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

[thesometimesaint]

Holy Run-On sentence Batman.

[CV75]

Holy Run-On sentence Batman.

And all in one breath! LOL

[Daniel2]

I only find that the romantic notion is that profound, lasting, caring, care-giving, parental, familial and committed love without the eternal covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations that are made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom [God has] appointed on the earth to hold this power (and [God has] appointed unto [His] servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), cannot be realized with any efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead.

 

After all the thread is about latter day revelation and applies to more than just this life's legal constructs.

 

I appreciate that the D&C passage you paraphrased offers the specifics regarding LDS sealings.  From what I've read, this thread has explored far more than merely post-mortal marriage.

 

Your comments seem to indicate that you reject (or, in the very least, diminish the importance of) any/all of the profound, lasting, caring, care-giving, parental, familial, committed, but non-LDS manifestations of marital love that exist here and now.

 

While you are certainly free to reject (or diminish the importance of) such mortal forms of marital love, in my opinion you go beyond the mark to say that any and all of such marriages are nothing/little more than "just this life's legal constructs."

 

Even so, I still maintain the hope that we all should be so blessed as to find and hold fast to the all-encompassing love I described within our marriages throughout our lives, regardless of our religious beliefs about post-mortal marriage.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Daniel2

[CV75]

I appreciate that the D&C passage you paraphrased offers the specifics regarding LDS sealings.  From what I've read, this thread has explored far more than merely post-mortal marriage.

 

Your comments seem to indicate that you reject (or, in the very least, diminish the importance of) any/all of the profound, lasting, caring, care-giving, parental, familial, committed, but non-LDS manifestations of marital love that exist here and now.

 

While you are certainly free to reject (or diminish the importance of) such mortal forms of marital love, in my opinion you go beyond the mark to say that any and all of such marriages are nothing/little more than "just this life's legal constructs."

 

Even so, I still maintain the hope that we all should be so blessed as to find and hold fast to the all-encompassing love I described within our marriages throughout our lives, regardless of our religious beliefs about post-mortal marriage.

No, I do not reject or hold in low regard any/all of the profound, lasting, caring, care-giving, parental, familial, committed, but non-LDS manifestations of marital love that exist here and now. LDS sealing is a blessing for both mortal and immortal marriages. I am pointing out that there is more than the “here and now” in the LDS canon regarding marriage—the subject of the thread.

 

I am pointing out that, according to the text, the LDS sealing is more than just one of this life’s legal constructs--very plain doctrine. Ecclesiastically, the teaching goes beyond “Till death do us part” taught by other religious traditions as well. Both observations are right on the mark!

 

For the sake of discussing latter-day scripture I put a finer point on the term “romantic” as an idealized view of reality that cannot be achieved outside the covenants described in said scriptures, and I limited the scope of such love’s romanticism as an expectation that such relationships can endure the grave.

[KevinG]

I feel a Venn diagram coming on...

 

Not all loving, caring, long term relationships qualify for the sealing ordinance.

 

Not all marriages that have undergone the sealing ordinance are loving, caring, and long term.

[CV75]

I feel a Venn diagram coming on...

 

Not all loving, caring, long term relationships qualify for the sealing ordinance.

 

Not all marriages that have undergone the sealing ordinance are loving, caring, and long term.

Yes, but it is a romantic notion (an idealistic view of reality), in light of the scripture, that loving, caring, long term relationships can endure beyond the grave without the sealing power.

 

And now that you mention it, is just as unrealistic that unloving and uncaring relationships can endure being sealed and will also end!

[The Nehor]

A rep point for the video.  I have never watched a single episode of Babylon 5.  This was amazing.  Pestilence.  Famine.  Death.  What?  Were those their real names, or their pet names?  LOL.

Not their given names. Great show.

[The Nehor]

I read with interest those comments that assert that romantic love alone is not enough to sustain a marriage, and it is a notion I firmly agree with.

I also believe it's equally true that most of us today, whether straight or gay, hope to find a marriage that begins with and includes romantic love, hopefully sustained as much as possible throughout the course of our lives.

I think it would be misguided to suggest that gay couples' marriages are solely based on notions of romantic love.

Many same-sex couples are religious and/or spiritual, and many make religiously- and/or spiritually-based commitments before God, according to their beliefs about who/what God is.

Many of us raise children together, and are likewise bound by mutually-committed ties of family, father/motherhood, and find joy in our children and grandchildren.

All of us who are blessed enough to make it "till death do us part" will face the same care-giving relationship aspects that our aging, equally-blessed straight couples do when they endure to the end.

Like our straight counterparts, same-sex couples are faced with the challenges of life that include the same issues of "in sickness or health," "for richer or poorer," and the eventual aging and declines in health, sexuality, physical appearance, libido, etc. that are common to all human kind.

I submit that same-sex couples are just as capable of the deeper, more profound, lasting, caring, care-giving, parental, familial and committed love that grows out of and far beyond romantic love as our straight brothers and sisters are.

May we all be blessed to find and hold fast to such an all-encompassing love within our marriages.

I am not convinced but with the Supreme Court ruling the opportunity to prove it is there.

[Daniel2]

No, I do not reject or hold in low regard any/all of the profound, lasting, caring, care-giving, parental, familial, committed, but non-LDS manifestations of marital love that exist here and now. LDS sealing is a blessing for both mortal and immortal marriages. I am pointing out that there is more than the “here and now” in the LDS canon regarding marriage—the subject of the thread.

I am pointing out that, according to the text, the LDS sealing is more than just one of this life’s legal constructs--very plain doctrine. Ecclesiastically, the teaching goes beyond “Till death do us part” taught by other religious traditions as well. Both observations are right on the mark!

For the sake of discussing latter-day scripture I put a finer point on the term “romantic” as an idealized view of reality that cannot be achieved outside the covenants described in said scriptures, and I limited the scope of such love’s romanticism as an expectation that such relationships can endure the grave.

I'm glad to hear that you don't reject or hold in low regard any/all of the profound, lasting, caring, care-giving, parental, familial, committed, but non-LDS manifestations of marital love that exist here and now. Thanks for that clarification.

Just as you've said that "there is more than the “here and now” in the LDS canon regarding marriage," I would point out that there is more to the sealing power than "marriage"--and that speaks directly to the question of this thread of whether or not there is anything in LDS doctrine that could allow for the sealing of same-sex couples.

The power to seal relationships is not limited to one-man/one-woman relations.

The sealing power seals family members to family members. For example, both biological and adoptive children are sealed to their parents.

Brigham Young taught and practiced the Law of Adoption, in which adult members of the church were "sealed" to other, non-biologically-related adults. Namely, several adult men were sealed, through this law of adoption, to Brigham Young.

The Law of Adoption isn't currently practiced within today's church.

But it's existence demonstrates that the sealing power isn't limited to one-man/one-woman marriage.

And the fact that it was once introducted, then suspended, shows that the sealing power can be revealed at different times to bind different things, depending on prophetic revelation at any given time.

And THAT is the foundation of how same-sex couples could someday be "sealed" to one another--not by way of the "New and Everlasting Covenant" which would allow for procreation without end... but in a familial relationship, still bound by the sealing power, but with a different eternal purpose or role than man/woman partnerships.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

I am not convinced but with the Supreme Court ruling the opportunity to prove it is there.

 

What is it that you aren't convinced of....?

[CV75]

I'm glad to hear that you don't reject or hold in low regard any/all of the profound, lasting, caring, care-giving, parental, familial, committed, but non-LDS manifestations of marital love that exist here and now. Thanks for that clarification.

***

And THAT is the foundation of how same-sex couples could someday be "sealed" to one another--not by way of the "New and Everlasting Covenant" which would allow for procreation without end... but in a familial relationship, still bound by the sealing power, but with a different eternal purpose or role than man/woman partnerships.

I offered an opinion in post #22 using the principle of “an opposition in all things” in relation to the eternal design of the marriage covenant. The sealing power cannot be used to negate this or any other eternal law.

 

And while the sealing power is far more comprehensive than you describe, it does apply to eternal marriage and families (the products of marriage), and only the sealed bond of marriage between a man and a woman entails the endless procreative aspect as you describe.

 

But eternal human sealings must fit in with the patriarchal order, with a man and woman at the head of a chain of posterity who are likewise sealed as male-female partners. This is the order in which people are sealed up into eternal life and exaltation. Alternate relationships break this pattern and terminate the continuation of the seeds, which is a requisite privilege and responsibility for eternal life and exaltation. This is why I find the idea that a same-sex marriage “sociality …will exist among us there” is a romantic notion.

[The Nehor]

What is it that you aren't convinced of....?

 

That SSM will be as strong, stable, full of love, good to raise children in, and blah blah blah.

 

Time will tell I suppose.

[Daniel2]

I offered an opinion in post #22 using the principle of “an opposition in all things” in relation to the eternal design of the marriage covenant.

 

 

In response to your post #22, I offer the following (the quotations are yours, the comments are mine):

 

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 agree that the LDS canon that’s been revealed thus far does not (yet) contemplate any other configurations of marital unions beyond male-female unions.

 

However, the absence of same-sex marriage thus far does not mean that same-sex unions cannot/could not/will not ever be divinely authorized through new revelation.

 

In similar fashion, the fact that God endorses (or “ordains”) marriage between a man and a woman does not mean that God could not likewise someday endorse other configurations of marriage (a man and multiple women; two men; two women).

 

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

 

I’m not sure that there is scriptural support for the assertion that “sexuality is an artifical and faulty human social construct.”

 

In fact, I’m not sure what you mean when you say “sexuality.”  Can you define how you’re using that term, here? (the only reason I ask is that your subsequent comments seem to contradict the definition of ‘sexuality,’ as I understand it).

 

I’m not sure there’s scriptural support for the assertion that “race is an artificial and faulty social construct,” either...  But that’s beyond the scope of this thread.

 

I don’t understand what you mean when you say that “…there is only one sexuality (human).” 

 

“Human sexuality,” insofar as it refers to sexual orientation, is a diverse spectrum that includes hetero-, bi-, and homo-sexuality… so I’m not sure that saying “there’s only one sexuality (human)” specifies what you’re intending to say.

 

Beyond that aspect, I’m unaware of any specific scriptural citations that state that “With God, there’s only one sexuality (human).”  What references do you base that on?

 

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.

 

To me, your suggestion that Lehi’s teaching that “it must needs be that there is an opposition in all things” is evidence that “discourages the idea of same-sex marriage” because “opposition expressed through… complementing, contrasting, or differentiating, and enabling relationships” is ironic.  I say “ironic” because I would suggest that the same principles which you are citing—opposites that “complement, contrast, differentiate, and enable” are all evidence of the diversity expressed in God’s creation. 

 

Homosexual relationships exemplify one aspect of the diversity of divine creation.  To use your words, they serve as a contrast, and even a complement, of heterosexual relationships.  Just as a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman may complement one another due to contrasting identities, characteristics, purposes, and/or roles, so may homosexual couples and heterosexual couples complement one another due to contrasting identities, characteristics, and eternal purposes and roles.

 

There is nothing in LDS cannon that precludes the possibility that the non-procreative two-thirds of celestial inheritors could include gay or lesbian children of God, sealed in familial (albeit non-exalted) partnerships.  Even if they are non-procreative, they may serve alternate functions within God’s heavenly realm that would complement their procreative counterparts.  LDS prophets have indicated that some of Heavenly Father’s children may have participated in the creation of the world… Given that, it’s entirely possible that same-sex couples could participate in the act of creation in non-procreative---but still creative—ways.  There are fields, flowers, plants, animals, sunsets, and even care-taking and tending of all forms of life (including heavenly offspring—‘little’ brothers or sisters, nieces and nephews, etc. 

 

There is MUCH about celestial glory that Mormonism has yet to understand.  To paraphrase 2 Nephi 29, who would say, “The Standard Works!  The Standard Works!  We have got Standard Works, and there cannot be any more Standard Works” when it comes to understanding the potential diversity, opposition, contrasting, complementing, differentiating, and enabling destinies of God’s gay and lesbian children.

 

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.

 

Indeed, it was imperative that Adam and Eve were heterosexual… but that does not mean every other man and woman shares the same roles, functions, and purpose of the progenitors of our entire race.  It’s a false dichotomy to suggest that the principle of opposition means that the existence of gay sons and daughters of God must negate the existences of God’s straight sons and daughters—or vice versa,  The infinite diversity of God can withstand the existence of both straight and gay children—in fact, the existence of both testifies to God’s infinite diversity.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Daniel2

[CV75]

Indeed, it was imperative that Adam and Eve were heterosexual… but that does not mean every other man and woman shares the same roles, functions, and purpose of the progenitors of our entire race.  It’s a false dichotomy to suggest that the principle of opposition means that the existence of gay sons and daughters of God must negate the existences of God’s straight sons and daughters—or vice versa,  The infinite diversity of God can withstand the existence of both straight and gay children—in fact, the existence of both testifies to God’s infinite diversity.

I think this betrays a very basic and very serious misunderstanding that colors all your other comments, so I will focus on this.

 

“Human sexuality is the capacity of human beings to have erotic experiences and responses.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexuality As with race, relatively modern efforts have categorized and labeled sexuality, but neither has ever been done in scripture. The scriptures about sexual sins make no reference to the sexual orientation of the perpetrators. We may call them hetero- or homosexual sins, but such taxonomy (or an alternate) isn’t scriptural or used in scripture.

 

Your various arguments against the scriptures rely on what you don’t know, on replacing that with imagined possibilities of what could or might happen, and on confounding human sexuality with eternal covenant. For example, it was not imperative that Adam and Eve were heterosexual (the scriptures don’t say, and we don’t know!), only that they were married and produced offspring.

 

Regarding opposition, same-sex relationships simply (and ultimately) lack the required male-female opposition that opens the way for the exalted blessings offered in scripture. This is evidenced by same-sex relationships not being acknowledged or reflected in the eternal marriage covenant anywhere in scripture.

[Buckeye]

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!

 

I'm a little late the discussion. Here are my thoughts:

1. There is very little doctrine in the standard works that addresses SSM (the PotF is not part of our official cannon). However, there is an abundance of modern interpretation of the scriptures by PSRs that strongly opposes SSM. While not canon, those conference addresses, proclamations, etc. carry great weight and therefore any change to embrace SSM in our doctrine would be very painful and required time.
2. Regardless of the pain and time to accomplish a change, if SSM turns out to bear good fruit, the LDS doctrine will embrace its goodness just as it has with other goods we previously opposed. As has been our repeated experience, our doctrine will follow our practice.
3. If SSM were to find a place in our gospel, that development would be a result of emphasizing the following teachings (and likely many others):
   1. The aspects of Christ's character that are necessary for salvation have nothing to do with gender (or gender roles). I am hopeful that this teaching can be embraced as the Church refocuses on the Savior and the commonality of his example for all people - male and female. While gender may exist in the eternities, it has no more importance to salvation than height, skin color, language, or other characteristics. If we meet the Savior one day and find that we are like him, that likeness will not be genetalia; it will be the beatitudes and D/C 121.
   2. Parenthood is not dependent on biological reproduction. I am hopeful that this teaching can be embraced because of the positive response to Sherri Dew's message that motherhood is an inherent part of being a woman; you don't have to give birth to be a mother. I also take encouragement from the church's practice of sealing adopted children to parents even though there is no biological connection. And I take great interest in Joseph's King Follett discourse which presents pre-mortal man as co-eternal with God; I take this to mean that spirit creation is more the result of an intelligence following another's example than a mortal birthing event.
   3. Parenthood applies to all who sacrifice, provide example, and otherwise uplift another. LDS are in a unique position to conceptualize multiple heavenly fathers and mothers. We believe in a council system that set up this earthly experience. And we believe that eternal progression will take place in a communal environment. More than other christians, it is possible for us to believe in "the gods" and thereby envision an eternal parenthood for our LGBT brothers and sisters, even if eternal procreation were to require male-female intercourse.
   4. The purpose of sex is much more than just procreation. We've seen that development in the last 50 years as the church as tolerated (and most all couples have embraced) contraception. The CHI now states that sex is for more than just procreation.

I could keep going, but that's a lot of my reason for hoping that SSM will find a place in the gospel. The good news about current developments in US law is that we are now going to see in abundance whether SS families produce good fruit. If they do, we must wrestle with Christ's teaching that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. I'm confident that we will find a way to include the goodness.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Buckeye

[Calm]

Pssst...

"Canon"...

[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!

He create male and female, when done he established the only definition, with his first institution, and noting for future generations, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh". He also established his first command, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replinsh the earth,"

Same sex marriages cannot follow any of these commandment. Even if there were no God, then nature has already placed judgement upon them as they cannot "Multiply and replinsh the earth...as nature or evolution implants within all to do so to keep any given species to survive. Also the OT and the NT, has passed judgement such behavior. Marriage is an institution of God, and went on for so many 1,000's (if not longer) before Gov't found a way to make revenue by collecting fee's (taxation) and for the ten's of thousand's of years, marriage has always be male and female. Also the case in every major religion...only recently has anything changed so we could allow ourselves to feel good and enlightened.

Sorry if any misspelled words.

P.S. I know the truth hurts, but it often does. Also the words I wrote come from scripture...so if any are angry, your anger should be be aimed elsewhere.

[Guest]

Pssst...

"Canon"...

You are missing half your name?

[Calm]

Yeah, lost it a bit ago when I was less than coherent one night. Deciding whether to keep or dump it.

[Stargazer]

Holy Run-On sentence Batman.

He just likes commas.

 

How about some semi-colons?

 

Edited September 17, 2015 by Stargazer

[JLHPROF]

I'm a little late the discussion. Here are my thoughts:

 

The aspects of Christ's character that are necessary for salvation have nothing to do with gender (or gender roles).

 

Disagree - check all the references that show Christ being the firstborn son of God was part of his qualification.

 

Parenthood is not dependent on biological reproduction.

 

Both agree and disagree - but eternal increase as one of the characteristics of exaltation refers specifically to reproduction.

 

Parenthood applies to all who sacrifice, provide example, and otherwise uplift another.

 

Both agree and disagree - this is a definite oversimplification of the term "parent".  But I agree that Christ is neither the father of our bodies or spirits and yet by virtue of his sacrifice became our father through inheritance.

 

The purpose of sex is much more than just procreation.

 

A definite BIG maybe.  I think the better question is "what is the God ordained purpose of sex", not what are the other blessings that come from it?

What rules about the act of sex has God given to man outside of our cultural changes?

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

If Thomas S Monson got revelation that gays could get married how would members of the church and the world react? I think it would be monumental. The only thing that stops me from supporting gay marriage and equal rights for all is because I've been told that's what God wants and I support God more than the Supreme court. If God said make your own decision about the issue I would support it because I believe America should be about freedom and equality for all. God is stopping me from supporting equal rights. That's ironic but I will always love and support God.

[JLHPROF]

If Thomas S Monson got revelation that gays could get married how would members of the church and the world react? I think it would be monumental.

 

I would reject such a revelation as being completely false.

[filovirus]

D&C 49:15-17

15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;

17 And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

This is what marriage is for

[VideoGameJunkie]

What if you're sterile? Have you lost your purpose as a man since procreation is the goal. My dad is sterile so my brother and I are not from his blood and DNA, we're the result of test tubes and donors who we'll never meet.