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

[Ahab]

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!

Yes and No should both be accommodated in the poll.

Marriage is the physical joining together of 2 [things] to make them both 1 [thing] together with it still being possible to separate those [things].

So yes while it is technically possible to join 2 men or 2 women to make them 1 thing it isn't necessarily something that our Father, God, wants them to make themselves into.

The fact that it's possible doesn't rule out the possibility that 2 men or 2 women can make themselves into an abominable thing.

[Duncan]

Yes and No should both be accommodated in the poll.

Marriage is the physical joining together of 2 [things] to make them both 1 [thing] together with it still being possible to separate those [things].

So yes while it is technically possible to join 2 men or 2 women to make them 1 thing it isn't necessarily something that our Father, God, wants them to make themselves into.

The fact that it's possible doesn't rule out the possibility that 2 men or 2 women can make themselves into an abominable thing.

 

 

I always thought Roseanne and Dan Connor from TV's Roseanne was not a good match!

[Okrahomer]

I always thought Roseanne and Dan Connor from TV's Roseanne was not a good match!

Now that's funny!!! Good one, Duncan!

[Guest]

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!

The comments I made did not come from being a faithful Latter-day Saint as I did not quote the Proclamation on the Family, BoM or D&C...I quote only the Bible and that was from my deep roots Baptist upbringing. I have no doubt you are "not" speaking of me, but others who saw my comments might think so. The thing that puzzles me, or that I find disappointing is how little the Bible is quoted by so many on this issue and if not stated in the BoM or D&C or modern day Prophets that it is not worth mentioning. Equal weight should be given to all of the Standard works.

[danielwoods]

Yes and No should both be accommodated in the poll.

Marriage is the physical joining together of 2 [things] to make them both 1 [thing] together with it still being possible to separate those [things].

So yes while it is technically possible to join 2 men or 2 women to make them 1 thing it isn't necessarily something that our Father, God, wants them to make themselves into.

The fact that it's possible doesn't rule out the possibility that 2 men or 2 women can make themselves into an abominable thing.

 

Marriage is not a physically joining of two things. Rather only a male and female can be a marriage. At least according to scripture. 

[Stargazer]

There is no scripture in any Standard Work which can be applied to show any allowance for SSM.  Unless one tortures the words so as to extract something from it that is not in it.

 

And I am serious about the word "torture."  You know how reliable torture is in extracting confessions?  On occasion one might extract a true confession of crime, but one is more likely to get a confession solely out of a desire to stop the torture.  For example, I will confess to having murdered Julius Caesar if that is what will stop you from waterboarding me.

 

That's the kind of eisegesis which will yield an affirmative to the question: "Is SSM doctrinally allowable from any Standard Work."

[Stargazer]

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

 

 

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.

 

This would have been because the RCC did not allow divorce, but if they were LDS and no longer Catholic, why would it preclude divorce?  Or was it the laws of Chile forbade divorce?  I know that Ireland only recently legalized divorce, for example.

[Storm Rider]

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? 

 

Are you saying that we exclude other scripture because they are viewed as not "written for our day"?  The absence of scriptures should be assumed to indicate that actions are acceptable and good?  Must you be compelled in all things?  A really weak assumption. 

[Jacob]

Biblical religion shows that it is entirely possible that a change will occur that would surprise and shock even the most devout and communicatively close to God individual. I don't believe that there is sufficient evidence in the scriptures to place the acceptance of SSM outside of a possibility regardless of current and past commandments and statements otherwise.

 

I struggle with the concept of homosexuality being a sin that will be viewed as such eternally. I do not believe that our spirits are different in disposition from our bodies. I believe that the physical state of the individual, regardless of whether the state is generally viewed as negative or positive, will remain the same in the afterlife and in Heaven, it is a huge part of who they are. I used to hold to a strong stance that sexuality is mainly based in experience and not in genetics. I have since met and interacted with a large number of LGBT individuals, and I believe that sexuality is largely determined by their physiology. I don't believe that an individual will be changed into someone else in Heaven. If they are homosexual and fighting the urge here, in this life, they will be fighting that urge through eternity, that urge is a part of who they are.

[Stargazer]

Biblical religion shows that it is entirely possible that a change will occur that would surprise and shock even the most devout and communicatively close to God individual. I don't believe that there is sufficient evidence in the scriptures to place the acceptance of SSM outside of a possibility regardless of current and past commandments and statements otherwise.

 

I struggle with the concept of homosexuality being a sin that will be viewed as such eternally. I do not believe that our spirits are different in disposition from our bodies. I believe that the physical state of the individual, regardless of whether the state is generally viewed as negative or positive, will remain the same in the afterlife and in Heaven, it is a huge part of who they are. I used to hold to a strong stance that sexuality is mainly based in experience and not in genetics. I have since met and interacted with a large number of LGBT individuals, and I believe that sexuality is largely determined by their physiology. I don't believe that an individual will be changed into someone else in Heaven. If they are homosexual and fighting the urge here, in this life, they will be fighting that urge through eternity, that urge is a part of who they are.

 

I suppose one might think this, due to mind-body connection, but if a body is resurrected and is no longer mortal, but immortal, and more to the point, perfect, the mind-body connection would therefore yield a perfect mind.  Why then should a resurrected body be hungry, or tired and in need of sleep, if the body no longer needs such things?

 

As to the sin of homosexuality, how can it be a sin to have homosexual desires, if those desires come by way of a physical defect?  Much less be punishable by God?  Can God put man upon the earth, command him to reproduce, and then hold him sinful for desiring to perform the acts necessary for reproduction?  This would make reason stare, to quote Eliza Snow.

 

It is not the defects of the body that are sinful, it is the acts of will that defy the laws of God. 

[JLHPROF]

Scripture doesn't address SSM because the very notion goes against the meaning and purpose of marriage as given in scripture. And we have only ourselves to blame for that because we have culturally changed the purpose of marriage to something different from what God ordained it to be in the beginning.

Try having a same sex couple multiply and replenish the earth with increase and fulfill God's work and glory without resorting to more unnatural practices. Can't be done. SSM brings death and a halt to life where marriage is designed to create.

[churchistrue]

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!

We have a prophet who receives continuing revelation.  Reversal of polygamy, giving priesthood to black people, and other examples show that the church can change policy, even when it appears to be doctrine.  I don't see why this issue couldn't take the same path in the future.  Change will likely not come in the near future, but it appears to be to be evolving in that direction.  Give it 30 years, maybe 50.

[Jacob]

I suppose one might think this, due to mind-body connection, but if a body is resurrected and is no longer mortal, but immortal, and more to the point, perfect, the mind-body connection would therefore yield a perfect mind.  Why then should a resurrected body be hungry, or tired and in need of sleep, if the body no longer needs such things?

 

As to the sin of homosexuality, how can it be a sin to have homosexual desires, if those desires come by way of a physical defect?  Much less be punishable by God?  Can God put man upon the earth, command him to reproduce, and then hold him sinful for desiring to perform the acts necessary for reproduction?  This would make reason stare, to quote Eliza Snow.

 

It is not the defects of the body that are sinful, it is the acts of will that defy the laws of God. 

I don't believe that there will be no need for some form of sustenance, but that is a completely different discussion.

 

Who's to say what is perfect? I know a man that is a wonderful individual and the nicest person there is. He has trisomy 21. He does not want to be different than he is. I do not think that perfection is different than he is. He is awesome and functions just fine. I do not believe that you will be different than you are. Personality and "self" will not be "fixed" because you die or go to heaven.

[Tacenda]

Scripture doesn't address SSM because the very notion goes against the meaning and purpose of marriage as given in scripture. And we have only ourselves to blame for that because we have culturally changed the purpose of marriage to something different from what God ordained it to be in the beginning.

Try having a same sex couple multiply and replenish the earth with increase and fulfill God's work and glory without resorting to more unnatural practices. Can't be done. SSM brings death and a halt to life where marriage is designed to create.

Ok, don't laugh, but two men organized a world, in fact they look quite identical...why can't two homosexuals do that and the male and female they create have offspring? It was Adams rib that created Eve. Or are we going to say this was all allegory and didn't really happen, just symbolism. Actually 3 men created the world. Adam, Jehovah and God.

[Gray]

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.

 

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

[The Nehor]

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

Clearly the men of Sodom were planning to marry Lot's visitors before raping them.

[Gray]

Clearly the men of Sodom were planning to marry Lot's visitors before raping them.

 

I think you're on to something here

[CV75]

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

 

 

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.

Divorce wasn’t legal in Chile until 2004. But now, “the church forbids even baptizing these couples.” http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_3661419 I suppose there was a period of transition between the two policies…

 

I think the former Church policy for Chile was an example of allowing exceptions where people cannot fully exercise moral solutions (in this case, remarriage) because of the legal constraints of man. These couples presumably were “willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ” and had “a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works” that they would comply with the principle of marriage if they could.

 

Where there same-sex marriage is allowed under the laws of man, the couple can still exercise a moral choice by not entering this corrupted form of the Church covenant and thus “manifest by their works” keeping the law of chastity. I would think that would serve the basis for refusing them membership since they are not willing or determined to keep this commandment like the pre-2004 Chilean couples referenced.

[CA Steve]

Are modern day polygamist, even where polygamy is legal, violating the law of chastity?

[Calm]

I don't believe that there will be no need for some form of sustenance, but that is a completely different discussion.

 

Who's to say what is perfect? I know a man that is a wonderful individual and the nicest person there is. He has trisomy 21. He does not want to be different than he is. I do not think that perfection is different than he is. He is awesome and functions just fine. I do not believe that you will be different than you are. Personality and "self" will not be "fixed" because you die or go to heaven.

If I have my disorder in heaven, it will be hell.

[thesometimesaint]

Are modern day polygamist, even where polygamy is legal, violating the law of chastity?

 

Yes.

[The Nehor]

Are modern day polygamist, even where polygamy is legal, violating the law of chastity?

Yes.

[Danzo]

The big reason I oppose same sex marriage is that the whole premise rest on the idea that people cannot choose to who they love.

 

This goes contrary to every commandment in the scriptures to love your neighbor, love your wife, etc.

 It presupposes that attraction is a prerequisite of love and that people are justifying their sin because they cannot help their attraction.  This Idea is very prevalent in heterosexual couples  "We just weren't attracted to each other anymore"  " the spark just wasn't there"  "I fell in love with another person"  and other such bovine manure.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Danzo

[Duncan]

Are you saying that we exclude other scripture because they are viewed as not "written for our day"?  The absence of scriptures should be assumed to indicate that actions are acceptable and good?  Must you be compelled in all things?  A really weak assumption. 

 

but if it is so important to God why wouldn't he have mentioned it? are we making a bigger deal out of something that he doesn't?

Edited September 11, 2015 by Duncan

[Ahab]

Marriage is not a physically joining of two things. Rather only a male and female can be a marriage. At least according to scripture.

Check a dictionary. Pipes can be married. The word refers to things coming together.