As Always... Sex - Leviticus 18

Chapter 18 covers everyone’s favorite topic… sex. TB notes that this isn’t really about sex, because like we’ve discussed previously, adultery was culturally only a sin that females could be found guilty of, it was about who a man was allowed to marry. He points out that in ancient middle eastern culture at that time, the most ideal spouse was to be a cousin, so God wanted a more diverse gene pool, therefore implemented all these rules about who a man could marry. The whole thing is really focused on who has the right to possess which woman, and I find it kind of irritating, but it is what it is. The IM notes that the phrase “uncover the nakedness” was a euphemism at the time to mean sexual intercourse, and if that’s the case then it might seem like God is saying that as long as the man doesn’t have sex with these prohibited women, then he has a full license to do whatever he wants, which some men might have taken to mean that but I reject it. The law is and was that sexual relations should only be had between a man and his wife after marriage and not outside of that relationship in anyway. That’s the law, so any other way for people (men) to loophole their way out of that is incorrect, so in that context, then yes it makes sense that this is a list of who a man is allowed to marry, that’s the only way that the law can be upheld and these rules still make sense.

The rules were that a man could not marry his mother, step-mother, sister, half or step sister, daughter, granddaughter, aunt, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, a woman and her daughter at the same time, two sisters at the same time. The only exception to this is in the instance of when a man dies without leaving a male heir, it is his brother’s responsibility to impregnate the widow so that his brother’s lineage can be continues, but that rule isn’t mentioned here. There is also a note here forbidding homosexuality and bestiality and I just feel the need to stop here and make a note especially because the most recent time that I went to my ward, the Relief Society lesson deteriorated into a sob session about how “my granddaughter decided to be gay and it’s ruining my family and caused by daughter to leave the church,” and “I hate being forced to look at the tattoos on her arms whenever she comes over.” I almost lost my mind and it’s not because I don’t understand what the rule is, I live it myself so I’m fully aware, but the lack of empathy for even her own grandchild was just too much.

Brigham Young used to say “if the back row of your chapel doesn’t smell like cigarette smoke, then you aren’t doing enough missionary work,” and I think the modern day equivalent to that would be “if the back row of the chapel isn’t full of the gays when we aren’t doing enough missionary work.” Why wouldn’t a gay person want to come to our church? What kind of environment do we create that would influence their feelings about spending their time with us? What kind of atmosphere do we project and is it one where someone would want to come? These are all questions we have to ask ourselves when considering how closely we are following the Lord’s admonition to love one another. If a specific demographic of people leave the church almost guaranteed, and have an incredibly negative view of the church and it’s people, then we have to ask ourselves why that is and if we are wrong for that. Id’ personally like to hear less “gay bad gay bad gay bad” pounded from the pulpit and more “rape is bad, abuse is bad.” But that’s just me. Anyway, I understand why it was made a rule at this time anciently, heterosexual relationships were the ones that produced children and that perpetuated society so I get it, but we live in different times and need to make sure we are living Jesus’ standard of love. Additionally, just because that’s our rule doesn’t mean that we can dictate how others live their lives if they chose to reject our rules for themselves. Consenting adults and all that.

There is an interesting note in here too about “thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God.” The IM has a big piece of this talking about the worship of the sun god if children were really sacrificed, etc. TB notes that the name Molech as a god wasn’t, until recently, believed to have been around until like 700 BC, but he noted that just a few years ago there was an ancient altar unearthed that had the bones of many children skeletons around it indicating that human sacrifice of children was going on during this time, so God was forbidding that for Israel.

All of these abominations are cited as being the reasons why the people currently living in the land of Canaan were about to be removed from their lands, because they were guilty of all these sins. This goes in line with Nephi’s teaching that the people in the land of Canaan wouldn’t have been removed from their homes if they had been righteous, but they weren’t and therefore were destroyed in order to make room for Israel. But there’s also the warning to Israel that if they don’t keep these commandments then they too will be removed from the land just like the wicked previous inhabitants and we’ll see throughout the Old Testament that happens a few times.