Posted by In-house Editor on November 15, 2003 at 20:14:28
In Reply to: Can you help? posted by Blondie on October 30, 2003 at 12:21:02:
Originally, Berg had left the issue of homosexuality wide open to interpretation. He condoned it in "Women in Love" (ML 292). Apart from anal sex and cross-dressing, he declared any other type of sexual act within homosexual relationships open to interpretation according to "needs," "all things" and "law of love" doctrines. His primary reasoning for men "being driven" to homosexuality, was the failure of selfish women to supply their "needs." ("Homos! A question of Sodomy?" ML 719 DO, written June 9, 1978)
"NOW, MERELY MASTURBATING EACH OTHER and s__king each other off, this doesn't really seem any different than having women do it for you. I'm beginning to almost be forced by some things which have happened to modify our definition or to re-define more clearly what is harmful and what may not be harmful...
"THE LORD... did say regarding this, that "Nothing that is done in love is wrong". It doesn't seem that it should be any worse than being s__ked by a woman...
"I GUESS IT MIGHT COME UNDER 'ALL THINGS', AND THE 'LAW OF LOVE'... I just don't like to take a personal stand on it until I know. I guess we'll just have to say, 'according to your faith, be it done unto you', and according to your love, and according to the necessity or need. (see above notes about "needs")
"... I'm now willing to admit that there's a possibllity that it could be within the limits of the love of God, that two men could love each other that much..."
( para 21,22,25,26 or "Homos!" A question of Sodomy?" ML 719 DO, June 9, 1978)