Ruth and Naomi: A lesbian relationship?

Responses to some attempted refutations of God's disdain for homosexuality:

The story of Ruth and Naomi: I came across this from one author who was drawing a comparison between the language used in Ruth and Naomi's relationship and that of Adam and Eve. In the Genesis story, it says that man shall leave his family and cleave to his wife. Great, good. In the Ruth story, namely Ruth 1:14 it says that Ruth clave unto Naomi. What an interesting use of words, right???

Wrong. I looked it up in my Spanish Reina-Valera version of the Bible, which is the translation accepted by the LDS church for Spanish Bibles, as it's the oldest translation. Genesis 2:24 - "...se unirá a su mujer." Ruth 1:14 - "...se quedó con ella." The verb unirse in Spanish IS NOT the same as quedarse. Unirse literally means "to unite oneself to" or "to join." In contrast, quedarse means "to stay," as in "I'm going to stay." Those are totally different meanings.

Let's see if I can find the Hebrew translations of both texts.

Hmmm, it appears that "cleave" and "clave" are, in fact, the translations from the Hebrew text, which could be considered more authoritative that the Spanish Reina-Valera.

Unfortunately, the translation doesn't completely transfer to all languages, but it is evident that the meaning is contested. Nonetheless, I choose to believe that Ruth was not in a lesbian relationship. Attributing the status of their relationship to the commonality of phrasing with one word seems like grasping at straws.

The author of this debate also tries to solidify his argument by paralleling the famous "where you go, I will go" speech from Ruth with modern marriage vows. Such a venture is erroneous since the decision to make vows according to that speech were made after the fact.

Yes, it's a pretty speech, but making assumptions about what Ruth insinuated based upon contemporary usage is like justifying that the word "faggot" MUST have been a derogatory term for homosexuals, because today it's used in a derogatory sense. For the origin of said word, go to http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faggot .

He finished off by saying "Not to mention, the Bible pays very little attention to the Boaz and Ruth's relationship, and so much more to Ruth and Naomi's relationship, even after her marriage."

If one can't find logical fallacies in his argument here, one should not be reading my post about the subject.

Let me finish by saying that perhaps the "cleave" word was, in fact, an allusion to the Genesis scripture. However, going as far as to say the relationship was lesbian is possibly overstating what the Lord was saying in Genesis. Yes, perhaps Ruth clave to Naomi, but as a companion and as a help meet for her. Perhaps this is saying something about the Genesis scripture. Is the word "cleave" supposed to be interpreted as a marriage contract?

Note the difference between the scriptures (as also in other Genesis events related in Moses and Abraham). Yes, they clave to one another, but the hetero relationships said they were "one flesh." Ruth and Naomi did not get this distinction. Is that distinction reserved for sexual relationships? Perhaps. Or perhaps the delineation doesn't really matter. Perhaps cleaving unto one isn't referring to sexuality. It could mean general devotion to another, being emotionally, financially, spiritually, though not necessarily physically "one flesh." Those relationships exist outside of romantic relationships. In fact, sexuality is the defining difference between romantic and other relationships. Does a mother cleave to her child? Does a brother cleave to his sister? Can Ruth cleave to Naomi?

Establishing his word among the wicked - Alma 17

A famous chapter in the Book of Mormon, relating the story of Ammon as he protects King Lamoni's sheep. I found some further insights in this chapter that I enjoyed:

v. 11
Typically, much of Ammon's ventures are related to missionary work. I remember using many chapters as allegories of teaching techniques, the value of member missionary work, etc. However, now that I'm not a missionary, this verse brought something else out. Here the Lord describes to the sons of Mosiah how they must be in their dealings with the Lamanites: "...yet ye shall be patient in long-suffering and afflictions, that ye may show forth good examples unto them in me, and I will make an instrument of thee in my hands unto the salvation of many souls."

In light of recent social media events (the Church's recently leaked policy barring children of same-sex couples from being baptized), I thought this was very relevant. I may be moving to North Carolina if this job with Microsoft works out. How would/will I interface with a community that is much less LDS than even Washington state, let alone Utah? As I discuss the church with people, will they ask questions related to recent and other related events? If so, how do I respond? It's possible these individuals may be rather vitriolic and rude in their denunciations. However, if I am patient and long-suffering, I hope I can be a good enough example that the Lord could make an instrument of me. The church doesn't need more overly-defensive or judgmental members that spit out the first thing that pops in their head. The church needs calm, collected, understanding, hard-backed men and women that are ready to answer honest (or even not-so-honest) questions.

v. 29
Ammon rejoices that the servants of Lamoni are nervous for their lives, because he sees this as an opportunity to show his "power" and lead them to believe in his words. This is interesting because typically we aren't supposed to be sign-seekers. Understanding that this was during a time of Mosaic Law, where people didn't live by the gospel law. Nonetheless, signs can't be the base of our testimonies. Note the wording Ammon uses: "...that I may win the hearts of these my fellow-servants, that I may lead them to believe in my words" (emphasis added). Ammon doesn't want them to straight up believe in his words because of his power, he wants them to be lead to believe his words. What's the difference? I think it's similar to Alma's faith-like-a-seed allegory. We need a desire to believe, then we can have that desire work in us. Lamoni's people will not fully believe or be converted until later in the story, but this experience will get them asking questions, wondering, pondering, inviting the Spirit to do its magic.

Similarly, we can't hope to have miracles fall from the sky and convert people. Like Alma and Amulek in the prison, a miracle such as the prison coming down will probably cause people to flee in terror. Instead, we need small miracles that get people curious, asking questions, etc. Then, we begin teaching and inviting, which is when the Spirit can do its work.

Maybe the social media outrage is a blessing in disguise then...Maybe, just maybe, we can use these experiences to more easily find the people that have honest questions about the church. From there, perhaps we can invite them to learn more about the gospel...