Same-sex sealings

[Nofear]

I haven't read it yet. I have no expectation of agreeing with it. Nonetheless, I'll read it. It represents thoughts that go through the agitators in the Church.
https://nateoman.substack.com/p/a-welding-link-of-some-kind
Thought I'd post it and get some reactions from you guys too.

[Buckeye]

I won’t rehash my support for SSM here. Just note that Nate Oman is a prominent voice and I’m cautiously optimistic this analysis will lead to better days. I was already aware of the difference in sealing practices in Joseph’s day from today, but was unaware of the interim changes starting with Woodruff. So the essay was educational to me in that regard. 

Edited September 28, 2022 by Buckeye

[webbles]

This isn't related to SSM but it is from the article.  He says:

Quote

Until well into the 20th century, for example, the First Presidency did not routinely use its authority to cancel marital sealings in cases of divorce or remarriage after the death of a spouse. Rather, both men and women could be sealed a second time without a cancellation, regardless of gender or of how the earthly marriages ended.

I was curious what the source is for the idea that women could be sealed a second time without any cancellation.  In his references, he points to another paper that he wrote that talks about marriage development in the church - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4161021.  It, interestingly, also discusses the kingdom, lineage, and family development, so that is something that he is focused on.

But in that other paper, it isn't as clear-cut that women could be sealed a second time without any cancellation.  He doesn't reference any actual rulebook but doesn't reference a few cases here women asked to be sealed to another man.  In all of those cases, they were granted the permission but there were conditions.  One required the woman to not have had any children with her first husband.  Another mentioned how the President (I think it would have been Joseph F. Smith) would allow it but didn't want it well known.

So, it sounds more like the situation today.  A few living woman are given permission to be sealed to another man.  But it is not a normal situation and nothing like men being allowed to be sealed to another woman.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

I won’t rehash my support for SSM here. Just note that Nate Oman is a prominent voice and I’m cautiously optimistic this analysis will lead to better days. I was already aware of the difference in sealing practices in Joseph’s day from today, but was unaware of the interim changes starting with Woodruff. So the essay was educational to me in that regard. 

Those male to male sealings were Father/Son sealings, creating heirship relationships.  That's why it was called an "adoption".  In some cases those men began using the last names of their priesthood father, especially for ordinance work.
They didn't create the same kind of relationship as the Husband/Wife sealings - not in terminology or in blessings.
 

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Those male to male sealings were Father/Son sealings, creating heirship relationships.  That's why it was called an "adoption".  In some cases those men began using the last names of their priesthood father, especially for ordinance work.
They didn't create the same kind of relationship as the Husband/Wife sealings - not in terminology or in blessings.
 

Oman doesn’t claim any differently. Have you read his essay? 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

I haven't read it yet. I have no expectation of agreeing with it. Nonetheless, I'll read it. It represents thoughts that go through the agitators in the Church.
https://nateoman.substack.com/p/a-welding-link-of-some-kind
Thought I'd post it and get some reactions from you guys too.

The sealing power is much broader than the sealing ordinance. Helaman 10 says it is the power given a prophet to direct the earth’s elements and enact in mortality the Lord’s eternal will concerning all things, including “covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations” – the shared, revealed beliefs that bind the society of Zion beneath with Zion above.

Looking at it this way, I’m not sure how same-sex romantic and sexual relationships can be said to perpetuate the adoption of life, literally (as in the procreation of humanity) or figuratively (as in the augmentation of humanity or the shared human experience), on earth and in heaven. Such relationships may be personally and individually edifying on earth, but I’m not seeing how this temporary mortal expression “translates” into the perpetuation of the broader, eternal society.

The essay, it seems, is geared more toward the narrower application of the sealing power and focused on the limited scope of meeting personal wants and needs.

[LoudmouthMormon]

I'm a third of the way through a 30 year bet with my atheist buddy on the issue:

 

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'm a third of the way through a 30 year bet with my atheist buddy on the issue:

 

Does the bet apply only to marriages rather than sealings ?  Your friend may not understand the difference. We currently perform both in temples with much overlap but certainly some of each without the other. 

For my money, I’d bet within 20 years the church is either performing SS marriages or has gotten out of the marriage business entirely. More likely we’re out but I won’t be surprised to see SS marriages. SS sealings will take longer. Probably 30 years. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I won’t rehash my support for SSM here.

Nor will I rehash my disagreement with it.

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Just note that Nate Oman is a prominent voice and I’m cautiously optimistic this analysis will lead to better days.

"Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire." -Joseph Smith

Meanwhile, we go with the revealed doctrines and follow the Brethren. 

Back in February 2020 there was a big hullabaloo about BYU purportedly removing same-sex behavior from the proscriptions in the Honor Code.  At the time I predicted (correctly, as it turned out) that the story was just that.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Quote

The University saying that while the "prescriptive language has been removed, the principles remain the same" is not a definitive statement of anything.

I didn't say the statement was "definitive."  

I think we'll get more clarification in pretty short order.  And that clarification will be, essentially, that same-sex behavior continues to be incompatible with the Honor Code.
...

The Honor Code was updated on Wednesday.  Today is Thursday.  Some confusion exists as to the parameters of acceptable behavior by BYU students relative to the Honor Code.  Some clarification has been provided.  I suspect more will be forthcoming.

I'm not going to get worked up over this.  I think it's fairly unreasonable to expect a substantial change to the Honor Code at BYU without any notification from the administration or the Church.  Let's not let wishful thinking supersede common sense.

And here:

Quote

Quote

But I contend that we, as a church, are on a long journey that seems to be heading toward a day when same gender marriage will be recognized within the law of chastity.  The last 10 months seem to have increased the pace.

I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment.  

If SSM is accepted/endorsed by the Church, then I'll have some thinking to do.  If it is not accepted/endorsed, I'm concerned some folks like you will use it as a litmus test.

In the end, it comes down to keeping covenants in difficult times.  I hope we both end up doing so.

And here:

Quote

Quote

I can definitely see a change made to include those within a committed SSM that would allow them to be able to be obedient to the Law of Chastity (with a slight change in the wording) just as married heterosexual couples can.

Wishful thinking, I think.  That's all.

Quote

Will it happen?  I honestly don't know (of course), but there is certainly reason to have more hope for this today than there was even a year ago.

I hope it does not happen.  Homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage seem manifestly incompatible with the Plan of Salvation.

I am concerned that folks like you are setting yourselves up for disappointment.  I am concerned that some are turning or will turn this issue (validation/endorsement/recognition of same-sex behavior/marriage in the Church) into a litmus test.  An either-it-happens-or-I'm-out sort of ultimatum.  To the Church.  To God.  The keeping of covenants, meanwhile, become a secondary concern.

In the immortal words of Yogi Berra: "It's like déjà vu all over again."

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

So the essay was educational to me in that regard. 

Educational, sort of.  But in the end, not very useful.  It presumes "sexual identity."  And not only that, "sexual identity" that is "inherent ... rather than a temporary condition."

This is, I think, a central premise to Oman's framework, and I think it fails out of the chute.  Our @Hamba Tuhan has stated: "All sexual identity is a late 19th-century Western social construct."  He has been emphasizing this point for some time.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I won’t rehash my support for SSM here. Just note that Nate Oman is a prominent voice and I’m cautiously optimistic this analysis will lead to better days. I was already aware of the difference in sealing practices in Joseph’s day from today, but was unaware of the interim changes starting with Woodruff. So the essay was educational to me in that regard. 

His analysis is way too narrow and leaves out the broader scriptural rendition of the sealing power. This will not help clarify the more fundamental issue.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Oman doesn’t claim any differently. Have you read his essay? 

Yes.

I disagree with his statement that "The idea of heavenly parents is not contained in the scriptures."
It may not be explicitly stated outright but to say the idea isn't even there is incorrect.

I do particularly like his explanation of 19th century sealings.  I've said repeatedly that we will NEVER be able to understand polygamy until we learn how those who practiced it view marriage and sealing.
So many today can't understand polygamy correctly because they can't get past our current views on what a marriage is and insist on applying it to the membership in the 1800s.

He said 
"Until well into the 20th century, for example, the First Presidency did not routinely use its authority to cancel marital sealings in cases of divorce or remarriage after the death of a spouse. Rather, both men and women could be sealed a second time without a cancellation, regardless of gender or of how the earthly marriages ended."
This is a half truth at best.  The existence of sealings for time only up until just this past year show that there were absolutely limits on second sealings.  And Brigham routinely gave divorces and sealing cancellations (although he was clear that if they weren't for legitimate reason they wouldn't stand in eternity).

And while his final suggested "revelation" is well written his hope that "After pleading with the Lord, we have received a revelation that same-sex couples may be sealed in the temple" doesn't answer the question - SEALED AS WHAT?
They are husband/wife and they aren't parent/child.

It wouldn't be enough to allow same sex sealing.  They'd have to create an entire new sealing ordinance establishing previously unnamed eternal relationships.

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.

I disagree with his statement that "The idea of heavenly parents is not contained in the scriptures."
It may not be explicitly stated outright but to say the idea isn't even there is incorrect.

I do particularly like his explanation of 19th century sealings.  I've said repeatedly that we will NEVER be able to understand polygamy until we learn how those who practiced it view marriage and sealing.
So many today can't understand polygamy correctly because they can't get past our current views on what a marriage is and insist on applying it to the membership in the 1800s.

He said 
"Until well into the 20th century, for example, the First Presidency did not routinely use its authority to cancel marital sealings in cases of divorce or remarriage after the death of a spouse. Rather, both men and women could be sealed a second time without a cancellation, regardless of gender or of how the earthly marriages ended."
This is a half truth at best.  The existence of sealings for time only up until just this past year show that there were absolutely limits on second sealings.  And Brigham routinely gave divorces and sealing cancellations (although he was clear that if they weren't for legitimate reason they wouldn't stand in eternity).

And while his final suggested "revelation" is well written his hope that "After pleading with the Lord, we have received a revelation that same-sex couples may be sealed in the temple" doesn't answer the question - SEALED AS WHAT?
They are husband/wife and they aren't parent/child.

It wouldn't be enough to allow same sex sealing.  They'd have to create an entire new sealing ordinance establishing previously unnamed eternal relationships.

Those who read "Saints" (not sure which volume) will see the evolution of the temple sealing ordinance pretty much as he summarizes it (and the book does it better in my opinion). I think many tend to see the "sealing power" as the "sealing ordinance" and so focus on the variations and possibilities of applying a rite rather than the more fundamental and broader purpose of the actual power. For example, the key was restored to exercise the power in many ways (not just one ordinance), but all ways geared toward the same consistent end.

Edited September 28, 2022 by CV75

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nor will I rehash my disagreement with it.

"Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire." -Joseph Smith

Meanwhile, we go with the revealed doctrines and follow the Brethren. 

Back in February 2020 there was a big hullabaloo about BYU purportedly removing same-sex behavior from the proscriptions in the Honor Code.  At the time I predicted (correctly, as it turned out) that the story was just that.  See, e.g., here:

And here:

And here:

In the immortal words of Yogi Berra: "It's like déjà vu all over again."

Educational, sort of.  But in the end, not very useful.  It presumes "sexual identity."  And not only that, "sexual identity" that is "inherent ... rather than a temporary condition."

This is, I think, a central premise to Oman's framework, and I think it fails out of the chute.  Our @Hamba Tuhan has stated: "All sexual identity is a late 19th-century Western social construct."  He has been emphasizing this point for some time.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

This framework is even narrower than the presumption that the sealing power is expressed exclusively in the temple rite of sealing.

[The Nehor]

So can I marry a husband and two wives yet or not?

*reads article*

Maybe next year.

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So can I marry a husband and two wives yet or not?

*reads article*

Maybe next year.

You can do what you want.  It's never been an issue of what we are permitted to do.

It's about what ordinances and sealings God will accept.  (I have a feeling it will take 1000 years of temple work in the Millennium to fix a bunch of bad sealing ordinances and put the right ones in place.)
You can seal yourself to a horse.  God's not going to honor the ordinance.  If President Nelson made the announcement suggested in the essay and began sealing SSM couples I don't believe for one second God would honor that sealing in eternity.
Just like Joseph said you can be baptized dozens of times and you might as well baptize a bag of sand if it doesn't meet the requirements.

Edited September 28, 2022 by JLHPROF

[ttribe]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You can do what you want.  It's never been an issue of what we are permitted to do.

It's about what ordinances and sealings God will accept.  (I have a feeling it will take 1000 years of temple work in the Millennium to fix a bunch of bad sealing ordinances and put the right ones in place.)
You can seal yourself to a horse.  God's not going to honor the ordinance.  If President Nelson made the announcement suggested in the essay and began sealing SSM couples I don't believe for one second God would honor that sealing in eternity.
Just like Joseph said you can be baptized dozens of times and you might as well baptize a bag of sand if it doesn't meet the requirements.

That didn't take long for the inevitable comparison between SSM and relationships with animals.

[T-Shirt]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That didn't take long for the inevitable comparison between SSM and relationships with animals.

Talk about finding offense where none was intended or even implied.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

This framework is even narrower than the presumption that the sealing power is expressed exclusively in the temple rite of sealing.

You've piqued my curiosity.  Could you elaborate?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Talk about finding offense where none was intended or even implied.

When it's an ongoing pattern, it becomes less and less likely that the statement is innocuous.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

That didn't take long for the inevitable comparison between SSM and relationships with animals.

There really isn't anything that you can compare to SSM--when trying to argue its illegitimacy--that people who disagree will not find offensive.  So in that regard, unflattering comparisons become inevitable because the deck is stacked against anyone making an argument against SSM.

So many find that perspective offensive in its own right that no comparison can overcome it.

Edited September 29, 2022 by bluebell

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

When it's an ongoing pattern, it becomes less and less likely that the statement is innocuous.

If you were going to make the claim that performing a same-sex marriage sealing was invalid as sealing "something else". What would YOU use for the "something else"?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You've piqued my curiosity.  Could you elaborate?

Thanks,

-Smac

According to Helaman 10, the sealing power is much broader than the sealing ordinance. In the Book of Mormon, it is rendered as the power and key given to a prophet to direct the earth’s elements and enact in mortality the Lord’s eternal will concerning all things, including “covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations” – the shared, revealed beliefs that bind the society of Zion here beneath with Zion above. I think this is the fundamental issue, and not the various formulations of the temple rite, its meaning and evolution.

Those who read "Saints" (not sure which volume) will see the evolution of the temple sealing ordinance pretty much as the essay summarizes it (and “Saints” does it better in my opinion). I think many tend to view the "sealing power" as the "sealing ordinance" itself and so focus on the variations and possibilities of applying the rite rather than the more fundamental and broader purpose of the overriding sealing power. For example, the key was restored to exercise the power in many ways (not just one ordinance), but in all the ways it is exercised, it is geared toward the same consistent end, which is the perpetuation of life, or “the fulness of oneness” described in John 17 – (in quotes because I just made up the term), or eternal life.

Looking at it this way, I’m not sure how same-sex romantic and sexual relationships can be said to adopt and perpetuate the fullness of life, literally (as in the procreation of humanity) and figuratively (as in realizing the full, shared Zion experience). The essay, it seems, is geared more toward the narrower application of the sealing power and focused on the limited and more immediate scope of meeting personal wants and needs. Such relationships may be personally and individually edifying on earth, but I’m not seeing how they perpetuate the broader, eternal society absent the sealing power, keys and the associated ordinances.

ETA: I should have answered your question!  Here it is:  Based on the above, when I say that your observation that the essay’s framework is based on a modern Western social construct of sexuality and sexual identity is even narrower than the presumption that the sealing power is expressed exclusively in the temple rite of sealing, I mean that the paradigm established for the essay is even further removed from religiosity.

Edited September 29, 2022 by CV75

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Does the bet apply only to marriages rather than sealings ?  Your friend may not understand the difference. We currently perform both in temples with much overlap but certainly some of each without the other. 

If they're doing either in the temple in under 20 years, I'd consider the bet lost, and will look for a pink tutu.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

That didn't take long for the inevitable comparison between SSM and relationships with animals.

Yep.

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

Talk about finding offense where none was intended or even implied.

”I want to marry a husband.”

”That would be like marrying a horse”

It kind of is implied. It is so baked into the discourse that it is the immediate go to response that we see again and again and again. It may not be intentional but it is reflexive which might be worse.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

If they're doing either in the temple in under 20 years, I'd consider the bet lost, and will look for a pink tutu.

I’ll get a blue tutu and we can make it a duet.