to what a scholarly conference should be. There are certain accepted procedures common to scholarly conferences. They do not generally include testimonials, human interest stories, and evangelistic appeals. Those things are fine in their place, but their place is not in a scholarly conference, most would probably agree.

Colleen,

I feel sad to hear the mistreatment you describe. The church at its best is a place of safety, of comfort, and of community. At its worst, it is a negation of those things. I wish along with you that the former would describe more people's stories, and the latter would be virtually unheard of.

This seems to me like the old prejudice, bigotry, irrationality and homophobia masked in the illusory attempt to be politically progressive. They took every precaution to present only one side of the story, the fundamentalists story, while ignoring the wider reality of the world and the validity of not-so-recent Biblical/theological scholarship.

The debate on homosexuality is over, much like the debate on segregation is over. Those who dwell on the past will only withdraw from the world and thrive in their little ghetto of reality. Opinions that deserve no respect should not and cannot be respected by thinking people.

Conferences like this is at most, a joke to the general public.

Jared:

I guess I never expected it to be a scholarly conference, and never saw it as such. Only while I was attending did I discover it had been billed as a scholarly conference. I think this was a mistake since, as you point out, a conference with scholars does not a scholarly conference make.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Jared, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I know for me, as I was regrettably unable to go, it was very enlightening to hear at least one perspective. I also especially appreciated you noting racial and gender differences. It's important to be cognizant of how such demographics can impact discussion.

Thanks Felisa,

Your point on gender and ethnicity is an important one, and it seems often overlooked.

Incidentally, David Hamstra also attended, and provides his perspective(s) at the blog linked above.

I am saddened that the church I grew up is not at all the church that exists today. Religious liberty wise, I was raised that Church & State were separate & should remain that way. Also that the anti-Christ & Sunday Laws went hand in hand. It shocks me that the SDA Church took a political stand publicly regarding Prop 8 in California, and told people in the church how they should vote, however unfortunately doesn't surprise me!

As with Ellen White, so many people could not believe a woman in her day, especially with a 4th grade education would be called to be a profit of a church, yet she was. She mentions nothing specifically about homosexuality. I find that interesting, that a profit called by God didn't write about this subject.

Marriage between two people who love each other is something that God would want no matter what their gender or sexual preference is. Take gender out of it & it's all about love, as it should be! What happened before there was marriage licenses? People were married before God. This is what happened to my life partner and I. We were married before God, in a church (not the SDA church of course).

As to if marriage is for procreation...what about people who cannot have children? Or physically have some sort of sexual dysfunction? Or a couple that marries after child bearing age? What about a couple who doesn't want children? Or a couple who can only adopt or foster children?

Seminars like Spectrum, do one thing, and one thing only...mislead people, give them mixed messages, and give them little hope. People turn to suicide, because in their hearts, there is nothing else they can do. They feel they cannot be who they are and share a life with a same sex partner. If they do they will be lost (as the church teaches). Of course according to the church you won't make heaven if you commit suicide either. They feel it is a lose,lose situation. A lot of my community are taught that you cannot be a Christian & Gay. We need to get off of our high horses and love people as brothers and sisters in Christ. Treating people as God loves us.

Just like people who are straight cannot live a life as a gay person. Gay people cannot live as a straight person. That doesn't mean however that every other aspect is not the same other than who they have sex with or who they share their life with. All people think of is sex. For all you straight people out there, can you honestly tell me that is all you do with your spouse? Sex is such a small part of it one's life with a partner. Believe me I don't want to know what goes on in your bedroom & I know you don't want to know what goes on in mine.

Kinship saved my life. When I didn't know what to do, and missed Christian Fellowship with other Christians. I for some reason thought I was the only gay SDA Christian...I found out that was so far from the truth. If anyone needs support, love, and acceptance go to www.sdakinship.org

Stephanie,

Thank you for sharing your experiences. They are profound, as are your thoughts on this matter. I appreciate the feedback you share.

Let me add just a word of clarification as the author of this article because of what seems to be some confusion in your response (though it might just be my confusion, not yours).

Here's what you write:

"Seminars like Spectrum, do one thing, and one thing only...mislead people, give them mixed messages, and give them little hope."

Spectrum (this website, which also publishes a quarterly journal) is a media outlet rather than a seminar. Are you thinking of the conference described in this article? It was held on the campus of Andrews University, which has no direct ties to Spectrum. This article only deals with what happened at the Andrews University conference.

Did I misunderstand you? Was there confusion with the article?

Does Ellen White really say nothing about homosexuality or does she just not call it that? How likely is it that this Victorian lady would have gone into anatomical detail? If you do a word search on "masturbation" you won't find any Ellen White comments, but she had plenty to say about "self abuse," the "solitary vice," etc.

Likewise, in her commentary on the destruction of sodom, she notes that there, "The vilest and most brutal passions were unrestrained." And that, "a lawless crowd gathered about [Lot's] house. It was an immense company, youth and aged men alike inflamed by the vilest passions. And she notes that Lot "had no true conception of the debasing and abominable iniquity practiced in that vile city."

"The Lord rained brimstone and fire out of heaven upon the cities and the fruitful plain; its palaces and temples, costly dwellings, gardens and vineyards, and the gay, pleasure-seeking throngs that only the night before had insulted the messengers of heaven--all were consumed."

Is that strange usage, "the gay, pleasure-seeking throngs," just a coincidence? Or is it perhaps a rare example of verbal inspiration?

Is that strange usage, "the gay, pleasure-seeking throngs," just a coincidence? Or is it perhaps a rare example of verbal inspiration?

I see the scholarship in these blog comments is now reaching the level of the scholarship that was reportedly at play at the AU conference.

Thanks Jared for your summaries and insights. A minor correction, however. Miller did chair the Panel on Prop 8. However, much in the same way he was a shall we say, "active" chair in the earlier panel, he was also a very active chair against myself and Mitch Tyner in the Prop 8 Panel as well.

Thank you for the correction Jason. Much obliged, and corrected in that paragraph.

As an aside, our conversation on video was destroyed by a faulty DVR in my camera. I was very disappointed about that. I apprecaite your taking time to talk, nevertheless. Good to get to know you a little!

Thank you Jared for reporting on this as up until I received the link for this article I had no idea this conference had taken place. You did an excellent job covering this story.

This conference sounds as if it was simply a way to attract attention for attempting to be open minded. It seems as if virtually everything that was said about homosexuals was negative in some way or another. Why even have a "conference" if all you are going to do is badmouth gay people? Isn't the point of a conference to let all, or at least many different, points of view be heard? I was raised in one of the most liberal Adventist communities out there (Loma Linda) and yet gay is still something that frightens almost everyone. Where is the church going on this issue? While this conference may have been a step in the correct general direction, it brings to light everything many of us wish wasn't true of those in leadership. Preaching against homosexuality and calling out a young gay student on live television is not only demeaning but is absolutely unacceptable in the realm of loving thy neighbor.

I believe there is still hope for love in this community. I see it everyday as doctors and nurses and people from all walks of life make incredible and life changing commitments to help those in need. There is plenty of love out there and much of it has been guided in the right direction. However, when it comes to homosexuality, there is a deficit. While not everyone will agree about what to do with homosexuals in the church, the discussion that needs to take place must come from a place of more love before we can begin to see significant change.

The elephant in the room during this whole debate is that Christianity, at its core, is hateful and intolerant.

The central doctrine of the faith is that all those who do not accept a gift of absolution, effected by the torture and slaughter of an innocent third party, will have great metaphysical violence done to them by the giver of the gift.

Christians constantly have to rise above the morals of their own deity in order to be decent, accepting human beings, to say nothing of progressive social change.

Gay people are going to have a tough time finding real love in Christianity, when most Christians worship a god who loves his creations so much, he just might have to set most of them on fire.

And to think I almost became a pastor of this church! I was born in the mission field to missionary parents, church administrators, mission president, Union Departmental, Division Departmental... I was liked as PK/MK and even admired by some. I grew up in the best family Adventism could possibly spawn, I was a vegetarian, you know so I'd make it through the time of tribulation, unlike those meat eating Adventists who still needed to be fully converted! There was only one problem though, after a lifetime of gut-wrenching prayer which started at puberty asking God to please make my crushes on boys go away (by the way, before I even knew what sex was), the only answer I ever got was "no answer". I'd pray at night, and in the morning I'd still not have crushes on girls. I never had the privilege of dating while in high school, or should I say, Academy, too scared to inch close to any sort of intimate situation which my classmates indulged in and boasted about. I wanted to avoid a potentially embarrassing situation if not traumatic.

At the age of 16 I read the Great Controversy and drew strength from the stories of martyrs, John Hus was my favorite. Looking back, I can analyze and see a dark side to this. Why should I have grown up with the notion that destruction was somehow the only path ahead of me? Nevertheless, I drew strength from the stories of the heroes of Protestantism, was able to focus more, and became head of the class in a mission academy overseas in a language that wasn't even my own. While all my friends dated, were able to be affectionate with their boyfriends or girlfriends, hold hands, etc. At Andrews, I was considered a "good boy" or "very respectful" of the opposite gender, and an old lady parishioner of PMC once commended me for not taking advantage of a situation in which a girl was clearly throwing herself on me in somewhat indecent (or rather natural way.

Anyways, in the peak years of sexual intensity while at college, I started to be consumed by the fact that God would not change me, no matter how much I pleaded with him, and started to loose focus in academics. I decided to go to Collonges, the SDA school in France to change my environment and took a year off my major. There at age 20 I was able to experience for the first time, a reciprocal kind of all consuming love I'd only heard my friends and siblings talk about. I hated mornings, and often I'd find breakfast on a chair next to my bed, courtesy of a young man studying theology. I was studying French. Sometimes I'd get to my room and find fresh picked flowers in a vase from the same young man, who'd returned from a hike in the Alps, where the school was perched. What more could one ask for in life? I was finally in love, with somebody that was able to love me back. We took trains and hitchhiked across Europe together. Although this gave me strength to return to Andrews and finish my degree, I only did so by deeply retracting myself into a deeply conservative cocoon, the one I was supposed to live in, without right to what I had experienced back in Europe.

Upon graduating, I went to the Far East as a student missionary, perhaps trying to please God, maybe then he'd hear my prayers? I came back and decided to dedicate my life to him even more, I joined the seminary at Andrews. I found myself putting together some hit sermons (according to my friends) and preaching in a church nearby with NADEI (North American Evangelistic Institute). I remember gazing over the pulpit at the congregation while they listened intently to a sermon interwoven with mission stories which are always a pleaser for any SDA congregation. But I remember at one point thinking, if these people only know the "real" me, they probably wouldn't even be lining up to shake my hands and congratulate me for the message at the end of the service. Even though I was almost done with the Masters in Divinity, I decided I could no longer preach, no matter how good at it I might have been, knowing full well the view the church had towards people like me, who's only "crime" was to have the ability to love somebody of the same gender, and yes, the kind of love where you could give your life for the other person if need be.

At the John Nevins Andrews library, in between my homiletics class, philosophy of religion, eschatology, Greek, Hebrew, etc. I found myself digging for articles on how other churches were dealing with homosexuality. A floodgate opened and one of the last straws for me was reading about not only how poorly my church, the one I belonged to and was about to represent, treated gay people, but how the General Conference actually had taken Kinship, the Adventist gay support group to court over usage of it's name, and not to mention at the height of the AIDS crisis that was taking so many lives. I could no longer bear this cruelty. Thankfully, the church lost in DC court.

By the way, I have to thank Spectrum for being the only beacon of moderation and open-mindedness from an Adventist perspective I could lay hands on at the AU library. My hope is that it continues to be a source of knowledge and inspiration especially to those who are seeking more than just the status quo. In fact, I think it was in Spectrum that I first found out about the law-suit. And for those who might say, see there you go, look at the damage you cause by putting in print “heretical” views, I say, where is the damage in seeking knowledge of the “truth”?

Anyways, in the hopes of not boring or taking up too much space in the comments section, I’ll try to wrap this up. After a few months of intense study in the subject from many perspectives including religion and science I decided to withdraw at the very end of the M.Div program but to salvage all those credits I decided to switch over to Archeology and soon embarked on a trip to Israel with the seminary. Although God never answered my prayers in the way that people in such forums as the one just held at Andrews would have believed, I was still a believer, and though very conflicted, I drew much inspiration from literally walking in the footsteps of Jesus, to be in a place where so much of what shaped my life took place. The camaraderie was great and I’m very disappointed to see that Dr. Davidson who led that trip, and who I became quite close to, has turned out to be on the wrong side of history in my view. I am bewildered sometimes to see “leaders” of protestant churches who are not willing to continue the process of reformation to make the church relevant to our times.

At the end of Spring quarter when the study tour was over, all my teachers and colleagues returned to their respective countries while I was the only one that decided to stay on in Israel join a kibbutz. I fell in love with the country and with the people, and decided I wanted to learn Hebrew better. I went to the kibbutz agency in Tel Aviv and of over 400 kibbutzim they could have sent me to, I ended up at one right next to Mt. Tabor, where I was literally tilling the fields right up to the mount also known as the Mt of Transfiguration! How ironic. Was God behind this? After all, wasn’t this the mount where Jesus decided that a miracle was needed in order for Peter, James and John to believe and was lifted into the sky and enveloped in light while he communed with Moses and Elijah and was called the “son of God” by God?

One afternoon after Hebrew class, I decided I’d make one last plea to the Lord and hiked up the Mount by myself. After all, could there be a better place on earth to ask God to “transform” me? Below me lay the Jezreel valley (the valley of Armageddon) and just beyond was the sea of Galilee where I was taught Jesus had performed many other miracles, and just beyond that were the mountains of the Golan Heights, where one of the cities of refuge had been built, all this within my sight as I earnestly prayed to God. I asked him to change me, as I had many times, I remained atop the mountain for hours, and I realized nothing had changed in my inner being. I was even prepared to die, and asked God to send lightening and strike me if my sexuality was an abomination to Him. I genuinely feared when I asked this, but none of it materialized, no change in my gay status and no lightening. Then I realized, if it wasn’t going to happen here, after so many years of pleading, it wasn’t going to happen anywhere and at anytime. I thought I had two options, either God was ok with me (unlike his followers) or this was all made up and he doesn’t exist after all, and I am responsible for my life from here on. Due to so much pain and humiliation I had been put through by people who called themselves Christians, like having missionary friends of the family tell me during one of my last visits to Andrews in my thirties, that they only accepted my visit after warning their teenage boys about “who I was” and to be careful, for this reason, and many other unforgiving and destructive behavior I experienced in the hands of “well meaning” Adventist, I decided on the latter, and have never looked back!

PS But I still am a vegetarian :-)

GlobeScout, thank you for you moving testimony. If there is such a thing as 'spiritual abuse', we gays have had it heaped on us.

Like you (I think), I'm not one to try to change the churches view on this. To me it's clear. The church does not want me in her ranks unless I abandon all reason and experience and bend to her will. And have no desire to be part of a church that doesn't want me there.

The Real Problem isn't the the Christian religion - it is the god that most Christian's worship. Today they worship Moloch - as did their ancestors before them. A blood thirsty deity who demands propitiation on threat of hell fire.

In conversations with those who see homosexuality in a negative light - I have found that for most of them - their god is a very authoritarian god who make arbitrary laws and extracts arbitrary punishments for disobedience.

It has been said that we become like the god we worship and admire. Far too many people who call themselves Christians are no better off spiritually than the stiff necked Israelites who killed men, women and children with wanton abandonment at the supposedly behest of their vengeful god.

Donna,

Well said.

"I am especially disturbed by Dwight Nelson's sermon and how he responded to that student."

I've seen this mentioned in a couple of posts, but I didn't quite understand the context. Can someone elaborate a bit as to what Nelson said regarding this student?

Thanks

My experience is that I receive more hostility from "Christian" chat room participants from mentioning "law" or "sabbath" than other chatters who use the "f" word in their dialog.

ROMANS 8:7

Gallifrey and GlobeScout,

You have both shared powerful and thoughtful insights and experiences that I will be thinking about for a long time. Thank you! I feel that what will in the end prove more constructive than the best conferences, consensus statements, official policies or doctrinal edicts is ongoing open dialogue. Your contributions in that direction are priceless. Thank you!

Basing my comment on David H's blog and Jared's remarks here (my thanks to both of you for your good work of reporting) about Dr Fayard's case report, it seems that no lesson or even a generalization was drawn for the specific guidance of professionals and non-professionals about how they should relate to those whose same-sex attraction conflict with their religious beliefs. I would have liked to ask Dr Fayard, or someone in a similar position as a clinician, his opinion about any point of agreement or disagreement between him and mainstream science as represented, for example, by the Report of the American Psychological Association's Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, August 2009.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/therapeutic-response.pdf

These posts reveal the mixture of journeys that make up the tea leaves of life in our "teacup". My sainted father used to downgrade silly situations by saying that they were a,"tempest in a teacup". Some posts have come from the perspective of looking back into the teacup. Others have revealed a yearning to spill out of the teacup. It is, however, a small place to live...this teacup...if we don't look up. Of all the posts the ones that I was looking for bearly showed up. Where are the posts that focus our attention on the feelings of God?
No, Not Molech...thankyou very much for that deviation... but a God who cared enough not to leave us squirming in our own excrement forever, but offer a way out.
Does what we do hurt God?
Do our actions reflect a narcissistic human orientation?
Maybe we don't care what God feels about all this? Maybe we have cut God out of the journey because we don't want to hear Him or see Him or feel Him.
In my view, the first angel that flies in the heavens in Rev. 14 does so to retell the GOOD NEWS that has been around since time began....that God wants His children back...He wants to journey with them. He wants a relationship with them...ALL of them.
What's in this conversation about homosexuality for God? I hope not just BLAH,BLAH,BLAH...same old, same old... I hope He hears/sees genuine interest in Him and His feelings.

In the last few minutes my very thoughtful entry on this blog disappeared.

For the Record

I find it fascinating that within hours of this Conference on Marriage, Homosexuality and the Church being finished something of huge significance in the religious world should happen, even without thinking of it's prophetic significance.

Pope Benedict XVI issued a new set of canon law allowing disaffected Anglicans and Anglican congregations to join Rome while keeping various parts of their Anglican liturgy?

Question - Why are there so many disaffected Anglicans?
Answer - Chiefly because of the controversies surrounding same-sex unions and gay clergy?

To my mind,
These issues have immense religious consequences. (The Vatican's move is a prime case in point).

"Question - Why are there so many disaffected Anglicans?
Answer - Chiefly because of the controversies surrounding same-sex unions and gay clergy?"

And women priests and bishops, too.

Maybe the Adventist church could issue its own appeal to disaffected Anglicans: No smells and bells but we don't ordain women or gays. But God is keeping a record book about you.

Great idea, glennspring!!

Like the Anglicans and most other Christian denominations, excepting the ELCA, SDAs could afford to do a better job at educating themselves with regards to same-sex attracted individuals in their midst.
See: How denominational resources influence debate about homosexuality in mainline protestant congregations
Sociology of Religion, Summer, 2008 by Wendy Cadge, Laura R. Olson, Christopher Wildeman
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_2_69/ai_n32067616/?tag=co...

Jared,
Thank you for covering this conference. Your efforts to bring the discussion to a wider audience are greatly appreciated.
I think it is worth noting that the very nature of institution is the promotion of inclusion and exclusion. At the heart of the discussion is likely how to preserve the institution as perceived in the context of the historical background of the Adventist Church.
It should come as no surprise that there is little movement toward inclusion or acceptance from the institutional leaders.
What is encouraging is the fact that they needed to have a discussion at all.
A few short months ago I started attending the Walla Walla University Church after being away from Adventism for more than twenty years. My journey back has been protracted and halting. Fear and a feeling of not belonging has kept me away. And frankly, while my children were young, I could not justify taking them somewhere where they would learn to hate me.
So what has changed? Well for one thing, my heart.
* Softened by the Holy Spirit and encouraged by a cousin who simply dared to live the conviction of her heart and love me and encourage me for who I am despite the church doctrine. *Softened by a friend who dared to ask me to go to church with her.
*Softened by a doctor who dared to invite me to sit with her in church and invited me to THE LONGEST TABLE event where I listened to young returning college students eager to learn and excited about their future as well as their convictions.
*Softened by my personal doctor and an administrator where I work who have encouraged my coming back with no mention of change, just happy that I am back and making me feel accepted and loved.
*Softened by a few classmates from Thunderbird who count me as a friend and have shared my sorrows and joys in recent years.
*And softened by people like Carrol Brady and the Kinship folk, most of whom I have never met, who make a difference every day in their own communities.
This is why they needed to have the conference. This is why the discussion. The church is made up of people who in great numbers are choosing love over fear and are not afraid to express it. The voices of acceptance are growing and the notion of family has begun to take hold in the hearts of individuals. The silence has been broken and the secret is out.
So I will continue to make my way to church on Sabbath mornings. Will I be able to become a member again? I don't know. So far no one has approached me with an expiration date on being a "visitor." My excitement about the sermons and the messages I needed to hear cannot be stopped by a conference. I choose life more abundantly.
Catherine 'Linrud' Biggs

Catherine,

Thank you for your courage to speak and to do it so graciously. I am overwhelmed by what you share here, and you have convinced me further that the final punctuation mark on this lengthy (and at times painful) conversation must be the experiences of brave people who choose to make their stories known. My hope is that as people hear stories like yours, the heart softening that you're talking about will become our collective experience.

You also make an important point about our denomination being oriented toward "insider-outsider" binaries. It really is a large part of who we as a church have been since the beginning--"We are this, not that..."

It's something that we don't discuss in public, and yet it's something that really needs to be confronted. Thanks for pointing that out!

"It was an immense company, youth and aged men alike inflamed by the vilest passions."

I would submit that the real problem with the "passions" of Sodom was that it was home to large population that was more than happy to gang rape a couple of attractive strangers. Can we really equate this group of animals with a mild mannered same sex couple who simply want what we heterosexual people take for granted, namely love, acceptance, family, and equal rights under the law?

Dear Globe Scout,
I have heard so many gay and lesbian people relate similar experiences of finally recognizing that God did not change them because He didn't think they needed to be changed. And I believe it! I think God is judging us today by how we treat gays and lesbians, as I believe He has judged people in the past by how they treated other minorities.And I believe that when God judges us He will certainly take into account the grave injustices done us by those who call themselves His followers. So even though you chose to believe that God does not exist, I believe I will see you in heaven! Hugs!

Spectrum, Adventists Against Prop 8, and our organizations focused on the protection of Religious Freedom are some of the few things I am proud of in the culture of my upbringing.

This very subject is what brought my opposite-sex partner and I together in college. We shared a passion about this issue and we still do. It is the civil rights issue of our time, and I am very, very excited to see a good number of you taking up the standard within our organization.

Last night I heard Noam Chomsky on the radio talking about America Exceptionalism. I'd say Seventh Day Adventist Americans think themselves doubly exceptional.

If only it was founded in truth.

Carrol
Sorry but that is quite flawed logic.
When no miracle is forthcoming it is presumptuous to say that means God wants people to be gay.

In 2Co 12:7-10, Paul tells of "a thorn in the flesh" which greatly bothered him...
a. It was something for which he prayed the Lord to remove from him
b. The Lord did not do so, but gave Paul an answer that greatly encouraged him

2. We might not be able to know exactly what the "thorn" was, but there are some valuable lessons to be gleaned as we consider...
a. Why this "thorn" was given to Paul
b. Paul's initial reaction to the "thorn"
c. His reaction to the answer given him by the Lord
He didnt simply conclude God wanted him to be in pain all the time.

Thanks for your report, Jared. I wish I could have been there myself.

Michael, I think Carrol was stating a belief, not a logical argument. If we are going to base the argument about whether or not it's okay to be homosexual in logic, then the anti-homosexual side has already lost. Because, at least in this forum, those against are against it because a God they can't prove exists told someone thousands of years ago, with no logical explanation as to why, that being homosexual is bad. Logic doesn't really enter into it when you take it out of the framework of fundamentalist belief.

So Michael,
Have you ever watched "For the Bible Tells Me So"

That movie may give you some answers to why you are so percent in your line of thinking.

Yes and that is why Pastors pray for miracles all the time.
The new house the new car the new church the and so on.
All get what they want, don't you?

"but failed to provide cogent explication of why we disobey Scriptural mandates to kill disobedient children and those who work on Sabbath"

Make no sense at all to depreciate SDA teachings because they do not function under the ceremonial law nor under a theocracy.

Acceptance of homosexual practice is contrary to Scripture and to nature; why not admit it, folks?

And I believe it! I think God is judging us today by how we treat gays and lesbians...And I believe that when God judges us He will certainly take into account the grave injustices done us by those who call themselves His followers.

Sometimes I can get heated by these conversations. But other times I'm able to step back a bit, and when I am able to I realize that those who feel they need to stand guard at the proverbial gates to make sure active homosexuals don't get in are just as broken as the rest of us in their own way. They can't let God be the judge, and so they feel they have to protect the institution from us.

Sometimes their rhetoric makes me angry. Other times I'm with Jesus when he said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

This is what the line above should say.

"That movie may give you some answers to why you are so persistent in your line of thinking".

Jared:
Thank you for what read as objectivity/ and neutrality on the conference. I hope we as SDA's continue this open forum...Perhaps inviting folks from SDA Kinship and others of us who are ordained and gay or lesbian to participate on a future panel.

Peace be with us all!
Rev. Athena M. Gassoumis

Most do know what they do Jamie! and are hell bent on destroying maybe not the person, but the sole.
Mind games.

I like John Shelby-Spong "A manifesto."

The Time Has Come!

I have made a decision. I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone. I will no longer engage the biblical ignorance that emanates from so many right-wing Christians about how the Bible condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility. I will no longer discuss with them or listen to them tell me how homosexuality is "an abomination to God," about how homosexuality is a "chosen lifestyle," or about how through prayer and "spiritual counseling" homosexual persons can be "cured." Those arguments are no longer worthy of my time or energy. I will no longer dignify by listening to the thoughts of those who advocate "reparative therapy," as if homosexual persons are somehow broken and need to be repaired. I will no longer talk to those who believe that the unity of the church can or should be achieved by rejecting the presence of, or at least at the expense of, gay and lesbian people. I will no longer take the time to refute the unlearned and undocumentable claims of certain world religious leaders who call homosexuality "deviant." I will no longer listen to that pious sentimentality that certain Christian leaders continue to employ, which suggests some version of that strange and overtly dishonest phrase that "we love the sinner but hate the sin." That statement is, I have concluded, nothing more than a self-serving lie designed to cover the fact that these people hate homosexual persons and fear homosexuality itself, but somehow know that hatred is incompatible with the Christ they claim to profess, so they adopt this face-saving and absolutely false statement. I will no longer temper my understanding of truth in order to pretend that I have even a tiny smidgen of respect for the appalling negativity that continues to emanate from religious circles where the church has for centuries conveniently perfumed its ongoing prejudices against blacks, Jews, women and homosexual persons with what it assumes is "high-sounding, pious rhetoric." The day for that mentality has quite simply come to an end for me. I will personally neither tolerate it nor listen to it any longer. The world has moved on, leaving these elements of the Christian Church that cannot adjust to new knowledge or a new consciousness lost in a sea of their own irrelevance. They no longer talk to anyone but themselves. I will no longer seek to slow down the witness to inclusiveness by pretending that there is some middle ground between prejudice and oppression. There isn't. Justice postponed is justice denied. That can be a resting place no longer for anyone. An old civil rights song proclaimed that the only choice awaiting those who cannot adjust to a new understanding was to "Roll on over or we'll roll on over you!" Time waits for no one.

"gay, pleasure seeking throngs". The word "gay" had a totally different meaning 100 years ago. There are many songs in the SDA hymnal that use the word "gay" in reference to being "happy, joyful".
Jim

Jared
This is an exceedingly informative and balanced analysis and appraisal of the conference, precisely the sort of thing that people like me who did not attend it need. Thank you! Thank you, too, for interacting with your commentators so thoughtfully and respectfully.
Dave

Jaime
I'm not sure one can so easily lay the issue of homosexuality being right or wrong solely on Christianity's doorstep.

Lets consider this aspect.
How many movies have you seen where the fate of the human race is at stake and they have the ability to save a chosen few.
James Bond a couple times and many others.
I am thinking now of the scenes I have seen where they are deciding who they will save.
They only consider good genetic stock with no histories of congenital defects etc. This insures the small gene pool will have the greatest chance of success. From that start they next choose people with certain skills like leadership, medical, survival, construction, engineering,agricultural etc.
The one thing I have never heard them consider is making sure they have some gays. And I dont mean that to sound bad.
I guess what I am saying is that while many reject the idea that homosexuality is anything but optimum, the facts are that it is not only religion but society too that deems it atypical and undesirable. Is that fair enough?

Hmmm....Michael, perhaps you are right. Perhaps we have no value after all.

However, I put the issue at religion's doorstep, Christianity is just one of them. Yes, societal prejudice informs religion, but religion is what takes societal prejudice and legitimizes it by saying "God agrees with us, so we must be right".

Society is different in every country and Social norms are different as well.
The United States is different in that it has a christian over hang from its forefathers. In other words on the surface.
Dig deeper and you will find it not to be, so true.

In Australia it is more like the so called Christians rejected gay marriage and not society.
Socially it is accepted and getting better all the time.
Social prejudices do not inform religion in my country.

What does inform religion is politics and that is at the root of it all.
Politics plays a big part in religion and the two go hand in hand.
Look at who was at the conference.
It is not that God agrees with us but our government does.
So we have backing.
As the United States does allower Gays to get married then religion digs its heels in, claiming our freedom is being limited.

As for churches breaking up over the issue then the SDA Church has had many breakaways.

I believe God created us male and female to become one with each other and ultimately, one with Him. There is something very spiritual and sacred about sex that illustrates the relationship God desires with us. I have not quite put my finger on it but I have been thinking about it for a few years now. The apostle Paul does speak of men and women leaving off the natural affection which God created us with and turning in lust towards their own gender. I think the homo-sexual relationship falls short of the relationship God desires us to have with each other. God does not condemn us for our behaviours. Rather the darkness of our conscience bears witness against us in the presence of His light. We condemn our selves through our choosing the ways of death. I have a long hereditary line of alcoholics in my family tree. I was born with the natural bent towards alcoholism and in fact did drink heavily for 20 years. Being born with the genetic predisposition to alcoholism did not make its practice okay or right for me. It hurt everyone in my life. If I am to live and have a sensitive conscience I must abstain from drinking for the rest of my life. We have to remember that we are born with fallen natures so we cannot trust our innate instincts to be the standard which we use to guide us in the determination of right and wrong.

Michael, it is great to have good genetic stock, doctors, engineers, farmers etc. But if you leave gays out of the lifeboat, who's going to do art, fashion design, interior design, theatre, choreography, hairdressing, etc. Your new world may survive, but it will be aesthetically barren.

It will also be barren of your "care givers"

Interesting review! However I must admit that your bias towards homosexual individuals was clear from the get go. As we come closer to the coming of our Lord we need to remain vigilant and uphold truth while denouncing sin.

Failure to teach the world about Christ and His redeeming power from the bondage of sin, whatever that might be, would be to renounce the call we have accepted.

Unfortunately not all will accept Christ's invitation. That however should not be a determent for doing what is right at the right time and for the right reason.

Homosexual behavior is sin. God establishes that. Our duty is to present truth in love; not to excuse it or condone it.

I appreciate the effort and encourage you to report rather than editorialize in the future.

Your bond servant IN CHRIST!

CH (CPT) Carlos A. Molina

Noel, I believe that societal prejudice probably informs religion even where you are, but I also believe that religion is slow to change. I think that as the societal prejudice against gays is lifted more and more in society that you will find the same thing happen, perhaps years later, in the church.

It's already happening. A good number of people my age don't care if I'm gay or not and would be fine with me attending church. Some would even be fine with me participating in the roles of SS teacher, or doing music from up front.

In those younger than me, even more people have fewer issues with The Gay Thing. And these are the people who will be leading the church in the future.

However, as someone above mentioned, it could go the opposite way, and the church will just dig it's heels in.

If the church is seriously intent on saving its young people, it should adopt a more inclusive policy. Young people are very sensitive to injustice and many view the church's attitude to homosexuals no different than past inequality toward blacks. Together with refusal to recognize women as equal before God for ordination, this is not conducive to retaining young people.

Currently, the average SDA member is 51, and increasingly becoming an old person's church in the first world countries. If they wish to eventually become a third world church, while losing the potential tithe paying younger members in industrialized nations, it will be most effective reaching that goal.

Okay, thank you for sharing your reason for using the word "f***ing," Jared. But, I'm a 21-year-old New York college student (so I've seen & heard it all), and I found your use of the word to be jarring, crude, inappropriate, disrespectful, etc. Ugh, I feel like my mother, who is extremely conservative, but I have to struggle to keep away from NYC muck during the week, and now that it's Sabbath and I'm home sick, it's here on Spectrum. No, thank you. The word took me away from this serious issue for a minute, and I had to ask, wait...where am I?

Like the "homosexual pornography during a Friday evening vespers service," that you felt was out of place, I feel the same way about the use of the f word.

I agree : "Copulating" is a better word.

Fine use of the word, Jared. Thank you for writing an excellent critical summary of the conference.

Alexia,

I think thats the whole point. Jared wanted us to feel that way so that we could understand how it felt at the conference. I think he's explained that pretty well by now. It's good you felt jarred. It's good you thought, "Wait, where am I?" It's good that it "took you away from this serious issue for a minute." From what I have read, the way this conference was handled made many serious people, who attended it hoping to experience actual dialogue, feel the exact same thing.

I sat beside Jared's mother in church this morning and I told her that she ought to be proud of her son.

I think the reason I would prefer not to read vulgarities in these exchanges is that it reinforces my own tendencies to talk that way.

My deceased father, who was a very conservative SDA minister, frequently and guiltlessly used profanity. It is far too easy for me to do so as well. It doesn't jolt me as much as I wish it would.

Yet I realize that this is my problem, not Jared's.

David,

I'm with you. I recognize that the more a word is used, the more it has a desensitizing effect; the more we use the language, the easier it becomes to use the language more. This is the first time I have chosen to use the word in print, and I do not have plans to use it again. People who use "vulgar" language regualrly and flippantly denude words of their evocative force, I feel.

I take the sensitivities of my readers very seriously, and I apologize to those who took offense at my use of the word.

I will add that I am more sorry still that the conference sessions I attended made me feel as though the word I used was the only appropriate word in English to adequately convey the manner in which presenters spoke about copulation.

Thanks, Jared, for this succinct review. The very topic of the conference seems to make some assumptions: that discussing homosexuality can be done best within a discussion of marriage. That constrains the debate itself. I didn't have high hopes for the conference, and so all the more I appreciate your very even and charitable analysis of it.

Jared
I also "am more sorry still that the conference sessions I attended made me feel as though the word I used was the only appropriate word in English to adequately convey the manner in which presenters spoke about copulation."
Dave

Yes, Jared, thank you for sharing. And, thank you to everyone else - I read all of your comments, and although I may not agree, I value your kindness (your Christianity) in discussing such a controversial issue in our church.

I asked a group of people at work, a large hospital about your dialog.

Most of the young folk had not heard of that word "copulation"
The other word is used in talk all the time and I think you need to get your heads out of the sand.

Jared thanks for your support and the articles on Nelson.
Well rounded.
Noel

Bravo, Jared! Thanks for the coverage on the Adventist church and the leader's current views on homosexuality. I see that the public forums held at Andrews are still the same: divergent thinking is not allowed. While there are scholars in their midst who could address differing views, the leaders exclude their voice, research and worldview. True education happens when we as students get to explore all sides of the issue and then are free to decide for ourselves. Anything other than this is simple indoctrination or brainwashing.

Hearing about Dwight blasting the young gay man parallels his early admonitions against women's ordination into pastoral ministry back in the 80's. Thank goodness the Church has moved beyond that issue for the most part and that provides hope on the homosexuality issue. Who knows what 20 more years of discussion will bring. We can hope for openness and inclusion of all people regardless of sexual orientation, gender, race and opinion.

The SDA church provided a good starting point for my formation as a human being. When my beliefs began to push the boundaries of their accepted doctrines (ironically, due in part to Dr. Staples seminary class in World Missions) my world was dramatically altered. I'm grateful for the folks who continue to battle for inclusion and openness within Adventism. May they one day be the Church's leaders. In the meantime I've chosen to be led spiritually by people and organizations who do not endorse discriminatory practices in the name of God. And that includes gays and lesbians.

I thought this scientific article was worth quoting from. The idea that SSA is a mental state is false. There may be exceptions, but SSA is shown across a broad spectrum of species.

I liked the line about 450 animals are worthy beheading in Saudi Arabia! :-))

Male big horn sheep live in what are often called “homosexual societies.” They bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast. Ironically, scientists call such straight-laced males “effeminate.”

As this list of activities suggests, having homosexual sex is the biological equivalent of apple pie: Everybody likes it. At last count, over 450 different vertebrate species could be beheaded in Saudi Arabia. You name it, there’s a vertebrate out there that does it.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom/

Years and years ago, the Milwaukee Journal carried a short story that a Church Marquee carried the message: "Today's Sermon is for Sinners Only" A member of the ministerial staff observed the members as they approached the church and the number that stopped and pondered if they should enter.
Of course, many got the humor and chuckled as they entered. But it appeared that a few had serious doubts if they should attend.

According to some statistics that I have seen there are about 10 percent or less Americans who engage in same sex activity.
If it is a sin then it is one of the least frequent sins of Americans. Yet it has occupied more column inches of Spectrum than any other topic within the past 18 months. Why? I guess Dave asked that question several pages ago. At least I have resisted in listening to the Shocking NPR Story in the banner ad below this post.

I strongly support gay civil rights. I certainly don't support gay demands against private institutions. Nor do I support concepts like Prop. 8. Maybe about the time one of those private institutions accepts persons who don't believe in IJ and publically say so, they will also recognize other outcast sinners. Tom

I understand that it's important for all these conferences and discussions to take place, because it gets people talking and thinking and facing the issues - even if they don't go as far as some of us would like, or go too far for others.

At the same time, this is another reason why I am happy to disengage with much of Adventism. I find my spirituality, culture and love in many other places that are incredibly rich in many aspects. I'm happy to be eclectic and be empowered in choice. Adventism is still my tribe of origin and a family of sorts but I don't live at home or in my village any more.

My spirituality is Aliveness and Love. Inspired deeply by Jesus and some of the aspects of my Adventist upbringing, education and career. I also evaluate anyone's philosophy, theology and ideology by these. When aspects of these, including the Bible and Adventist or even mainstream Christian theology don't align, I leave them alone and see them as cultural baggage.

Also, why do so many people of "faith" get so caught up so voyeuristically in stuff about other people's sexuality? They would be perturbed if people did it about theirs. I reckon it is a lot about people's unresolved issues about their own sexuality and inability to appreciate other people's differences. People will get way stirred up about sex stuff and do very little about way bigger life and world issues.

Get real folks!

Gabe

As a main organizer of the conference, I was grateful that Mr. Wright could come up with ten things he liked about the conference. Well done. I just feel the need to correct certain factual errors in the "weaknesses" list, as well as point out a few very questionable observations and judgments.

1. Dr. Davidson provided meaningful responses to the question that you asked about parallels between punishments of disobedient children, Sabbath work and homosexuality. The fact that you did not agree with his answers does not make them incoherent or not cogent. Be honest, you merely did not get he answer that you wanted, and thus you dismiss the answer as incoherent. But answers we don't like and incoherent answers can be, and in this instance, were two different things.

2. Dr. Gagnon did not say that homosexual practice is worse than bestiality. In fact, he said the opposite, that there is a scale of sexual sins, which I think is apparent to all (compare consensual fornication with rape or child molestation), and that bestiality is the worst.

3. Pastor Nelson did not in any way imaginable "blast" the student's letter regarding seeking a gay marriage partner. He respectfully, carefully, and compassionately disagreed with the premises of the letter. One of the problems with the current gay debate, is that any expression of opinion contrary to the gay agenda is immediately termed as hateful, bigoted, inflammatory, vile rhetoric by the gay-rights lobby. Anything Pastor Nelson had said in any way would have been termed as "hateful" and "blasting" by gay-rights supporters unless he agreed with the position that homosexual practice is not a sin. That this gay-rights agenda is being given a controlling voice on the Spectrum website should send alarm bells up for any centrist, moderate thoughtful Adventists who care about the future of Biblical integrity in North American Adventism.

4. You are also wrong about no gay individuals presenting. Wayne Blakely continues to by a self-described "same-sex attracted" Christian. He is, in your language, gay, but has chosen not to make that his identity, or control his sexual choices and activity in life. Letters were read by other individuals who would make similar claims about their statuses. The white male bias was basically a reflection of the pool we had to choose from, given the white male make up in the academic world of those that specialize in the areas we were looking at. I and others would have preferred greater diversity, but it was not available in ways that we could meaningfully find, and efforts were made in that regard. But ultimately, truth is truth whether it is spoken by a black woman, an Asian man, a Hispanic woman, a black man, a white woman, or a white man.

5. Your point five about animal and human sex really means that you did not pay careful attention to either Drs. Wood or Zentner, who spent a great deal of time talking about the natural divide obvious to all between humans and animals, and the nobler calling of humans in both creating and raising men to be gentleman, and women to be ladies, shaping their spirits and souls into contributing members of their families and society. How this limited the discussion to barnyard behavior I fail to see.

6. Again, you overlook one of the central points of the conference that homosexual individuals are in no way condemned for who they are, but rather, for the moral choices they make, just as the rest of us are. Homosexual persons were not condemned, either explicitly or implicitly to hell, but it was made clear that those who continue in homosexual behavior would fail to inherit the kingdom of God, as any of us who continue in lustful and inappropriate sexual behavior will do.

7. People can judge for themselves whether the papers written for the conference were "scholarly" or not, but all the presentation panels were staffed by those with doctorates in their respective fields, all with scholarly publications to their credit, and they contributed publication worthy papers, which are available already on a CD at American Christian Ministries, and will be released in book format by Andrews University Press next year. The fact that we interspersed scholarly presentations with personal testimonies was a bonus, and brought a much needed human dimension to the conference.

9. Your description of the same-sex marriage panel is very misleading, in that I was a member of the panel, with a paper to present of my own. On all of the panels, a presenter also served as the chair just to coordinate events. What you term my "extemporaneous remarks" was actually the presentation of my paper, shaped in part by the claims that Mr. Hines had previously made. We have shared each others papers in the past, and publicly argued, so there was nothing unexpected or extemporaneous about it. Further, the proposition 8 panel, I did not make remarks, until the very end, where I felt it was only fair to respond to some very personal and rather cutting remarks that Mitch Tyner had made about me in his very lengthy opening remarks. And any suggestion that we intentionally overlooked questions by those wearing pink carnations is simply false. I wanted to be especially sensitive to allowing those with opposing views to ask questions. In giving the mike to questioners, I made deliberate attempts to get it to those who asked in the order the raised their hands, and especially not to overlook those who may have different perspectives. I'm sure you will recall that after Dr. Davidson's presentation, we only had time for one question or so, and I brought the mic right to you, and you asked that question.

10. I suppose most of us were somewhat surprised at the homosexual images from classical art showed on Friday night, but they were informational rather than prurient, and responded directly to claims made about the unequal or exploitative nature of homosexuality that Paul "must have" been criticizing. The photos showed that gay relationships of equality and mutuality were in fact well known and celebrated in the ancient world. And once again, any language opposing the morality of homosexual practice is going to be labeled "inflammatory" by the gay-rights world, and there is nothing that can be done about that, as we have an issue of genuine disagreement here.

The unremitting and critical coverage of the conference by Spectrum is surprising even us who have come to view the magazine as a the flagship of the Adventist left wing. My request to the editor to write and article/blog responding to some of the criticism on the site has not been responded to. Is there really no discussion remaining in left-wing Adventism about the wisdom and morality of bowing to the gay-rights agenda?

Are you really willing to alienate yourselves so decisively from centrist, moderate Adventism? You must recognize that this conference was not a so-called "right wing" response by independent organizations who might be known for automatically reacting against those on the left. This was a conference sponsored entirely by official Adventist Institutions from the GC, NAD, and several Unions, as well as several Adventist Universities, and held at the Church's flagship institution of theological education. And yet the views expressed at the conference are pilloried in every main article that appears on the Spectrum web-site.

Does the spectrum of Spectrum have no room any longer for moderate, centrist Adventism?

I think some soul-searching is due on this question.

Nicholas Miller

Nick

You write: "My request to the editor to write and article/blog responding to some of the criticism on the site has not been responded to."

This interests me because I think "Spectrum" wants to post a wide range of responsible and respectful views. Please email any other information you can rightly share with me about this. I'd like to read what you have to say.

Thank you!

Dave

P.S.: As you know, I that think that today heterosexual males are a far greater threat to society than homosexual men and women combined. Maybe we can jointly sponsor a conference on this issue:

'MARRIAGE, HETEROSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH"

"One of the problems with the current gay debate, is that any expression of opinion contrary to the gay agenda is immediately termed as hateful, bigoted, inflammatory, vile rhetoric by the gay-rights lobby."

You are so right, Nicolas Miller. The lobby wants mainly our acceptance of a demeaning lifestyle that has been instrumental in helping spread a horrible disease. Note I wrote "helping." Nothing short of acceptance of a lifestyle condemned by Scripture will satisfy the lobby and their supporters. I urge those in authority on this blog to allow Nicholas Miller to air a viewpoint just as they do for those on the left.

David Larson, you have to be kidding both in your proposal and your allegation about heterosexual males. What nonsense.

Your Friend

I agree that Nicholas Miller should have an opportunity to respond to things and to make some fresh points too. I anticipate that this will happen.

I'm sorry I left the impression that I'm kidding about heterosexual males. I'm not.

Heterosexual human males are the most dangerous animals on this planet. About this there is no possible doubt.

We really do need a conference that explores a whole range of societal maladies for which heterosexual males are responsible.

We could start with men impregnating women by the millions and then abandoning them. We could move on from there.

Please know that I am not trying to be funny. I am serious about this, deadly serious.

Thank you for this opportunity to clarify myself!

Dave

Mr. Miller,

I am not sure to whom you wrote requesting permission to respond or how long you have allowed for a reply to come, but you have done well to state your case here. I also can appreciate your need to rebut the points of critique offered in the piece and to call for soul-searching due to what you have characterized as a lack of "centrist" or "moderate" Adventism.

One would expect that such calls for soul searching would be reflective of a genuine deficiency. Since it appears to have gone unnoticed, I offer for consideration a column written for Spectrum by regular contributor Keith Augustus Burton, in which Burton strongly states his case against same-gender marriage. Those who take time to look will find a spectrum of ideas represented.

Furthermore, alleging that the many intelligent, thoughtful Adventist scholars, ministers, laypersons and homosexual individuals who disagree with the conference's conclusions are somehow bowing to an agenda, and that they have closed the door to discussion seems somewhat disingenous in light of the conference's overt single-mindedness. Soul-searching may be a two-edged blade in this case.

Still, some of your counterpoints merit response, which I offer below:

1. We may differ on what constitutes meaningful. Dr. Davidson's explanation that Andrews profs. are currently working on ways to explain which OT mandates are still in effect and which are not and why, and his response that there are other people doing studies on women's issues who could explain more on that topic didn't strike me as especially meaningful, though I grant that for some, the answer may have been meaningful.

2. Dr. Gagnon may indeed have suggested that homosexuality is better than bestiality, though the comparison itself is troubling. If I misunderstood in my note-taking, I would be willing to consider removing bestiality from that critique. The main point stands.

3. Prior to this exchange, a summary of Nelson's sermon along with a link to the audio and visual recordings of the sermon was provided so that people might judge for themselves the extent to which Pastor Nelson did or did not "blast" the student.

4. Blakeley's testimony was presented in such a way as to make audience members understand that he had left homosexuality behind. Further, that his testimony was in large part dictated to the audience by Pastor Knott who "interviewed" him solidified the fact that the homosexual community was not given voice. The glaring omission seems to remain.

5. Zentner's quaint description of gender roles did not (in my recollection) mention sex as meaningful or as meaning- making. That he said that men ought to be gentlemen did not (in my estimation) elevate the discourse of human sexuality in the least.

6. That homosexuals are headed for hell was Professor Gagnon nearly verbatim.

9. My characterization of the remarks as "extemporaneous" owed to the fact that prepared remarks generally do not include phrases such as, "I am surprised that a graduate of Harvard Law would say..." If those comments were indeed in the written remarks, I stand corrected. As for answering questions, I do recall my question being the only one taken in one instance (though on two other occasions, my question was among the only ones passed over), and I was grateful to have had that question answered in that case. Incidentally, the chair noted time for one question and I was first to raise my hand. Those among the carnation crowd did note that at least seven times, raised hands went unacknowledged. It may have been a result of time constraints, and it may have simply been coincidence, which is why the clause "intentional or not" was included.

I will say with sincerity that I appreciated the conference for giving voice to the concerns of a major portion of Seventh-day Adventists. I'm grateful that the door of dialog was left open. I also appreciate exchanges like this one, in which concerns can be raised and corrections made where appropriate.

Both the conference and the reporting on the conference have room for improvement!

Thank you Jared for your article in covering this event and for your thoughtful response in keeping the dialogue open with links and resources rather than allowing it to be shelved in an overly pious category of foregone conclusions.

Yaroslav Paliy

Dear Dr.Miller,

I see that you are actively engaged in the disscussion on this blog so I decided to reach you here. On October 23 and 29 I wrote you virtually identical letters asking you to send me, if possible, the binder that was given to the Conference participants. Maybe your server denies my letters (that's a possibility with Russian addresses).

To date I've read all the reports available from the Spectrum website, AToday and David Hamstra's blog (and commentary sections) about the Conference but for me that's not enough. I really want to read the presentations. Hence the request to have the binder in electronic format for confidential treatment. I always share the insights with my fellow pastors and church members.

I know for sure that all presentations will be recorded by American Christian Ministries but that would be available for money, I think. We, the international onlookers (mostly without sufficient means to buy the informational products from abroad) lick our lips reading only reports about the Conference. You need to know that there is also international dimension to the Conference thanks to the Internet. How many years will pass before the materials reach us here through regular church channels in translated form?

I began to collect the "bits and pieces" contacting the main presenters. Some presenters already answered my pleas to my utter satisfaction.

I want to tell you that I anticipated the Conference with eagerness. I've read the Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Seventh-Day Adventist Perspectives (2008). Sda Kinship graciously sent me the book in summer 2008. Plus I've read a lot on the issues. So the context is firmly in place in my mind to appreciate the presentations.

Sincerely,
Yaroslav Paliy, pastor, Moscow Conference of SDA (paslavic@mtu-net.ru).

David Larson-
Maybe we should also start with why do females dress is such provocative ways? I think I do not need to explain. Then we could also ask why do females *often* freely engage in activities that lead to pregnancy? In my view if one carefully considers the issue it is hardly one-sided as you seem to imply. It takes two to tango.

Thanks for your explanation.

Responding to Nick Miller's point 3. Pastor Nelson did not in any way imaginable "blast" the student's letter regarding seeking a gay marriage partner. He respectfully, carefully, and compassionately disagreed with the premises of the letter. One of the problems with the current gay debate, is that any expression of opinion contrary to the gay agenda is immediately termed as hateful, bigoted, inflammatory, vile rhetoric by the gay-rights lobby. Anything Pastor Nelson had said in any way would have been termed as "hateful" and "blasting" by gay-rights supporters unless he agreed with the position that homosexual practice is not a sin. That this gay-rights agenda is being given a controlling voice on the Spectrum website should send alarm bells up for any centrist, moderate thoughtful Adventists who care about the future of Biblical integrity in North American Adventism.

Maybe all glbti people and their families are just hyper-sensitive, I don't know. Or maybe those who want to tell them what they should do are extremely insensitive. Dwight Nelson's immediate rejection to the heart-wrenching letter from a gay former AU student, without any attempt to wrestle with the difficult dilemma faced by differently-oriented people felt insensitive to me, as did most of the conference. At any rate, my lesbian niece and I who sat through this sermon left church feeling totally bashed and misunderstood.

When those who defend the church's current stance have the attitude that "we have the only right way to view this," without even being willing to discuss different ways to read and understand the Bible's witness, I can't help wondering what has happened to our founders' respect for "present truth" and the guidance of the Holy Spirit into new light.

So perhaps Kellogg would have gotten more traction if he framed his pantheistic issues as "present truth" and the guidance of the Holy Spirit into new light also?

Present truth is not a get out of jail free card for what is already condemned.

Well, one truth that is pretty evident is that there are multiple ways of viewing and interpreting the Bible. The attitude that "we have the only right way to view this," is nothing but sheer arrogance based, not on logic or reason, but on feelings that one's faith must be correct.

That can surely be true Jaime, but it depends on how clear the texts being discussed are. Certain adjectives are impossible to get around.

The texts we have today assumes that they are originals. For more than three millennia most of the Hebrew Bible was orally transmitted in an illiterate society. To believe that there was no changes, especially when we realize those stories relied on the authentic memory for centuries and that the few who were literate in the society (not until approximately the first millenia B.C.) were not subject to rabbinical interpretation.

By totally relying on the texts we have today, we refuse to recognize that there was constant interpretation and re-editing and redacting in the texts we have today. Anyone with a minimal study of the formation of the Bible is well aware of how the Bible we have today, finally emerged; i.e., the Septuagint was the major text used by the Jews for more than a thousand years until a text was written in Hebrew.

James L. Kugel, a Hebrew scholar, in his book "How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now." From the dust jacket:

[Kugel] shows how radically the interpretations of today's researchers differ from what people have always thought. The story of Adam and Eve...was not originally about the "Fall of Man," a term never used in the Bible, but about the move from a primitive, hunter-gatherer society to a settled, agricultural one. In the earliest version of the Exodus story, Moses probably did not divide the Red Sea in half; instead, the Egyptians perished in a storm at sea. Whatever the original Ten Commandments might have been, scholars are quite sure they were different from the ones we have today. What's more, the people long supposed to have written various books of the Bible were not, in the current consensus, their real authors.

"Hiding from the discoveries of modern scholars seems dishonest, but accepting them means undermining much of the Bible's reliability and authority as the word of God.

"In his search for a solution, Kugel leads the reader back to a group of ancient biblical interpreters who flourished at the end of the biblical period.

"How to Read the Bible" is, quite simply, the best, most original book about the Bible in decades."

For anyone wishing to know more of the history of the Bible and its compilation, this is a must.

Bastard!

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/11/02/16160

From the Box turtle Bulletin in reporting on the Uganda Parliament, "Religious Leaders Weigh Death Penalty for LGBT People."

Of the clergy invited to testify before a Parliamentary committee, a Seventh-day Adventist, John Kakembo, was included.

"“Predatory homosexuals”
John Kakembo, of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, also questioned the death sentence, but otherwise praised the bill. He also repeated Mwesigye’s suggestion that the definition of victims be expanded for compensation. He justified this by calling all gay people predatory, claiming that he was targeted by foreigners when he was younger.
Themes of rampant criminality and wild predatory practices are extremely common in portrayals of LGBT people in Uganda. Prof. Peter Matoyu, who was representing the Metropolitan Orthodox Church of Kampala made some very incendiary and fanciful charges along those lines. He claimed that while a student in the U.S., a professor forced him to pretend that he and other Ugandan students were gay as part of their studies, and that they were in danger of being murdered by American gays if their ruse were discovered. This rhetoric only feeds the anti-gay frenzy that frequently grips the nation.:"
A summary of the proposed Uganda anti-gay bill includes:

If passed, it would:
• Reaffirm the lifetime sentence currently provided upon conviction of homosexuality, and extends the definition from sexual activity to merely “touch[ing] another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.”
• Create a new category of “aggravated homosexuality” which provides for the death penalty for “repeat offenders” and for cases where the individual is HIV-positive.
• Provides compensation for “victims” of homosexuality. This provision would encourage an accused’s consensual partner to claim that he or she was a “victim,” not only to escape criminal penalties, but also to demand compensation from his or her partner.
• Expand the definition of homosexuality to include “touching.” Current law requires proof of penetration. The proposed law would dramatically lower the burden of proof for penalties involving lifetime sentences or even death.
• Criminalizes all speech and peaceful assembly for those who advocate on behalf of LGBT citizens in Uganda with fines and imprisonment of between five and seven years.
• Criminalizes the act of obtaining a same-sex marriage abroad with lifetime imprisonment.
• Adds a clause which forces friends or family members to report LGBT persons to police within 24-hours of learning about that individual’s homosexuality or face fines or imprisonment of up to three years.
• Adds an extra-territorial and extradition provisions, allowing Uganda to prosecute LGBT Ugandans living abroad.

Kakembo must have been totally filled with the Holy Spirit. Inspired, infused, aflame with righteous passion.

My God!

Kenneth James

Is this representative of the schadenfreude that many posting here would prefer?

"That can surely be true Jamie, but it depends on how clear the texts being discussed are. Certain adjectives are impossible to get around."

Michael, that's why I said "viewing and intepreting". Not everyone views the bible as the infallible word of God. Some believe you cannot divorce the context and even prejudice of the particular culture from these texts.

Scary stuff Kenneth!

I imagine John Kakembo of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who was invited to testify on behalf of this draconian inhumane bill to pass in Uganda, would have been an eager participant at Andrews' conference on Homosexuality and would have felt right at home in the pews of PMC adding a few amens to pastor Nelson's anti homosexual sermon.

Mr. Museveni, the president of Uganda, who has said he will sign this bill into law, although expressing reservations regarding the death penalty, but supportive of persecuting and throwing gays into jail for life, has much to thank the Seventh-day church for. He spent his formative years in a Seventh-day Adventist elementary school. He proudly shared this with GC president Jan Paulsen 4 years ago during a visit to Uganda by the church leader. http://news.adventist.org/2005/05/ugaa-pastor-paulse-pres-musevei-meet-u...

Also according to the official Uganda government's website: "President Museveni and his guests later shared a moment of prayer. The SDA President prayed to God to provide President Museveni with the wisdom and guidance to steer the country to prosperity." http://www.statehouse.go.ug/news.detail.php?category=News&newsId=396
And sure enough, he's instituting this law which bears striking resemblance to Old Testament law. Cheers Mr. president for setting the clock back 3,000 for your country. There seem to be others in this forum who would rather live in that time period too.

Uganda is a country where Adventists have figured prominently. President Museveni appointed Samson Kisekka, as Seventh-day Adventist to the office of prime minister in 1986 and in 1991 he became Museveni's vice president. Both these offices are the highest ever held in any country by a SDA. I remember him being the guest of honor in Utrecht, during the 1990 GC session. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Kisekka

Rwanda is another country where Adventists figure prominently. Genocide did not stop at the church steps.

The only country or rather protectorate entirely populated and run by Seventh-day Adventist, is Pitcairn Island. Look what happened there: "While distant dreamers imagined the island as an embodiment of perfection, child molesting was endemic. Girls were taken into the banana groves, pinned down and raped, sometimes by more than one man. This week, after a four-week trial, five Pitcairn men - half the men on the island - were found guilty of a horrific string of sexual offenses against minors stretching back more than 40 years (a sixth man pleaded guilty earlier). The island's mayor, Steve Christian, was convicted on five counts of rape against children as young as 12; he was sentenced yesterday to three years. Another man, Terry Young, was convicted of indecent assault on a 7-year-old, and more prosecutions are planned."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/opinion/29birkett.html?_r=1

"The texts we have today assumes that they are originals."

Elaine, you provide an accurate description of the process of the evolution of the Bible. It's too bad more of the people that use it aren't knowledgeable about its origins and entire process of redaction over the ages.

And to think there was a gentleman in the other set of commentaries related the article regarding pastor Nelson's sermon vouching for the KJV intead of the more corrupted NIV. I bet he didn't know his bible was a translation of the Masoretic text which is the source text for the protestant bibles versus the Septuagint which is the source text for the Catholic bible. "The Masoretic Text, other than the Dead Sea Scrolls, is the only existing representation of the Old Testament in Hebrew. The oldest fragments date from the 9th century AD, but the oldest complete texts come from the 10th and 11th centuries AD." http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masorete.htm

I think it's interesting that the "Catholic" bible comes from a source translated a thousand years before the "Protestant" bibles and since the the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940-50's and subsequent translations, there is near unanimous agreement in the scholarly community that the Septuagint is indeed a more faithful translation. In discrepancies, the Dead Sea Scrolls usually agree with the Septuagint. This I learned while doing my M. Div at the Seminary at Andrews. There are a few good teachers there, and the laity would be surprised at the level of knowledge that is not handed down to the laity. There were a few good teachers there.

Beyond the issue of translations and texts, I see few people giving thought as to the cultural origins of the bible. It is the attempt to explain the origins and codify the social behavior of a Middle Eastern people; the Hebrews. I have no doubt that even when translations are off, the original source may not have been any better, as theirs was a primitive and chauvinistic society. Is it any surprise that in the land of the bible nobody can get along, or have ever?

"Some believe you cannot divorce the context and even prejudice of the particular culture from these texts".

Agreed Jamie. I meant to quote this in my previous posting.

When two wolves and a sheep vote on the lunch menu, do you think the wolves will have the audacity to serve mint jelly with the roast lamb?

This is why we have courts. To protect civil/human rights issues from being denied by the majority.

It took 70 years for woman's suffrage to become Federal law. It was passed in states, and then rescinded in those states, and later, passed again.

Stonewall was 40 years ago.

Thirty years from now, when marriage equality is a Federal civil right for all who desire it, people will look back to this day [November 3, 2009, Maine] as a dim recollection of by-gone intolerance. And wonder how could it have been.

But marriage equality WILL come.

Hugs

Kenneth James

Kenneth, sometimes it's hard to believe we are in the 21st century, isn't it?

People's ballots are just like the three sheep and a wolf voting on what's for dinner. Had Civil Rights been left to ballot initatives, especially in most of the South, we would still have segregation. The Courts were set up to define the meaning of "equal rights," not the voting public. In all the states where gay marriages were settled by the legislative or judicial branches, it has become law. This is the form of a republic under which the Constitution was established.

You're so right, Elaine. The majority is never going to vote for something that will go against their ideas and benefit the minority. That's why our nation's founders went to so much trouble to protect minorities. Today our nation seems to be turning to majority rule.

GlobeScout:

I appreciated your personal story and your willingness to share it. But I think that the following judgment is out of line.

"I imagine John Kakembo of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who was invited to testify on behalf of this draconian inhumane bill to pass in Uganda, would have been an eager participant at Andrews' conference on Homosexuality and would have felt right at home in the pews of PMC adding a few amens to pastor Nelson's anti homosexual sermon."

Based on their presentations, I cannot conceive of a single presenter supporting the kind of law that is being proposed in Uganada. In fact, I can think of several who, based on their presentations, I can confidently say would work actively against such a law.

I understand you disagree with both John Kakembo and Dwight Nelson, but conflate their views is not fair to either.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

David Hamstra

Your point is well taken regarding 'conflating' the views of John Kakembo and Dwight Nelson.

Let me emphasize however that I started by saying I "imagine" given Mr. Kakembo's views, that he would be an eager participant in a forum that rejects Homosexuality as an acceptable way of life, and who I "imagine" would have felt at home during a sermon where at the heart, even a committed same-sex relationship was viewed as undesirable and sinful.

And no, I don't imagine that participants of the forum or Dwight Nelson would have advocated such draconian laws. However when a seminar and a sermon are held in the "flagship" Adventist institution for theology, condemning homosexuality to whatever degree, one can only imagine it will have repercussions and adherents around much of the Aventist world, where intolerance runs even higher.

Having said this, I believe opening the door for discussion is beneficial, although at this stage I imagine it's benefiting mostly those who wish to validate their own views against homosexuality.

Jared,
Thank you SO much for your well thought out comments on this "scholarly" conference. The idea of true Adventist scholarship has in recent years become a morbid joke to me. I find it sad that there are so many Adventists out there who claim to be scholars, but still can't get past their own personal biases in order to open themselves up to growth in their understanding of truth. After all, aren't scholars people who study something in order to understand it? In a conference such as this I see the contrary. I see a group of people who are studying in order to prove what they think they already understand. In other words, "Ask not what you can do for your Bible. Ask what your Bible can do for you." It seems to me that homosexuality (amongst other issues) has been and always will be an issue of personal bias rather than actual Biblical scholarship. Without searching and listening there is no scholarship, only a pep rally. Sadly, I would expect nothing less from a group of middle-aged, white, male Adventists talking about homosexuality.
I could go on and on, but I think most of what I have to say has already been conveyed in other comments. I just wanted to say thank you for being a thinking person who can look beyond the rhetoric to hear what is REALLY being said at a conference such as this.

Elaine & GlobeScout

If we start rewriting the Bible to support our bias's there is no end to where that will lead. Homosexuality has been clearly defined in all of the Bible translations currently available today and all condemn it. The discussionon of this topic has already used some very graphic terms (fuc--ng) and I will take the liberty to add one or two more. In its rawest sense male homosexuality is mostly about "lust and ma--ure" and female homosexuality deep into "lust and prost---ics". Both are gross perversions of the natural bisexual act of sexual intercourse. Are homosexuals welcome in the church. Of course they are as long as they are non practicing the same way that kleptomaniacs (thieves) who are non practicing are welcome.

Allen,

I don't wish to rewrite the bible, it already has been, many, many times, and from many, many different manuscripts. Ask any scholar or Google it.

Maybe it's the fact that I speak 5 languages including Hebrew, that I am unable to fill in your blanks "ma--ure" or "prost---ics" though I'm assuming in the latter you are referring to some sort if prostitution.

What is heterosexuality in the "rawest" sense then, as opposed to your description of homosexuality?

BTW since as you say, homosexual sex is a "perversion of natural bisexual act of sexual intercourse" is oral sex a perversion too? Are Adventist heterosexual couples perverting the "bisexual act of intercourse" when they engage in oral sex? Should I go further down your path of "raw" remarks?

Bryn,

Thank you for taking the time to articulate your thoughts. I join you in wishing for a more robust scholarly ethos among Adventists, which I would think should include interacting broadly with scholars outside of our own faith tradition.

Homosexuality is a SIN. According to the Bible we should love our neighbors as ourselves. This includes homosexuals, and all other sinners like ourselves, but just like we are sinners, so are homosexuals. Because we are all sinners, we all need to repent of our sins, that includes homosexuals as well. Instead of treating homosexuality as an "orientation", it needs to be called what it is -- sin, and should not be condoned or accepted as ok. We all need Jesus Christ, and are lost without HIM, but if we continue to listen to self and the prompting of satan, and not the Holy Spirit, we be surely lost. The most important thing is are we developing a relationship with Jesus Christ by daily Bible study and prayer, or listening instead to self and the world about how we should think and live. It is all about relationship - our relationship with Jesus Christ and to our neighbor.

Interesting the 'love your neighbour' thought should come up just now. It reminds me of something I read just a few minutes ago:

"In the relationship between religions, the attitude of being a sole dispenser of the ultimate blessing becomes not only irrational and arrogant, but crushingly counterproductive. Everyone wants to teach, and nobody wants to learn! Everyone wants to stay in power by giving, and nobody wants to seem weak by receiving...We are to approach others by saying, 'What I don't know about God, goodness, and grace, this person might.'...I have come to believe that the world will need Christians once Christians learn to need the world.
Samir Selmanovic, "It's Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian". (http://www.spectrummagazine.org/reviews/book_reviews/2009/09/24/learning... )

We all have something to learn from each other. But so many of us (me included, much of the time), think we are the sole keepers and knowers of The Truth, and feel we must pass that on to others. At the same time, we are not willing to listen to others share truth, since 'the other' can't possibly know it unless they agree with us.

Under Weaknesses: #8 I find Jared making the following observation:

"they refused to entertain the possibility of a permanent, monogamous non-sexual homosexual relationship"

If this statement is discussed elsewhere, I would greatly appreciate being directed to this. Is this an oxymoron? What is a nonsexual sexual relationship?

I'm not Jared, but it is plain to me: what is a non-sexual heterosexual relationship? Would it not be an older heterosexual married couple who are not sexually intimate? Could it not be the same for a homosexual couple who relate in a nonsexual way? Many older couples are in a great marriage relationship but are not sexually active. Comprende?

Why is the sexual emphasis given much greater emphasis in a homosexual relationship than a heterosexual one? Marriage has many features, sexual is only one of many.

Again a definition of terms is needed.

1. When Dwight Nelson read the letter of the young gay student who said he was waiting for sex till he found the right person; that may mean that he was doing everything but anal sex, saving only gay intercourse for "marriage".

2. When older gay male couples want to stablize their "marriage", many have learned that a non sexual relationship uncomplicated with the issues of top, versatile or bottom will last longer. The Amsterdam study in the 2003 Journal of Aids of "steady" gay male relationships shows that infidelity in gay marriage leads to HIV more often than "casual" gay sex. Issues of jelousy and posessiveness arise in committed sexual relationships thus if they both agree to get their sex outside the relationship, problems with jelousy and possiveness do not arise. Thus many apparently stable gay males who accomplish staying together for many years have been able to accomplish this with a version of:

1. "open asexual marriage"
2, "don't ask questions" policy.

Eventually both males become impotent but retain their gay identity and committed friendship to each other and the gay brotherhood. These long term relationships are used as poster couples to advocate for gay marriage. Such older gay males are usually healthy and very careful about safe sex practice. Thus the nature of long term gay male relationships needs to be more clearly defined since such relationships are used as poster examples and deceive many of the naive public. Such should never be called by the honorable name of marriage.

Elizabeth you have raised a strawman and then proceed to demolish it.

Comparing the problems of homosexual relationships is minimal compared to the problems of heterosexual relationships. That there is promiscuity in both is recognized.

Where has there been a 20-year history of legalized gay marriages?
Until there is, speculation is meaningless. Have you not heard of STDs in heterosexual relationships? Why is the physical positions of any sexual relationships, either hetero or homo of any significance?

As has been said before: if heterosexual marriage was prohibited, would there be no promiscuity? We blame those who are unable to legalize their unions, while at the same time opposing such a law.

Elaine asks:

"Why is the physical positions of any sexual relationships, either hetero or homo of any significance?"

Because the act of anal sex, both heterosexual and homosexual has caused more misery and HIV/AIDS in the world than any other sexual act.

I believe the SDA church should make an official statement instructing all members, especially in the African Division that this sexual act is unnatural, filthy, physically damaging to the anus and a cause of great suffering in the world. If a husband asks for this act, a wife should refuse even if it means he will leave her.

I stand corrected, Denmark has had civil unions, not marriage, for 20 years.

To the Moderator: If a post I make is removed, it would be appreciated to be notified by email why it was removed. If this is not possible, I understand, but it would be appreciated.

Frankly, Elizabeth, I doubt you are quite the authority on homosexuality you think you are.

Elizabeth, your easy answer to African women to simply refuse their husbands demonstrates no understanding of the position of wives in that culture. Many husbands bring AIDS to their wives in normal intercourse. Have you not read of the hundreds of wives who have been raped by their husbands; or raped by the soldiers, often mutilating or killing them if they attempt to refuse?

As Carrol has stated, you demonstrate that your simplistic solutions as being an authority on homosexuality is shown in your postings.

Elaine & Carrol,

I have never said I am an authority in homosexuality. I am just a physician and read the literature. The CDC says that anal sex is the highest risk sexual act of all sexual acts. The thin fragile rectal mucosa, its close fragile blood supply and lack of lubrication glands are obvious. It was not designed for entry or thrusting. Function follows form and form follows function. Abuse will lead to consequenses and HIV/AIDS follow closely the prevalence of anal sex acts. Don't take my word for it, just read about anal sex and STDs.

IMO many women who have enough autonomy to choose to refuse such acts, should. I would like to see the SDA church officially support such a decision.

In more western societies, women who have married closeted bisexual husbands are more likely to get requests for anal sex. These wives should be supported by the SDA church officially in their choice to refuse such to their husbands, even if it leads to being divorced.

Many women do not have such autonomy and the SDA church should be among those who attempt to provide "safe houses" to help such women escape their rapists.

Anal sex acts are much more prevalent world wide in the last 50 years. (Just put "anal sex" and "prevalence" in your search engine) The SDA church should respond appropriately and warn all that such unnatural, filthy, harmful acts should not be practiced by Christians.

If anyone would like some references, you may find the following interesting. Just put the following in your search engine:

1. Assessing the role of anal intercourse in the epidemiology of AIDS in Africa. (International Journal of STD & AIDS. 2003)

2. Study Reports Anal Sex on Rise Among Teens (ABC News 2008)

As culture changes, the SDA church has made statements:

1. 1987: A Statement of Concern on Sexual Behavior
2. 1990: An Affirmation of Family
3. 1995: A Statement on Tolerance
4. 1999: Position Statement on Homosexuality

As it becomes clear that anal sex is increasing world wide and leaving a train of AIDS in its path, it is time for the SDA church to again speak. The SDA church should make it clear that even in marriage, anal sex is an unnatural sinful violation of the body temple.

There are several Biblical commentators that see in Romans 1:26 a condemnation of heterosexual anal sex.

"Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones."

Since lesbianism is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible and male seed is not involved in lesbianism, why should we see it in verse 26.

Verse 27 goes on to say, "IN THE SAME WAY men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another."

Focus on the words, "In the same way". Could this be anal sex, done in the same unnatural way, only in a man?

Medical practitioners are qualified to speak on medical conditions.

Unless such an individual has studied homosexuality and lesbianism in large populations, as is more frequently done by psychiatrists and psychologists, the genetic and other contributing causes for homosexuality are more properly the realm of these professionals. The health results of promiscuity are seen in both sexes and there are voluminous reports of these in the medical journals.

One of the producers of the video on homosexuality in Adventism, was made by a practicing psychiatrist, Harry Wang, who has studied this condition for years. For those who have not seen this DVD or read the accompanying book, it would be much better to discuss with informed people on this highly controversial subject.

It is no secret that the SDA church's official position is that any homosexuality is sin, period. It should also be remembered, that it has only been a few short years ago that divorce was usually called "living in adultery;" wearing makeup was considered sinful, as was wearing feathers or flowers in one's hat, attending the theater or opera and reading fiction. Times and mores do change, and the Adventist church has also changed, they are just a bit behind the times. Change will come when the many SDA institutions: hospitals and other government-funded entities are forced to comply with non-discriminatory practices. Read the latest news on the lawsuit against Kettering Hospital to see what is in the church's future.

Elaine,

STDs are a medical condition.

Homosexual men have a higher prevalence of STDs especially HIV than heterosexual men. These are medical facts based on physical acts. It makes no difference why they choose to do these filthy acts, they do them. They will reap the medical consequenses of what they sow.

STDs are a medical field, not a psychiatric field.

The best initial help the SDA church could give homosexuals is to help them understand the medical consequenses of their sexual acts. If they can convince gay men to at least give up anal sex, and join the approximately 10% of gay men who choose not to practice this filthy act; they will have greatly benefitted them and extended the life of such counselees.

I would hope Kinship would be encouraging its members to abstain from anal sex. I would wish that studies could show that gay Adventists have less STDs than gay non-Adventists. If Kinship is preaching higher standards in sexual acts to its members, I hope it will show in their longevity.

If Kinship keeps obituary records on members, I wish they would please report!

Elizabeth, the topic was not about STDs. It is well known that it is a medical condition. Homosexuality is not; and has been long removed from the DSM, which you should also know.

The topis was homosexuality as a condition, not a disease. STDS are far more common in the heterosexual community. Addressing only the medical situation affecting both hetero and homo is to ignore the topic was addressing the homosexual confernce.

Just as sex education in the schools should cover much more than the biological aspects, how should homosexuality in adults be addressed? Warning both hetero and homos about STDS would then be in order, would it not, since STDS are far more prevelant in heterosexuals? There still are some states which teach "abstinence only" as their sex ed classes.

In Elaine's response we see a typical tactical talking point of gay apologists:

Elaine said "STDS are far more common in the heterosexual community."

If you ask 100 American adults about their sexual identity, about 97% will say they are heterosexual and about 3% will answer Lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered.

Elaine's statement maybe technically true but is misleading. PROPORTIONALLY, homosexuals have much more STDs than heterosexuals. 50% of all new HIV infections are in gay males, yet they are only about 2% of the population.

The same tactic is used when gays argue that most child molesters are heterosexual. Again it is true that the majority of child molesters are heterosexual but this is misleading. About 20% of all child molestations are homosexual crimes meaning they are perpetrated on a same sex victim. PROPORTIONALLY gays are more likely to be child molesters than heterosexuals.

Sexual mass murderers ie Gacey, Dalmer have a higher PROPORTIONALITY of same sex victims.

PROPORTIONALLY homosexuality is a condition that leads to more disease, crime and suicide than the heterosexual condition. Gays in Canada are now using such facts to get more medical dollars directed towards the gay community.

How do you explain these facts Elaine?

Also Elaine states, "Homosexuality is not; ; and has been long removed from the DSM, which you should also know." Elaine, where have I said that homosexuality is a medical condition. Are you confusing others posts with my posts? Please quote me.

Elizabeth, I only stated that homosexuality has long been removed from DSM. I never mentioned that you had addressed it, only that I was stating it hasn't been categorized as a psychiatric condition for many years.

As for whether gays or heteros are child or adult molesters, whether proportional or not, it is that more gays have been attacked, even killed, clearly because of their orientation. Which is the hate crime bill is a good one. Anyone who is targeted for criminal activity because of his orientation, race, gender, or religion is a most heinous crime.

The percentages you provide: were they based on either hetero or homo monogamous relationships? It is well known that promiscuity is far more conducive to STDS. Which should be an excellent argument for monogamy.

Elaine,

The study that answers your ? is:

The Contribution fo Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam
published in the journal of AIDS May 2, 2003.

It showed that gays who are attempting a monogamous sexual relationship were more likely to get a new HIV infections than gay males who said they only persued casual sexual relationships.

This is a peer reviewed journal. Though gay activists decry this study, the best way that it could be discredited is for another researcher to do a similar study and come to different conclusions. To my knowledge this has not been done.

I believe this study has not been repeated by some gay researcher because he knows what happens when 2 gay men attempt a monogamous sexual relationship where they commit to trust eachother, have anal sex and throw away the condoms. Gay males can't seem to maintain a faithful sexual relationship.

They are safer and more stable if they transform their attempts at sexual monogamy into a totally asexual committed friendship that doesn't ask questions about what the other partner does, as long as he comes home and works on maintaining the asexual partnership.

IMO if gay males who are attempting sexual monogamy will at least abstain from anal sex, the issues of top, versatile or bottom which are very difficult and stressful on their relationship to negotiate, will have a much better chance of sustaining a long term monagamous sexual relationship. They will also live longer healthier lives.

I truly hope the SDA church will hold another conference, but this time invite all, especially gays. This conference should center on extending the "Right Arm" of the most recent studies on the health consequenses of sexual acts. This would be the most immediate way to help homosexuals. This conference should have the best researchers such as the principle researchers of this study, and others such as Dr. Paul Cameron (www.familyresearchinst.org)who have published studies in peer reviewed journals to discuss their work.

Isn't Paul Cameron the researcher who has been roundly discredited several times? Maybe I'm thinking of a different name.

What I don't understand why you keep saying issuues of top, versatile or bottom are difficult and stressful, or "complicated" as you said earlier. In my experience, it isn't very complicated at all.

Nope, I wasn't wrong. It IS Paul Cameron who has been accused multiple times of misrepresenting and misinterpreting studies. That Elizabeth considers him a reliable source goes a long way toward explaining some of her statements in the last several posts.

Google Paul Cameron yourselves, everyone, before deciding whether or not to believe the results of his studies.

On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership.

Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" by the APA Board of Directors.5

Cameron has posted an elaborate argument about his expulsion from APA on his website, claiming that he resigned from APA before he was dropped from membership. Like most organizations, however, APA does not allow a member to resign when they are being investigated. And even if Cameron's claims were accepted as true, it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.

Lacking training in research methods and statistics, however, nonscientists may not be equipped to subject the Cameron group's results to the rigorous scrutiny that they warrant. Consequently, they may mistakenly assume that the Cameron group's papers are basically sound because they included lengthy bibliographies, reported many statistics, and were published in academic journals. Some members of the lay public may not understand that the mere presence of bibliographic references does not guarantee an assertion's accuracy or validity, that statistics can easily be generated from faulty data, and that academic journals vary widely in their quality and their criteria for accepting papers for publication.

There is much more on Paul Cameron. Simply Google his name.

Quoting a "scientist" that has lost his credentials is poor evidence.

Elizabeth, if your comments are based on Paul Cameron's "research," which I had suspected all along, you are really out in left (or should I say right) field.

Elizabeth

You (and others) have mentioned several times that "Anal sex is unnatural".

How then do you classify the evidence that biologists have observed and recorded over 400 species engaging in homosexuality and practicing anal sex?

Research is still ongoing and adding to the list of animals observed engaging in homosexuality, but here are some to name a few: "American bison, bighorn sheep, giraffes, African buffalo, Thomson's gazelles, kob antelope, black swans, greylag geese, various gulls and sandpipers, lyre birds, cock-of-the-rock, assorted parrots, walruses, harbor seals, elephant seals, manatees, orca whales, gray whales, bottlenose and spinner dolphins, gorillas, various macaque apes and langur monkeys, and pygmy (or bonobo) chimpanzees"

It has also been noted that most such studies have only been conducted in the last 2-3 decades. Your continued misuse of this term reminds me of a time when the world was "flat" and the planets "rotated around the earth", and people were condemned and branded heretics by the church for believing otherwise.

For a very interesting illustrated article on animal homosexuality and the frequent occurrence of anal sex in nature, click here: http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/homosexuality/animal-homosexuality (The article itself is not scientific, but based on scientific studies.)

Here are some examples:

1. "Bison, those large, rugged symbols of the American West, are among the species which not only engage in homosexual activities with great frequency (for example, among males roughly three years and younger at least 55% of mounting is male on male), but practice mounting that does not support the old-fashioned notion that the purpose of mounting is simply to carve out hierarchies of dominance. While the stereotyped image is of the biggest, toughest males merely rearing up on the flanks of wimpier males, just to show them who's boss, in reality there's a good deal of hot juicy sex going on. In fact, not only is anal intercourse a common outcome of such mounting, but the "mountee" often tries to help out with getting that big cock into his rectum, lifting his own tail out of the way and/or backing his rectum toward the erect penis of the mounting male, or otherwise positioning his hips to facilitate the penetration. What's more, when their little tryst is done (it usually lasts longer than vaginal/heterosexual copulation) the "mountee" may then allow himself to be mounted by several other bulls in succession. And bison are certainly not unique."

2. "Perhaps the best illustration of this principle can be found among the bonobo chimpanzees. Bonobos (who just happen to be man's closest living relatives) organize their social life around small female-centered family groups. Males have their place in the larger social group, but it is essentially peripheral to the female groups. Meanwhile, the females within these core groups live together, sleeping, foraging for food, and raising their offspring together in a bonded, permanent family. What makes these groups truly special is that they are bound together not merely by food sharing and grooming but by their lesbian interactions.

At puberty, the female bonobo leaves her birth family to find a new group of females in another area -- fortunate since mating with unrelated males in a new area will ensure that her young have a healthy mix of genes, usually good for the evolution and survival of the species. When she finds a new female family group, she enters into a lesbian relationship with an older female within the group, becoming her close companion in all things. Meanwhile she builds bonds with the other females in the group as well as with individuals in close neighboring groups. After a year or so she has an entire network of friends and lovers, male and female, within the group. Most significantly, even once she is actively mating with the males in the periphery of her new female home group, 64% of the young female's sexual interactions will continue to be with other females.

The social benefits to the bonobo are clear. The young female forges bonds of affection, trust, and mutual support with the other females through cuddling, grooming, and mutually enjoyable sex. Just as Bonobo infants are bonded to their mothers and other family members by reassuring experiences of positive touch and the meeting of needs (cuddling, nursing, playing), so too do the females in the family group bond new members."

The article reaches a very interesting conclusion:

"Ultimately, our observation of animals shows us that homosexuality is only right and natural, and that contrary to our expectations, within nature homosexuality serves not to threaten and destroy heterosexual reproduction, but to augment it, by stabilizing individuals and communities with added bonds of affection and support, as well as giving a much needed outlet for sexual drives that would otherwise generate frustration and conflict"

Lastly, my mom would be proud of me for quoting Ellen G White:

"...nature can teach us much concerning the mystery of godliness."

"God's laws for nature are obeyed by nature."

(God's Amazing Grace - page 285).

Ms Iskander,
Are you for real or do you have an obsession on the anus.
Please tell us are you married? and if so does your husband have sex in the mission position. Agood Adventist only does it that way.
Does he do it anally with you? do you bleed?

If people find my words offending then I fined yours are most offending.
I think this thread has had its day!!
For some reason Spectrum lets people like you go on

Noel, I don't find Elizabeth's posts offensive at all. I think she is only willing to believe what already fits into her box of beliefs, but then we are all guilty of that to some extent. I think she mixes up promiscuity and homosexuality, though I don't think she is wrong about gays, in general, being more promiscuous. However, I suspect that what is really going on is that MEN are more promiscuous in general (or used to be), and so when you talk about gay men, there is no one to say 'no'.

That said, as homosexuality becomes more and more accepted, I've noticed more younger gay men who are looking for that special someone and who are NOT looking for casual hookups. I suspect it is because they are more and more free to date openly, just like their straight friends have always been able to.

GlobeScout,

Thank-you for the interesting citation. I think many would argue animal behavior is not relevant, but I do find it very very interesting.

I question the evidence that anal penetration is taking place. In humans, the initial anal penetration is difficult. The anal sphincter goes into spasm. Some patients can hardly tolerate a rectal exam with a gloved lubricated finger. I understand many gays use the drug Amyl Nitrate to relax the anal sphincter till they learn how to relax it themselves.

Thus I want more proof that real anal copulation with ejaculation taking place inside the rectum is happening.
Has anyone given a tranquilizer to the receiving male then put a speculum in the rectum and swabbed looking for evidence of semen? If this has not been done, then I don't believe anal sex has taken place.

You mention: "What's more, when their little tryst is done (it usually lasts longer than vaginal/heterosexual copulation)" Is your spin that homosexual animal sex is better because it lasts longer? How about the spin that the animal is striving to copulate but is unable to get the target. He keeps striving longer but eventually fatigues and gives up.

Animals can't use lubricants which I understand are always necessary with human anal sex. Do any of these male animals have lubicating glands like female Skenes or Bartholin glands near the anus making sexual entry easier?

Also, are gay researchers the only ones coming up with the conclusions that anal sex is ocurring? Thanks GlobeScout for clarifying these issues.

Jamie,
I do fine her to be most offensive.
She only looks at one side of a story.

I can tell from my work I see two sides.
Her box is small and from her previous rants she has said she is a doctor.
A Dr of what?

Yes as things do change for us you will see people break out of a circle.
I do not condemn as I have been down to the river and have drunk of it.
The one thing that helps you out of that circle is to find someone and that was my only reason for drinking of the water.
Not everyone is strong in mind.

I do believe in Kinship for that very reason, as the church of refuge is not accepting in our own faith.
Cold and lukewarm.
Kinship can become a refuge and a place to find your feet when you are tossed aside.
A place to NOT throw the baby out with the bathwater, that is lukewarm and cold.

www.sdakinshipaustralia.org

Noel, I find YOU to be most offensive! For me, your response to Elizabeth was very unkind (and crude even). Let's respectfully disagree with one another. Aren't we all adults here?

Alexia,
Yes I wish we were all adults and Christ like here on this site.
Ms Iskander and her elk are welcome to discuss homosexuality.
But there is a fine line on what you talk about.
My anus is not up for grabs by women.

Sorry if it offends you don't look at it.

Elizabeth, initial anal penetration isn't the only thing that is difficult. For many many women, initial vaginal penetration is also very difficult and very painful. It takes them awhile to get used to it.

Noel, you are right, she is clearly only willing to believe one side of the story, even if it is supported by known shady studies, such as those done by Paul Cameron. I don't believe there is any point in engaging her in real conversation, but maybe I'll change my mind as she writes more.

I find Ms Iskander very bitter and that tells me something about the woman.
Her hurt has made her this way.
Only Christ knows her story.

I have empathy for her in her struggle with life.
May Christ lift her up and look after her.

What I meant is that it's our Christian responsibility to think the best of others. I'm sure that Elizabeth wasn't personally attacking you, Noel, since you seem to feel this way. Unless we approach life from such a perspective, we will never be Christ-like. I call myself a "sometimes Christian." Happy Sabbath, everyone!

Alexia,
Know Ms E.I. may not be attacking me by name, but make know bones this woman is attacking me.
I am Gay and some of her rants are very rude and are not thoughtful to say the least.

You can not separate an arm from your body or leg without saying it belongs to me. That arm, that leg.

I think you need to think outside the square.
Most Adventists believe what they want about my life.

I do not have a life style any different to others but I'm sure you heard the "Life Style" story.

Yes I live in sin and I'm going to hell.

My partner is going with me, so I will be in Good company.

Why would I want to be with people who are so called Saints.
Please tell me.
The Saints are not in a church on Saturday that is for sure.

Elizabeth, initial anal penetration isn't the only thing that is difficult. For many many women, initial vaginal penetration is also very difficult and very painful. It takes them awhile to get used to it.

Noel, you are right, she is clearly only willing to believe one side of the story, even if it is supported by known shady studies, such as those done by Paul Cameron. I don't believe there is any point in engaging her in real conversation, but maybe I'll change my mind as she writes more.

Elizabeth,
I admire your levelheadedness and composure. You're holding up very well against personal attacks. I totally agree with all you've posted here so far.

Everyone,
Regarding same-sex sexual behavior among nonhuman primates, a peer-reviewed journal piece concludes:

After more than 80 years of investigating same-sex sexual behavior in nonhuman primates, there is no evidence of preferential same-sex sexual behavior in nonhuman primates. That nonhuman primates display same-sex sexual behavior is not controversial, but no nonhuman primate species has shown a preference, by either sex, for sexual interactions with their own sex. Even when same-sex sexual behavior is relatively common, the individuals engaging in samesex sexual behavior typically also engage in sex with the opposite sex.

-Sexual behavior in same-sexed nonhuman primates: Is it relevant to understanding human homosexuality?
Annual Review of Sex Research, 1997 by Kim Wallen, William A Parsons
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10051894

Sabbath blessings to all!

Thanks Joselito! Those key strokes were balm to my soul.

GlobeScout,

I am still hoping for an answer to my question. Please show me factual evidence that in any gay animal humping/sex study that anal penetration and ejaculation ever actually take place. This can only be proved by sampling the rectal cavity after the act and finding semen. I am a seeker of truth and if its there I want to know it. Otherwise this gay deception must be exposed.

To all eyes,

If you have any connections to the organizers of the next conference on homosexuality, please tell them that this question needs to be throughly answered. If there is an expert in animal sexuality that could inform all, that would be useful. I realize that animal sexuality should be irrelevant to human sexuality, but since this deception seems to influence many, we must have truth for truth's sake alone!

Studies of animal behavior would most assuredly demonstrate that by and large, most are polygamous, which was the biblical custom. Since the Bible is being used to define homosexuality by some, to be consistent the marriage pattern of polygamy should also be used.

Of interest: the Bible tells the story of Abraham and Sarah being very old, and past procreative ability, yet were able to produce a son. But, first, he impregnated Hagar, and then Sarah. But, he also had another wife, Keturah, presumambly after Sarah died (?), who bore him seven sons! Since daughters were seldom noted, it is not known when he married her and the times of the births of their sons. However, he died at the age of 175, fulfilling the command to be fruitful and multiply. The perfect answer to the Lord's command. How many use that marriage custom while condemning other Bible texts? Ah, the inconsistency in selectively choosing the Bible to "prove" a favorite subject.

Elaine,

God has His perfect will and His permissive will. Eden reveals God's perfect will, one man & one wife. Jesus reiterated this perfect plan for marriage when questioned by the pharasees. Jesus said: one man & one wife.

Abraham & Sarah cooked up their own method of fulfilling God's promises without even asking God if it could even be within His permissive will. They just did it because others did it. The whole story of Abraham reveals how God lets us go astray. We learn God's will not by the sins of Abraham, but how God protrayed his will in the consequenses. God teaches us that one wife is best by letting us see the result of polygamous men like Abraham, David and especially Solomon who was led into idolatry by his multiple heathen wives.

The Jews got what you don't seem to get Elaine; for by the time of Christ, the Jews were teaching one wife.

Elaine, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees.
God teaches us his will through narratives. God is a patient gracious God who does not force His will on us but lets us hopefully learn by the mistakes of others.

Well said Elizabeth.
Take a left out of your own book.
God is a patient gracious God and loves us all no matter what.
No conditions on it.
Man has put the dogma on it, so lets let God do the judging.

Please show me factual evidence that in any gay animal humping/sex study that anal penetration and ejaculation ever actually take place.

Oh, thank God! My boyfriend and I can rub up against each other all we want, and as long as one of our body parts doesn't slip into the wrong body part of the other, we can still get to heaven.

Phew!

Jamie,

You & your boyfriend would be healthier for the rest of your lives if you both made such a decision. Have you read the Amsterdam Study on Steady verses Casual Partners? (AIDS 5/2/03 Vol 17 Issue 7 pp 1029-1038.) If every person, world wide, made such a decision, in time, the rates of persons contracting new STDs would be cut by at least 1/2.
Only ~1/2 as many AIDS orphans would sorrow over the death of their parents.

Jamie, you see the world in only black and white. I see the world in shades of gray. From tar black, to charcoal gray, to medium gray, to light gray, to off white, to white as snow. If I or my church can help someone change from tar black to charcoal gray, if I or my church can influence you to harm less people and yourself, I believe God is honored. Thats our God given assignment, to honor/praise God. As you grow in time, we can pray for another step.

As Noel said, "lets let God do the judging". God can see the complexities of each human being fitting into those shades of gray. We cannot. This is an incredibily complex judgment. God will eventually even let humans and angels participate like jurers in the final verdict of every lost soul. Truly it is God and His wisdom and judgments that will eventually be on trial before the entire universe in each human case of the lost. Every knee will bow and together we will proclaim, Just and true are thy ways; Worthy, Worthy, Worthy!

Unfortunately the SDA church has also seen things in black and white. That is why the SDA church has been unwilling to promote condoms. I have heard hints that such is changing. If anyone can confirm this I would like to know. As long as the church gives the message that the step to become a faithful user of condoms is just one shade step on the gray scale of righteousness, the witness of the church will not be compromised IMO.

Jesus recognized the shades of gray among the lost when He said of those who prevent the gospel from being preached to their whole town, that "it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town." Luke 19:12

I am not lost Elizabeth.
None of us is lost because of Grace.
Grace given to you and me.
His blood was shed for you and me.
I accept his blood.

The church does the unpardonable sin and locks the doors.
You must fit in (rules) to be accepted and Jesus said you don't.
It is open to all even the Gay person, as he is.

Elizabeth, just so you know, I do no see things only in black and white, even if you say so. Do you have any idea how condescending you sound?

As I have said before you will not succeeded in showing Elizabeth a better way of thinking.
Other threads on Spectrum show this.

Please dear Jesus work on her soul, is my prayer.
Noel

Jamie,

You have a point. I may add a few more IMOs to my posts as that does add a spirit of humility. I wish Noel would add a few more IMOs.

One of the important texts on how God will judge is Ps 87: 4-6 which states that when God judges, he will consider if a man was born in Jerusalem or in some heathen land. I believe that 2 persons may be guilty of exactly the same sin, but if one keeps on sinning having been exposed to God's word as any Jew would have had in Jerusalem, God will hold him more accountable.

Also the thief on the cross shows what God expects before He pronounces judgment on the salvation of any individual.

1. The thief expressed specific guilt for specific sins. He said that he deserved the capital punishment for the crimes he was accused of having committed.

2. He witnessed to the crimes of others when he said the other thief also deserved his punishment.

3. He preached reproof when he admonished the other thief to stop showing doubt in the power of Jesus.

4. He openly expressed his faith that Jesus would return as a king with the power to raise the dead. He wanted to be remembered.

When God judges mankind IMO he will expect movement along the gray scale just as the thief on the cross showed movement in the short time he had left on earth. IMO part of that movement appears to openly acknowledge specific sins the Holy Spirit has presented to your soul. How much movement on the gray scale God expects is known only to God but the story of this thief is our best info on that question.

When we warn others of their sin, many will want to silence us with a misuse of "judge not". IMO God will require of all of us some amount of obedience to warn others even if we come off sounding condescending. God may then send to us persons like Jamie to help us improve our technique.

Elizabeth,

• Whereas you have described warning others of sin as a Christian duty
• Whereas you have suggested that homosexuality is a sin
• Whereas homosexuality is reference very infrequently in Scripture
• Whereas malice, disobedience, slander, gossip, lying, jealousy, abuse of the poor, wealth and pride are all considered sinful in Scripture and are mentioned with far more frequency than homosexuality
• Whereas homosexual individuals comprise a small percentage of the total population
• Whereas malice, disobedience, slander, gossip, lying, jealousy, abuse of the poor, wealth and pride are far more pervasive in society than is homosexuality
• Whereas Christian homosexuals are already acutely aware of what Scripture says about the topic
• Whereas there are disproportionately high rates of depression and suicide among homosexual individuals because of shame, rejection, isolation and fear
• Whereas Jesus was without exception harsher on prideful, abusive, wealthy, malicious individuals than those accused of sexual impropriety

One might ask three questions of you:

1. What criteria do you use to choose your battles?
2. What has led you to place such disproportionate emphasis on this topic over the years?
3. What do you hope to accomplish?

Jared, I'm not entirely sure it's fair to say Elizabeth has placed a diproportionate emphasis on this topic over the years based on her comments to Spectrum articles that are about homosexuality (though maybe you know something about her that I do not). Even though I disagree with her completely, she, and those who see things her way, are not necessarily putting extra emphasis on homosexuality, they are just staying on topic for the post that they are commenting on.

She has been at it for a while.

Thank you Jared, for putting Elizabeth's interaction into perspective. I'm not holding my breath that she'll answer any of your questions. After all, she has completely ignored quite a few asked of her by several individuals in this thread, yet badgers others to respond to hers.

I also find it interesting that she delves into our personal lives, yet reveals nothing about hers when asked, besides her name and title. She puts a magnifying glass to the stories of others, but keeps it as far as possible from herself.

How self-serving and convenient.

Me thinketh she protest to much.

I hope Elizabeth is able to be her true self one day.
May God Bless her, in her Journey.
Noel

Jared,
I counted Elizabeth's posts on this page, starting on the 8th thru the 16th: 14 in all, including one that was deleted by the moderator without warning or prior notice. That's an average of about 2 per day, mostly in direct response to questions by individuals who also, by and large, engaged in personal attacks. Was this demonstration of "inordinate" interest that you ascribe to her regarding homosexuality, which is the subject of this thread, really inappropriate? I beg to disagree!

I was just wondering about the structure of your original piece, as if it were (probably is) a community organizer's strategy: a S-W-O-T analysis of sorts. If so, of interest, to me at least, would be the Opportunities and Challenges (Threats) we can derive from the conference and subsequent conversations.

Jared, in answer to your 3 questions on 16/11/09 6:51

1. The family is the foundational social unit of society. If youth growing up see society frowning upon same sex behavior, they will naturally be guided away from it before they develop deeply entrenched habits. I believe that societal attitude towards same sex behavior will influence how much it is practiced in that society. In the studies thus far, it appears that anal sex and all same sex acts are increasing in society. IMO the story of Sodom tells us that it can continue to increase to such a level that mothers will allow/or be unable to prevent their "young men" (Gen 19:4)to accompany older men on gang rapes of guests in their town. This ensures the next generation will be homosexual or at least bisexual. Jesus told us the world will be as in the days of Lot (Luke 17:28) IMO you will win society, but not the Remnant. We are instructed to slow your win, eventually flee Babylon, then be taken to heaven. Then God will destoy the earth as it is a society in the process of detroying itself with depopulation, disease and death.

I also agree with Alan & Christa Reinach Esq. of our Religious Liberty Dept in their book Politics and Prophecy in the chapter The Marriage Debate: The Hidden Danger. Alan quotes Bainton who states the 3 prerequisites for religious persecution are present in the marriage debate. Both sides:

1. Believe they are absolutely right
2. Feel the matter in very important
3. Want the state to enforce their position.

We know from Biblical prophecy that a Harlot will be in controls the beast, so we know who will win. Prophecy is coming true before our eyes. Thousands of years of human traditions are being overturned. Alan may be right. This may be one of the reasons the Remnant will be persecuted.

2. Your answer to your 2nd question would be the same as #1 except I cannot agree that my emphasis has been "disproportionate" to the threat.

3. I and others would hope to accomplish the following.

A. A book that responds to Christianity & Homosexuality, Some SDA Perspectives should be written by a select group of SDA scholars.

B. Another Conference on Homosexuality and the Church should be planned, this time on the West Coast. This Conference should center around the research that has been done and published in peer reviewed journals, especially:

a. Do gays live shorter lives?
b. Is sodomy & all homosexual acts increasing worldwide?

C. The General Conference should speak to these issues and set forth administrative guidelines at the next GC.

To Globescout,

Why don't you just respond by saying that you are unaware of any evidence that shows that male animals have ever ejaculated into the rectum of other male animals. That was the only answer I wanted unless you had some real evidence to the contrary.

Why did you say, "she delves into our personal lives". Please paste anywhere I have done this. Talking about anal sex and its medical consequenses as a subject is not delving into anyones personal life.

What question have I not answered that is not an inappropriate personal question that should go unanswered. Please paste this question in your response.

I wish others would be as open as I have been. I have given you my real name. Most of you hide behind a psuedonym.

Right, feel free to disregard the actual questions if you need to.

Disproportionality?

Elizabeth, you do have a fixation on the Anus area.
Are you a colorectal surgeon!!!!!

Do you think you could tone it done a little!!
Your rants are not going change anything on this web-site or thread.

Jared,

I wish you would explain your "Disproportionality?" remark.

Another answer I would add to #1 question is that the issues of homosexuality in the church are spliting many churches. The other subjects on this web site do not have such power or track record. Just put:
Churches Leaving the PCUSA
in your search engine. It is a huge growing list. The same thing is happening with other mainline denominations.

It appears that churches that normalize homosexuality soon shrink and are near to closing unless they are being artificially supported by gays for political reasons. Thus this issue is the most divisive issue of our day. This issue contains every issue of scriptural authority in it.

When you see an ant crawling towards your baby, you might take notice; but when you see a black widow crawling towards your baby, you spring into action. You respond proportionately to the threat. You feel I have responded disproportionately. I feel I have responded proportionately. Shall we agree to disagree.

Jared, I take back my previous statement. She has shown me exactly what you mean in the last couple of posts.