Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[california boy]

We know that he wants them to be happy, that he knows them better than themselves and that after death and reconciliation with God through the Atonement, they will then know themselves and others as God has know them, we know that nothing unclean or sinful can enter the presence of the Lord, we know that God has told us that any blessing someone is worthy of that they haven't had a chance to receive in this life they will receive in the next one.

 

I think we can determine quite a bit of what God has to offer from the above, but we can't tell for each individual because it will be their choice of what gifts of God to accept or not.

Great platitudes.  But you still did't even begin to answer my question.  

 

Will a gay man be allowed to spend eternity with someone he is attracted to and loves?  

 

Will the only way a gay man becomes exalted is if he decides to be with a woman for eternity?  something he had no interest in doing in this life to the point of choosing celibacy?  

 

Will a gay man have to choose to be celibate for eternity in order to be worthy of the Celestial Kingdom?

 

Is the only answer to their salvation is that God will make them straight after they die?  Doesn't sound to thrilling to me any more than making straight people gay after they die would be an idea many would want to embrace.

 

 If you don't know the answer to those questions, then fine, state that.  But don't try and pretend that you somehow answered those questions by dancing around the issue.  These are real questions that every faithful gay member needs to know.  Where will they fit in the plan of salvation.  To give a series of platitudes does nothing to offer hope for those that are gay.  Or maybe there is just no place in the plan of salvation for God's gay children.  Perhaps this is why so many gay members leave the church.  There is no path for them to follow in the eternities.  Don't you think they deserve an answer to those questions?  One of the main reasons why I am no longer involved in the church is because no one could answer these very basic questions.  It seemed to me that the Celestial Kingdom is only a place for straight faithful members.  

 

Sorry, I don't mean to be so personal.  And I don't want you to think I am lashing out at you.  I just want answers, not some fuzzy foggy everything will work out kind of answer.  I want to know at least how everything is suppose to work out.  I hope you can understand my frustration.  It is hard enough being gay in this life.  It seems just as hard in the eternities.  Having God tell me "you can be straight or hit the road down to one of the other kingdoms" just doesn't sound like an option I am looking forward to.

[california boy]

There are many things that people see as an intrinsic part of themselves that might not fit the Plan of Salvation for the next step.  That might stand in the way of eternal progression.  They might even see it as a positive characteristic....it may even be a positive characteristic in some ways...I know a man who is so attached to his emotional independence, his view of the ideal Celestial Kingdom is getting on a celestial motorcycle with his wife on the back and touring the universe.  But that would be hell for his wife (since her limit of interaction would be with the back of his head) and what of his relationship with his friends and family?  Even now this perceived independence is causing harm to those who care for him because those who need him are being neglected for those things that interest and entertain him and he isn't fulfilling his role as a husband and father as needed to be done in some ways.  Being independent allowed him to get a good job to provide for his family in hard circumstances, to stay safe and chaste in some difficult situations in the war and relatively healthy over the years, but now as he ages it is destroying the quality of his life and where once his wife took great joy and comfort in his companionship, now she sees him treating her as an appendage as he's lost the ability to see much beyond himself for any length of time (granted he is missing part of his brain and the drugs he takes is a major part of why this part of his character is the one to 'crystalize' and become dominant now).  Will he be required to laid down that most cherished self-identity which he believes has allowed him to live a charmed life, never having to change from the fun loving, hardworking young adult that left his family's home around 1950 on the altar in order to be able to be open to the Atonement? An identity that if he thinks he has to give up, it scares him so deeply he completely shuts down?  I do believe he will, at least to the point that the Lord will be able to pick it up and alter it for the new man into something that is beneficial to everyone, not just to himself so that he willingly and joyfully comes to know the other types of love and deep companionship that he has been blind to all of his life.

 

If the Atonement covers the hardened criminals who find at last a chance to soften their hearts to the innocent children and those without the Law and creates in them the new man of God, why could this not happen for someone who is places too high of walls between himself and others or someone who has homosexual attractions?  God has promised that when we put off the natural man with his help in order to be able to accept his gifts, the Atonement creates in us a new godly man or woman, that takes our best qualities and purifies them to a level of glory we cannot imagine and takes our weaknesses and turns them into our strengths in some unknown, but promised fashion.   Why would sexual orientation be outside the Atonement (assuming that is a weakness and not of eternal value in our characters, I understand that some debate this.)

 

I am reminded of the scene in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader where Eustace the dragon tries to alter himself back into the boy he was and fails time and time again to shed the dragon skin until Aslan with his soul penetrating surgically sharp claws tears it off...not without a goodly amount of pain, revealing not the old Eustace, but a better man.  We acquire a lot of scales in our lives looking to protect our most inner selves and we may end up thinking that those scales are our best selves for what they have allowed us to accomplish even in helping others and to make a better world, but still it is that which we must be willing to sacrifice so that God's sacrifice can create in us our true, new and everlasting selves.

That is a very sweet answer.  Unfortunately It doesn't really answer my questions, but somehow I think there are no answers to my questions.  I just find my SSA much more a part of me than choosing to ride a motorcycle or how I spend my leasure time.  I am sure you can understand that.  Your effort really does nothing to make me feel like as a gay man, I have a place in the plan of salvation.  But thanks for trying.  I know you come at this with love in your heart.

[CV75]

I know you have and I don't think you need to again.  It just requires too literal a reading of scripture for me.

Might I suggest that may appear too literal when viewed through a lens that does not acknowledge the full array of human sexual orientation, tolerance and choice. Human sexuality is much more nuanced than a false dilemma between absolute homosexuality or heterosexuality, despite the revelations about and our experience with there being only two human sexes. This is another reason the covenant is structured around the two sexes and not particular points along the gamut of orientations not so easily discerned.

[CV75]

I am not questioning whether God has a wife.  That is pretty confirmed doctrine.  What I am questioning is your assertion that God's wife was an intergral or even small part of the creation of our earth.  Where did you get the idea that she was involved at all?  That is what I am asking for a CFR on.   

She was involved in that God wouldn't even be God without Her. I really encourage you to go back a few pages and see what it takes to be a god (look for the dialogue about "the couplet" vis a vis D&C 132)--this has been covered already, and what exaltation means has been reviewed many times.

 

If you think I'm making it up out of thin air, please run with that--it's fine with me.

[rockpond]

Might I suggest that may appear too literal when viewed through a lens that does not acknowledge the full array of human sexual orientation, tolerance and choice. Human sexuality is much more nuanced than a false dilemma between absolute homosexuality or heterosexuality, despite the revelations about and our experience with there being only two human sexes. This is another reason the covenant is structured around the two sexes and not particular points along the gamut of orientations not so easily discerned.

I understand that there is a range to human sexuality. But for those on toward the homosexual end of the spectrum the covenant requiring man + woman is often meaningless (as California Boy has indicated).

[rockpond]

She was involved in that God wouldn't even be God without Her. I really encourage you to go back a few pages and see what it takes to be a god (look for the dialogue about "the couplet" vis a vis D&C 132)--this has been covered already, and what exaltation means has been reviewed many times.

If you think I'm making it up out of thin air, please run with that--it's fine with me.

Back to the couplet again? The couplet doesn't actually prove that man and woman are required for exaltation as it doesn't say anything about gender or marriage. You are just overlaying your own beliefs about what God is.

Oh, and by the way, our own prophet said that the couplet isn't understood and that we don't teach it (aka not doctrinal).

Section 132 was originally understood to mean that polygamy was required for exaltation. Hmmm. We reinterpreted that. So, no reason for accepting your literal interpretation that it must exclude gay couples from future sealing covenants that could be revealed to bind the human family.

Edited September 7, 2013 by rockpond

[David T]

Oh, and by the way, our own prophet said that the couplet isn't understood and that we don't teach it (aka not doctrinal).

Rockpond, have you been following the 2013 Priesthood/Relief Society manual on Lorenzo Snow? The couplet is prominently featured in there.

[Glenn101]

Back to the couplet again? The couplet doesn't actually prove that man and woman are required for exaltation as it doesn't say anything about gender or marriage. You are just overlaying your own beliefs about what God is. Oh, and by the way, our own prophet said that the couplet isn't understood and that we don't teach it (aka not doctrinal). Section 132 was originally understood to mean that polygamy was required for exaltation. Hmmm. We reinterpreted that. So, no reason for accepting your literal interpretation that it must exclude gay couples from future sealing covenants that could be revealed to bind the human family.

 

I don't think that there is any scriptural basis for that hope based upon:

(A) Adam and Eve

(B) Paul's note that neither is the man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord (Corinthians 11:11)

(D) The Proclamation on the Family

(E) Many other pronouncements by modern prophets concerning marriage, etc.

 

Glenn

[CV75]

I understand that there is a range to human sexuality. But for those on toward the homosexual end of the spectrum the covenant requiring man + woman is often meaningless (as California Boy has indicated).

And there are a multitude of factors that formulate human sexuality, as well as all the other innumerable capacities in the makeup of the children of God. The Atonement draws them all together into a single common covenant of life that can be kept by all, and be meaningful for all.

 

I can't think of how any spirit can return to the presence of the Father, standing in the resurrected body to be judged, in exactly the same condition he was in when he left. Whatever attributes he developed as a spirit in the pre-mortal estate cannot remain static while adding on new attributes from the second (mortal, physical) and probationary estate, and as long as he has agency, which the Atonement guarantees.

[CV75]

Section 132 was originally understood to mean that polygamy was required for exaltation. Hmmm. We reinterpreted that. So, no reason for accepting your literal interpretation that it must exclude gay couples from future sealing covenants that could be revealed to bind the human family.

Polygamy is/was required of those who are commanded to practice it. The new and everlasting covenant of marriage is at its base, but the covenant yields the same blessings to men and women who take it upon themselves as a couple. Based on the practice that LDS marriages performed under the new and everlasting covenant of marriage were not exclusively polygamous, and that none were same-sex, this must have been the understanding all along.

[california boy]

She was involved in that God wouldn't even be God without Her. I really encourage you to go back a few pages and see what it takes to be a god (look for the dialogue about "the couplet" vis a vis D&C 132)--this has been covered already, and what exaltation means has been reviewed many times.

 

If you think I'm making it up out of thin air, please run with that--it's fine with me.

 

Yeah I was pretty sure your extrapulation of things was a stretch.  While a married couple on earth are united as one, that hardly means the wife is always involved in the actual work her husband does as he leaves for the office in the morning.  Interesting idea though.  But not doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

Back to the couplet again? The couplet doesn't actually prove that man and woman are required for exaltation as it doesn't say anything about gender or marriage. You are just overlaying your own beliefs about what God is. Oh, and by the way, our own prophet said that the couplet isn't understood and that we don't teach it (aka not doctrinal). Section 132 was originally understood to mean that polygamy was required for exaltation. Hmmm. We reinterpreted that. So, no reason for accepting your literal interpretation that it must exclude gay couples from future sealing covenants that could be revealed to bind the human family.

 

We don't entirely rely on just the Snow Couplet. We also have Scripture that says in 1 Corinthians 11:11 "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord".

 

There is no need to reinterpret D&C 132. The Book of Mormon already allows for polygamy when commanded by God.

[CV75]

Yeah I was pretty sure your extrapulation of things was a stretch.  While a married couple on earth are united as one, that hardly means the wife is always involved in the actual work her husband does as he leaves for the office in the morning.  Interesting idea though.  But not doctrine.

It’s only a stretch for those who view their significant others as objects, props or ancillary appendages to whatever task they are undertaking at the moment, and for those who hold that their significant other fulfills only a fairly narrow scope of interest.

 

And depending on the quality of the marriage and/or the type of work, wives can be very much involved in the actual work their husbands do while apart from each other. As gods, married couples share the same work and glory, which I define as the immortlaity and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39).

 

Take any task a man undertakes to earn a living: he performs it better when his marriage is happy. How much more so when we're talking about something far greater than that, like Moses 1:39?

[rockpond]

And there are a multitude of factors that formulate human sexuality, as well as all the other innumerable capacities in the makeup of the children of God. The Atonement draws them all together into a single common covenant of life that can be kept by all, and be meaningful for all.

 

I can't think of how any spirit can return to the presence of the Father, standing in the resurrected body to be judged, in exactly the same condition he was in when he left. Whatever attributes he developed as a spirit in the pre-mortal estate cannot remain static while adding on new attributes from the second (mortal, physical) and probationary estate, and as long as he has agency, which the Atonement guarantees.

 

Got it.  That's your fancy way of saying that homosexuals will be made heterosexual in the next life.

[rockpond]

We don't entirely rely on just the Snow Couplet. We also have Scripture that says in 1 Corinthians 11:11 "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord".

 

There is no need to reinterpret D&C 132. The Book of Mormon already allows for polygamy when commanded by God.

 

 

Polygamy is/was required of those who are commanded to practice it. The new and everlasting covenant of marriage is at its base, but the covenant yields the same blessings to men and women who take it upon themselves as a couple. Based on the practice that LDS marriages performed under the new and everlasting covenant of marriage were not exclusively polygamous, and that none were same-sex, this must have been the understanding all along.

 

 

I don't think that there is any scriptural basis for that hope based upon:

(A) Adam and Eve

(B) Paul's note that neither is the man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord (Corinthians 11:11)

(D) The Proclamation on the Family

(E) Many other pronouncements by modern prophets concerning marriage, etc.

 

Glenn

 

Some new people have jumped into the thread here and so I thought I'd try to reply to several questions at once.

 

First, regarding Section 132... 

 

The new and everlasting covenant was originally understood as the commandment to practice plural marriage.  If it hadn't been understood that way, why did Emma burn the original manuscript when it was presented to her?

 

Why would Joseph F. Smith have said:  "We formerly taught to our people that polygamy or Celestial Marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith was right; that it was a necessity to man’s highest exaltation in the life to come."  (Reed Smoot Case)

 

My point in bringing that up is not to slam past church leaders for limited understanding but to point out that we have continued to learn about the sealing ordinance, what it means, and how it is to be practiced.  From the sealings that were done under the law of adoption, through the change from the original section 101 (one wife) to its replacement with section 132, to the 1960's and 70's where we learned about the admittance of those of African descent.

 

I believe that there still could be more to learn about the sealing ordinance and yes, I hope for the possibility that the Lord might reveal a sealing ordinance for homosexual couples.

 

I believe additional revelation on the subject could be helpful to us as Saints.  But as long as we already believe that we KNOW the answer, we won't be given any further light and knowledge.

 

I know that there is not a lot of support for a same-gender sealing in the scriptures but the Lord can only speak to man in the language and culture that they understand (2 Ne 31:3).

 

Anyway, it's just my personal belief.  I don't really expect to convince anyone of it but I thought that some people might think... "yeah, that would be nice if there was further revelation on the matter and the possibility of our homosexual brothers and sisters being sealed to the companions that they love."

[california boy]

It’s only a stretch for those who view their significant others as objects, props or ancillary appendages to whatever task they are undertaking at the moment, and for those who hold that their significant other fulfills only a fairly narrow scope of interest.

 

And depending on the quality of the marriage and/or the type of work, wives can be very much involved in the actual work their husbands do while apart from each other. As gods, married couples share the same work and glory, which I define as the immortlaity and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39).

 

Take any task a man undertakes to earn a living: he performs it better when his marriage is happy. How much more so when we're talking about something far greater than that, like Moses 1:39?

I never implied that a wife is not an important part of any marriage.  I just find it amazing that you take a position that God's wife was equally involved in the creation of the earth/etc.  when there is absolutely no scriptures or prophetic statements to support such a position.  While I have asked for a CFR on this idea, you have offered nothing but the concept that they MAY work as a team simply because they are married,   While their marriage is not speculation, the idea that they worked together in the creation process is completely speculation.  

 

What is not speculation is that God and Christ were involved together in the creation process.  So as far as the scriptural and prophetic statements are concerned, only males were involved in the creation process.  This lends more support to the idea that a gay couple could create worlds together than it does to a husband wife team creating worlds.  I am not asserting that is the case, I am just pointing out the scriptural record on how worlds are created supports such an idea far more than a husband/wife team.

[slamarwi]

Got it.  That's your fancy way of saying that homosexuals will be made heterosexual in the next life.

 

 

 

I can't answer for CV75, but to be direct and un-PC. I would say yes, that is my hope. The family unit consisting of Mom, Dad and children is the basis of our spiritual and temporal existence and I would want that for all people.

[CV75]

Got it.  That's your fancy way of saying that homosexuals will be made heterosexual in the next life.

Not at all – “GLBTT” – “Go Look Back Through the Thread”! There are so many contributing, and even overriding, factors to whatever it is that we might label “homo-“ or “heterosexual” that a person’s sexual orientation means very little, if anything at all, in relation to the magnificent blessings of making and keeping the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Nothing need be a permanent barrier to entering into this covenant, especially a misunderstanding based on artificial labels that so inadequately describe the whole picture of what a child of God really is and does and has the capacity for.

[CV75]

I never implied that a wife is not an important part of any marriage.  I just find it amazing that you take a position that God's wife was equally involved in the creation of the earth/etc.

I guess we have different concepts of what "equal" means. And where "Elohim" is plural, just because the concept of God is represented by with a male "lead" doesn't mean that all elohim are male. In the creation, male and female (jointly referred to as man and/or Adam) were created in the image of Elohim, who is at least a couple.

 

Now we do pray to Heavenly Father and so forth, but that's a different topic altogether.

[rockpond]

Not at all – “GLBTT” – “Go Look Back Through the Thread”! There are so many contributing, and even overriding, factors to whatever it is that we might label “homo-“ or “heterosexual” that a person’s sexual orientation means very little, if anything at all, in relation to the magnificent blessings of making and keeping the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Nothing need be a permanent barrier to entering into this covenant, especially a misunderstanding based on artificial labels that so inadequately describe the whole picture of what a child of God really is and does and has the capacity for.

 

I've been right here with you through this entire thread and I still don't understand your abstract view of sexual orientation.  I understand your thoughts on artificial labels and the spectrum of orientation.  I get and agree with the idea that the atonement needs to change us.  And I also agree that as children of God we have an amazing, divine capacity.

 

But here's where you lose me:  If those of us who have entered into the new and everlasting covenant (or who do so posthumously) are going to be in eternal man/woman unions creating spirit offspring and working together towards their eternal life wouldn't it be useful to have a heterosexual orientation?  Or is the idea that we totally rise above sexual orientation and become asexual?  And if that's the case, how do you then conclude that same gender sealings can never be?

 

I can't logically work the idea that we move past sexual orientation but then we must exclusively be in man-women unions because that's the only way to organize spirits.

[CV75]

I know that there is not a lot of support for a same-gender sealing in the scriptures but the Lord can only speak to man in the language and culture that they understand (2 Ne 31:3).

Why have there never been any prophets from a homosexual civilization, or are you suggesting there have been, and their scriptures haven't survived?

[CV75]

But here's where you lose me:  If those of us who have entered into the new and everlasting covenant (or who do so posthumously) are going to be in eternal man/woman unions creating spirit offspring and working together towards their eternal life wouldn't it be useful to have a heterosexual orientation?  Or is the idea that we totally rise above sexual orientation and become asexual?  And if that's the case, how do you then conclude that same gender sealings can never be?

 

I can't logically work the idea that we move past sexual orientation but then we must exclusively be in man-women unions because that's the only way to organize spirits.

The prefixes and labels (homo-, hetero- and a-) are of no use; they are less than 200 years old and do not convey the eternal meaning, the resurrected side of the sacred powers of procreation, or the transcendent attributes of human intercourse that exclusively require the bonding of a male and a female on spiritual and physical levels. It’s broader and deeper than orientation, just as charity is broader deeper than love. The covenants make us like God.

[thesometimesaint]

Some new people have jumped into the thread here and so I thought I'd try to reply to several questions at once.

 

First, regarding Section 132... 

 

The new and everlasting covenant was originally understood as the commandment to practice plural marriage.  If it hadn't been understood that way, why did Emma burn the original manuscript when it was presented to her?

 

Why would Joseph F. Smith have said:  "We formerly taught to our people that polygamy or Celestial Marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith was right; that it was a necessity to man’s highest exaltation in the life to come."  (Reed Smoot Case)

 

My point in bringing that up is not to slam past church leaders for limited understanding but to point out that we have continued to learn about the sealing ordinance, what it means, and how it is to be practiced.  From the sealings that were done under the law of adoption, through the change from the original section 101 (one wife) to its replacement with section 132, to the 1960's and 70's where we learned about the admittance of those of African descent.

 

I believe that there still could be more to learn about the sealing ordinance and yes, I hope for the possibility that the Lord might reveal a sealing ordinance for homosexual couples.

 

I believe additional revelation on the subject could be helpful to us as Saints.  But as long as we already believe that we KNOW the answer, we won't be given any further light and knowledge.

 

I know that there is not a lot of support for a same-gender sealing in the scriptures but the Lord can only speak to man in the language and culture that they understand (2 Ne 31:3).

 

Anyway, it's just my personal belief.  I don't really expect to convince anyone of it but I thought that some people might think... "yeah, that would be nice if there was further revelation on the matter and the possibility of our homosexual brothers and sisters being sealed to the companions that they love."

 

The Book of Mormon allows for it. It doesn't command it.

 

Emma was conflicted about polygamy, and given her heritage I can understand that conflict.

 

I don't disagree with JFS. When it is commanded by God then we obey. When not we don't. It was a command to an individual on a individual basis, and not a Church wide command.

 

We don't know the reason(s) for the Ban on Priesthood. Personal speculation is just that.

 

I see no support from the Scriptures or statements by our leaders that at any time SSM is/will be permissable. Let alone leads to exaltation. I guess that at some unknown future time God would change that, but I seriously doubt it.

 

We are to be open to new revelation, and I do believe we are. However that SSM leads to exaltation is a step too far. There is nothing to support it, and plenty against it.

 

To me it is far more important that I treat my homosexual brothers and sister with loving kindness. However God will never accept sin in the least degree of tolerance.

[rockpond]

Why have there never been any prophets from a homosexual civilization, or are you suggesting there have been, and their scriptures haven't survived?

I'm not sure what a homosexual civilization is.

[rockpond]

The prefixes and labels (homo-, hetero- and a-) are of no use; they are less than 200 years old and do not convey the eternal meaning, the resurrected side of the sacred powers of procreation, or the transcendent attributes of human intercourse that exclusively require the bonding of a male and a female on spiritual and physical levels. It’s broader and deeper than orientation, just as charity is broader deeper than love. The covenants make us like God.

I agree that the labels are new to mankind. But the reality behind them is not.

I cannot imagine being in the next life and not loving my wife and spiritual, physical, romantic ways. And that's what orientation is.

You seem to be describing an afterlife where we are asexual but still bond in male-female pairings. If we don't have an orientation, a desire to bond with someone, does that mean we will just do it because the covenant requires it of us, because we are sealed to that person and because they are the opposite gender from us?