What Do We Know Of Marriage From The Bible, Book Of Mormon, And Latter-Day Revelation?

[KevinG]

An interesting point of view was brought up a few times in the closed marriage thread.  That (paraphrasing) the Bible does not provide sufficient information to exclude the possibility of same sex marriage.  This point was brought up by those who consider themselves faithful LDS, but who do not necessarily agree with our practices and politics around same sex vs. one man, one woman marriage.

 

Given the revelation and teachings we have on the matter, Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Proclamation on the Family, how would you support or discourage the idea that same sex marriage can be accommodated with the revelations we now have?

 

By comparison and contrast the second Official Declaration on race and priesthood is bound to come up, but if race and the priesthood are invoked please avoid using non-scriptural "folk doctrines" as an example.  Try to stick to real scriptures and what LDS consider inspired teachings in our time.  And remember context is important!

 

 

Edited September 10, 2015 by KevinG

[The Nehor]

I think this is like asking whether Internet pornography can be accommodated within the standard works. There is just not anything there about it.

[Zakuska]

True... However... There is an awful lot about them being destroyed by God.

 

e.g. 

Sodom

Gamorah [sic]

 

I'll leave judgement to God though.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[JAHS]

The following verse establishes that a wife is a woman and a husband is a man

 

"let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" 1 Cor. 7:2

 

The follow tells us that God established marrige to be between a man and woman. 

 

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Mark 10: 6-9)

 

The Bible does not specifically say that two people of the same gender cannnot marry, 

mostly becuse it probably never crossed their minds to even consider it, therefore no 

instructions given against it; only instructions on what should be done.  

That's why we have latter-day prophets now to help us understand

what God's will is on the subject today.

[Gray]

True... However... There is an awful lot about them being destroyed by God.

 

e.g. 

Sodom

Gamorah [sic]

 

I'll leave judgement to God though.

 

The sin of Sodom was inhospitality. Think about that next time your in-laws visit. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 

"let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" 1 Cor. 7:2

 

The context of this verse is Paul saying that Celibacy is best, but since that's unrealistic, men should only have sex with their wives and vice versa. From the NIV:

 

Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”2But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.  3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Edited September 10, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Brian 2.0]

There's a lot more explicit words about divorce in the standard works then same-sex marriage... but we don't seem to get up in arms about divorce and remarriage.

[Storm Rider]

This is always a strange position to discuss.  There is absolutely no evidence that marriage is for and about anyone or anything other than a man and a woman.  Granted there are those to choke on gnats, bury their head in the sand, and then while screaming "I cannot hear you" also want to yell that it is possible for individuals of the same sex to be married.  They create a story from whole cloth and then want others to conclude they have a point when it comes to scripture, God's word, or God's intentions.  

 

Recently, in Gospel Doctrine class we review 1 Cor 6 - 

 

 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

The term effeminate was defined as being a Catamite, an old term for one who participates in homosexual behavior.  The topic is rather clear and it is impossible to confuse the context of what is being defined in this scripture.  Those that practice any of these behaviors practice unrighteousness and shall not inherit the kingdom of God.  One is not worse than the other here; they are just listed as behaviors to be rejected and expunged from the lives of the saints.

 

How anyone can then attempt to trump up any degree of support for gay marriage has no standard in scripture; they are creating their own religion and doctrine.  Next question.  

[Duncan]

This is always a strange position to discuss.  There is absolutely no evidence that marriage is for and about anyone or anything other than a man and a woman.  Granted there are those to choke on gnats, bury their head in the sand, and then while screaming "I cannot hear you" also want to yell that it is possible for individuals of the same sex to be married.  They create a story from whole cloth and then want others to conclude they have a point when it comes to scripture, God's word, or God's intentions.  

 

Recently, in Gospel Doctrine class we review 1 Cor 6 - 

 

 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

The term effeminate was defined as being a Catamite, an old term for one who participates in homosexual behavior.  The topic is rather clear and it is impossible to confuse the context of what is being defined in this scripture.  Those that practice any of these behaviors practice unrighteousness and shall not inherit the kingdom of God.  One is not worse than the other here; they are just listed as behaviors to be rejected and expunged from the lives of the saints.

 

How anyone can then attempt to trump up any degree of support for gay marriage has no standard in scripture; they are creating their own religion and doctrine.  Next question.  

 

 

allright, if the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants were written for our day and neither of them say anything about SSM either, so what conclusions are we to draw from that? 

[The Nehor]

The sin of Sodom was inhospitality. Think about that next time your in-laws visit.

Actually it was both and a lot more sins thrown in with them.

[The Nehor]

allright, if the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants were written for our day and neither of them say anything about SSM either, so what conclusions are we to draw from that?

That the Lord withheld counsel on that matter to prevent us from becoming interested in it until we need it.

[Brian 2.0]

allright, if the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants were written for our day and neither of them say anything about SSM either, so what conclusions are we to draw from that?

That Internet pornography is ok, as Nehor said.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[KevinG]

There's a lot more explicit words about divorce in the standard works then same-sex marriage... but we don't seem to get up in arms about divorce and remarriage.

 

I abhor serial monogamy.  I find it particularly obscene among people who disparage our polygamous fore-bearers.  

 

So be careful with the loose use of "we" in this case.

[KevinG]

allright, if the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants were written for our day and neither of them say anything about SSM either, so what conclusions are we to draw from that? 

 

 

That Internet pornography is ok, as Nehor said.

 

I can just see the judgement bar of God over that one.  

 

"But Ashley Madison wasn't mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants!"  

 

"Next!"

[HappyJackWagon]

I think it would be a mistake to assume that the scriptures we have now reflect the fullness of God's word on any issue. Hence the belief that he will yet reveal many great and important things.

Even if something is NOT mentioned at all doesn't mean God doesn't have a position on it.

Even if something IS mentioned doesn't mean that God has revealed his entire position on it.

I mention this only to suggest that presence or absense of a topic doesn't mean we know God's complete will on any topic so we should remain open enough to receive anything else he may give us.

[Gray]

Actually it was both and a lot more sins thrown in with them.

 

Inhospitality, plus arrogance and lack of charity (Ezek 16:49)

[hope_for_things]

I think it would be a mistake to assume that the scriptures we have now reflect the fullness of God's word on any issue. Hence the belief that he will yet reveal many great and important things.

Even if something is NOT mentioned at all doesn't mean God doesn't have a position on it.

Even if something IS mentioned doesn't mean that God has revealed his entire position on it.

I mention this only to suggest that presence or absense of a topic doesn't mean we know God's complete will on any topic so we should remain open enough to receive anything else he may give us.

 

This is a great point and was where I was thinking as well.  Scriptures have been reinterpreted over and over again throughout history, in the context of their times.  This is what Joseph was doing, and it can be done again.   Perhaps the "fulfill the measure of its creation line" can be expanded to include LGBT. 

[The Nehor]

Inhospitality, plus arrogance and lack of charity (Ezek 16:49)

 

I am not convinced Ezekiel was giving a comprehensive list so I can take what Genesis said as well.

 

They probably also pushed old ladies down the stairs.

[CA Steve]

I wonder what the results of a poll like this on polygamy would have been 120 years ago within the church?

[Gray]

I am not convinced Ezekiel was giving a comprehensive list so I can take what Genesis said as well.

 

They probably also pushed old ladies down the stairs.

 

What passage in Genesis are you referring to? 

 

Personally I'm not convinced that passages relating to marriage between a man and woman are comprehensive either.

[The Nehor]

What passage in Genesis are you referring to? 

 

Personally I'm not convinced that passages relating to marriage between a man and woman are comprehensive either.

 

The one where the people of Sodom wanted to rape Lot's guests and his daughters. There is an attempt to revise the passage to mean that they were just suspicious and wanted to interrogate the visitors but, if that is the case, why the willingness to also interrogate Lot's daughters?

 

I am not sure if those passages are comprehensive either. That is why we have prophets and apostles.

[CV75]

I think there is sufficient support for marriage in the scriptures that any other reading than a male-female union would be a misunderstanding of what they mean.

 

I think one thing that needs to be understood is that categorizing sexuality, like categorizing race, is an artifical and faulty human social construct. With God, there is only one race (human) and only one sexuality (human).

 

However, if one had to actually go so far as to point out scripture that specifically discourages the idea of same-sex marriage, I would look to Lehi’s teaching that “it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things,” noting that he explains existence, the creation, the fall and the atonement in terms of opposition expressed through adversarial, complementing, contrasting or differentiating, and enabling relationships. Of these, I view marriage as a complementing and enabling relationship between man and woman.

 

I would look to his teaching that without opposing principles forming a compound in one, there is no existence of either principle. Man and woman would vanish away; Adam and Eve would be alone and not have much sense of their true and ultimate purpose.

 

Adam was created of the dust of the earth with Eve already within him as his rib. The scriptures that describe Eve coming out of Adam’s body and then their becoming one flesh again under God demonstrate that they were designed as “one,” and that embodied human spirits were a united male-female complement all along. The lack of corresponding scriptures for male genesis and his covenant reunion with his male wellspring/mate, and the scriptures about all males and females coming out of “the mother of all living” speak against same-sex marriage.

[Brian 2.0]

• The scriptures state clearly that Jesus said that if you get a divorce and remarry, you are committing adultery (infidelity the only exception)
• Paul added the exception that he thought it wasn't adultery if your unbelieving spouse left you.   
• Modern church teaching has NO label of sin or adultery on a person who divorces and remarries.  This is a change in the definition of adultery as Jesus outlined it.

 

So while the scriptures don't have any SUPPORT for same-sex marriage.  It does have support for the idea that what is, and what is not, acceptable within the law of chastity can change.

[danielwoods]

(speaking as a believer, non-LDS)

 

Marriage is always between a man and a woman in scripture. There is never an exception. Not even one. 

 

The command in Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 covers any doubt anyone might have. 

 

"Do not do it..." 

[Nevo]

Given the revelation and teachings we have on the matter, Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Proclamation on the Family, how would you support or discourage the idea that same sex marriage can be accommodated with the revelations we now have?

 

I like the thoughts offered by J.R. Daniel Kirk, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary:

 

There have been times in the history of the church when God decided that what was unequivocally required earlier was no longer needful. Indeed, Paul depicts as enemies of the gospel those who would require gentiles to comply with the eternal, covenantal sign of circumcision. Repeatedly in the New Testament the presence of the Spirit comes in to demonstrate to the church that the old stipulation has been overturned.

 

I suggested [in Jesus Have I Loved, but Paul?] that we should be aware of the possibility that the Spirit might make such a demonstration today. We are dealing with a genuinely new moment in the history of the church: homosexual couples openly in committed relationships and striving to faithfully follow Jesus. The presence of this reality is something to be interpreted with care—neither hastily condemning due to a great confidence that we are on God’s side, nor hastily embracing due to the same.

 

This issue of sexual mores is one that I continue to find challenging. In the year or so since the book appeared I have been asked to speak to different groups—and, no surprise, they often want me to talk about sex. Here are a few more pieces I have been wrestling with since I finished writing:

 

•    Most of us need to listen more. Those of us from backgrounds that are not affirming need to listen to the stories of gay friends, especially Christian gay friends. Those from affirming positions need to listen to the stories of homosexuals who have resolved to maintain a life of celibacy in order to faithfully follow Jesus.

 

•    The point of listening is, in large part, to help us reimagine who “us” refers to. When speaking about sexual sin and failure, all of us are included; when talking about striving to faithfully follow Jesus, all of us are included.

 

•    We who are heterosexuals in predominately non-affirming social locations need to stop treating homosexuality as though it were the great sexual sin of our day. To my mind, the most pervasive and destructive expressions of sexual sin are misdirected expressions of heterosexual desire, as when men use the power of our dollars or our muscles to force sex on unwilling women.

 

•    We will become increasingly aware, in the years to come, that the sexual mores of the ancient world were part of a system of assessing value, and of viewing the world more generally, that we no longer hold to. If we believe in the fundamental equality of men and women as made in the image of God, and if we believe in the equality of people across all social ranks, then we disbelieve major pillars on which ancient aversion to homosexual activity leans. There are other reasons for opposing it, such as those I outline in my book, but a growing awareness of the cultural context of the Greco-Roman world will likely create additional challenges for folks wrestling over the inclusion of homosexuals with same-sex partners.

 

http://blog.bakeracademic.com/homosexuality-under-the-reign-of-christ-a-post-from-j-r-daniel-kirk/

 

The scriptures, and our interpretation of them, are so laden with cultural biases that I don't put much confidence in them as the last word on same-sex marriage. Generally speaking, I think lifelong committed pair bonds, characterized by love and service and mutuality, are greatly to be preferred over wanton promiscuity with people simply using others' bodies to gratify their lust. Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn aren't legally married, but I don't look at their 32 year relationship, creating a home and raising a family together, as a desolating sacrilege and abomination.

 

When I was a missionary in Chile in the early 1990s, we came across many unmarried (heterosexual) couples where one or both partners had previously been married and could not obtain a divorce. The Church allowed people in this situation to be baptized and to participate in full fellowship, even though they still could not participate in the higher ordinances of the temple. I wouldn't be surprised if someday same-sex couples were permitted the same privilege.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Nevo