All that you just wrote is linguistic semantics and parsing that is neither quotable nor accessible for the individual who is more concerned with quoting "Whatever 10:1" and its text rather than its historic application. Granted, you may be right about the problematic translation of Christian literature from the original vernacular, but those who choose like yourself who do take issue on that basis will likely only be listened to by not only those who are already inquisitive enough to find available doctrinal, linguistic or historical loopholes, but also those who are already disaffected (of whatever orientation) by anti-LGBT scripture who wish to find some sort of recourse from such "clobber" passages.
But isn't this the first mistake? Knowing the lack of explicit affirmation of, among other things, sexual orientation or gender identity, the only available recourses for more liberal/progressive Christians are to 1) cite and critically read into these discrepancies and 2) appeal to the "greater", more general values of characters such as Jesus. At least he is not recorded as issuing any explicit condemnation of homosexuality, otherwise we'd be in worse straits, historically speaking.
Permit me to at least consider the mental exercise of critical reading and appealing to the scriptures of least clobbering effect to be insufficient as a tool for building a more robust Abrahamic-religious narrative affirmation of LGBT identities.
I'm an atheist and was never LDS, but I think someone like Joseph Smith, Jr. had a good idea to write not just a new anthology of scripture, but also allow himself and his successors to write new scripture when deemed necessary. Like a constitution, it just seems to make more sense to amend, rather than interpret, the canon. It makes more sense to make explicit and plain the terms of, say, LGBT affirmation in the scripture itself, rather than seek a critical reading into literature which never sufficiently embraces anything of the sort. That has been done more recently by the Community of Christ church, an LDS denomination. (See also "Doctrine and Covenants" and "continuous revelation")
This is why I embrace the term "literalist" as used by Abrahamic religious liberals toward atheists. For me, interpretation and critical reading of any literature only goes so far until there is a frame of limitation which must, ultimately, break.
All that you just wrote is linguistic semantics and parsing that is neither quotable nor accessible for the individual who is more concerned with quoting "Whatever 10:1" and its text rather than its historic application. Granted, you may be right about the problematic translation of Christian literature from the original vernacular, but those who choose like yourself who do take issue on that basis will likely only be listened to by not only those who are already inquisitive enough to find available doctrinal, linguistic or historical loopholes, but also those who are already disaffected (of whatever orientation) by anti-LGBT scripture who wish to find some sort of recourse from such "clobber" passages.
But isn't this the first mistake? Knowing the lack of explicit affirmation of, among other things, sexual orientation or gender identity, the only available recourses for more liberal/progressive Christians are to 1) cite and critically read into these discrepancies and 2) appeal to the "greater", more general values of characters such as Jesus. At least he is not recorded as issuing any explicit condemnation of homosexuality, otherwise we'd be in worse straits, historically speaking.
Permit me to at least consider the mental exercise of critical reading and appealing to the scriptures of least clobbering effect to be insufficient as a tool for building a more robust Abrahamic-religious narrative affirmation of LGBT identities.
I'm an atheist and was never LDS, but I think someone like Joseph Smith, Jr. had a good idea to write not just a new anthology of scripture, but also allow himself and his successors to write new scripture when deemed necessary. Like a constitution, it just seems to make more sense to amend, rather than interpret, the canon. It makes more sense to make explicit and plain the terms of, say, LGBT affirmation in the scripture itself, rather than seek a critical reading into literature which never sufficiently embraces anything of the sort. That has been done more recently by the Community of Christ church, an LDS denomination. (See also "Doctrine and Covenants" and "continuous revelation")
This is why I embrace the term "literalist" as used by Abrahamic religious liberals toward atheists. For me, interpretation and critical reading of any literature only goes so far until there is a frame of limitation which must, ultimately, break.