A recent blog post that tries to bolster the church’s position against gay marriage has created a bit of a stir in social media. The author decries the fact that “some members of the Church, particularly among Millennials, are beginning to oppose the Church’s position in record numbers” and sets out to prove that the church’s position is “virtually invincible.” If that’s his goal, he’ll need some actual evidence first. Here are some of my thoughts in response to this blogger.
You argue that “Western notions of romantic attachment developed over the last few centuries, and the way our society defines it and obsesses over it is a fairly recent phenomenon. That makes it impossible to claim that ‘the Church is killing LGBT members by depriving them of a basic human need.’”
Romantic love may not have been the driving force behind marriage throughout most of history (which point I also make in my essay), but let’s get down to something even more basic and primal – the sex drive. That is absolutely what makes people pair up, get married and support a family. And that is what numerous church leaders have taught in talks on chastity and marriage: those feelings (i.e., sexual feelings) are God-given, and God-ordained, and when expressed in the bonds of marriage are the “ultimate symbol of total union.” The sex act in marriage is basically elevated to a sacrament.
When you tell gay people they have to shut down such a basic human need or desire, the desire for human connection and intimacy – physical, emotional and spiritual – you are condemning them to a kind of hell. That’s the hell Josh Weed was expressing in his recent blog post. And what makes it worse is that gay people look all around and see their straight friends and family members falling in love and expressing that kind of intimacy, but they can’t because people like you believe their internal “wiring” for that kind of love is evil. Which brings me to my next point.
You are operating from the pre-determined assumption that same-sex love and marriage are sinful, even if expressed in a monogamous, lawful marriage. What makes you think the biological variant of a having a same-sex orientation and “acting on it” is any more sinful than the biological variant of being left-handed and acting on it? Where’s the evidence? What we do have evidence of is people in same-sex marriages who are reaping the same consequences and blessings as people in heterosexual marriages. Your only comeback – and this is why your position is NOT INVINCIBLE – is “because the prophets have said so.” At the end of the day, that’s all you can argue. It may be enough for those who believe that when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done. But for those of us who sustain and believe in prophets but also see that they are fallible and have said numerous things throughout history that have proved to be wrong, sometimes we need to get our own revelation – which brings me to my last point.
You bring up the warning that individualism may be trumping what the prophet says. Yet at the beginning of your essay, you state that, “some members of the Church, particularly among Millennials, are beginning to oppose the Church’s position in record numbers.” So here’s my thought. Maybe the answer to this vexing question of gay marriage will have to come in the form of inspiration, revelation and a change of heart felt among the body of the membership, which will have the effect of moving Church doctrine and policy. In my opinion, this is another way God reveals his word and moves the work along – through the common-variety membership of the church. And this is another reason why the prophet “can’t lead the church astray” – not because God won’t let the prophet speak in error, but because the majority of the church membership who have the Spirit will move in the right direction *despite* any incorrect teaching a prophet or apostle might give.
Wheat & Tares 
Thank you Bryce. Excellent response. What we need more of in the church is people who aren’t afraid to think for themselves and seek personal revelation. We have too
Much worship of our leaders in the church.
Bryce-
I read the following recently. Bennion is homosexual, he is successfully married to a woman. I wish them the best. He expressed his point of view in a news article as follows:
“If you’re more attached to your sexual identity than you are to your membership and your discipleship of Christ, if any of those labels come before ‘a disciple of Christ,’ then yeah, it’s not going to be easy for you in the church,” said Bennion, who is gay.”
<https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900009667/the-weeds-story-is-one-of-many-stories-of-lgbt-latter-day-saints-that-continue-to-be-written.html
There are many people in the world who are deprived, for one reason or another, of the basic needs of life. Basic needs such as food, water, shelter, human intimacy, etc.
Jared – Assuming you are straight, I’ll put this question to you: Are you “more attached to your sexual identity than you are to your membership and your discipleship of Christ”? I imagine you’d answer no. If so, why must you and others assume that just because gay people want the same thing straight people have (love, companionship, etc.), that they are putting their sexual identity first?
With respect to the many people of the world who are deprived of food, water, shelter, etc., are you saying that’s justification for depriving gay people of the basic human need for intimacy and physical/emotional connection? You are making a faulty comparison between poor starving people and gay people. The poor starving people are deprived of food because of unfortunate circumstances (or perhaps an evil government), whereas gay people are deprived of human intimacy by church mandate (or cultural traditions that punish them for expressing their human desires the way straight people do).
Bryce- I’m happily married for 4 decades.
Prior to my conversion experience in 1966 I was a long way from God. I had to choose if I was going to follow Christ or not. I wanted to, but I was into partying and I enjoyed it. It wasn’t easy to make the choice to bridle my passions. It would have been easy to put my sexual identity first, I chose not to. I put Christ first. I was celibate for over a decade because I chose to serve my country when drafted (instead of going to Canada to avoid going to war). After serving my country, I was called on a church mission.
I know a little bit about being deprived of the basic needs of life. The army was no picnic and neither was a church mission. It required sacrifice and facing temptation. As I wrote in my previous comment, people worldwide are deprived of the basic needs of life for many reasons. I know a few faithful LDS men and women who can’t or are unlikely to marry in this life because they are deprived in someway. So far, they are faithful followers of Christ.
A gay member of the church, like you and Bennion, have a choice to make, be celibate, marry a women, or chart your own course. I wouldn’t want to be faced with these alternatives, but my life experiences have taught me that following Christ is worth making whatever sacrifice is necessary.
I wish you the best.
Jared,
You make an excellent point. Stated from my point of view.: What are you going to put as your number one identifier? What is going to be your number one core value?
Well, people, it’s time to shut this thing down. Jared’s been on a mission, so he knows what it’s like to be gay. Checkmate, apostates.
Jared – there is something very fundamental that you are failing to grasp. You think depriving a gay person of their humanity by never being able to fall in love or marry is no different than you “bridling your passions” and not having sex outside of marriage. You believe that even if a gay person does the same thing you do – bridle their passions until they meet someone they love, enter into legal marriage, stay faithful and monogamous – their choice is sinning while yours is favored of God. Don’t you see the difference?
By the way, I am not gay and have been happily married to my wife for over 30 years. And I believe, based on my own observation, that gay people can be in same-sex marriages and still follow Christ just as well as you or I.
Jared, you assume that one cannot be gay and follow Christ. That is, in all ways, incorrect and judgemental. You are equating following the human and therefore fallible, leadership of the Church with following Christ. Those 2 things are not, nor have they ever been, nor will they ever be the same. Our leaders acknowledge this fact and have explicitly and repeatedly reminded us of this distinction. Why don’t you follow their leadership and accept this as well? For the record, lest there is any lingering confusion: one can be gay and follow our Savior. You don’t get to judge anyone else’s relationship with Christ.
A mission is 2 years. A military enlistment is how long? I dunno but anyone going in knows when it will be over and that it WILL be over.
Being gay is forever. Living without love and companionship is a CRUEL thing to wish on someone. For a straight person to require it of them is UNSPEAKABLY arrogant and UNCONSCIOUNABLE.
I’ve been married 50 years. I’m getting old. If I had to face what’s ahead of me without the love and support of my husband I don’t know how I’d keep going. NO ONE has the right to deprive anyone else of that. And this discussion has been going on long enough that no one can say they aren’t aware of the cruelty and lunacy of what they’re demanding. PERIOD.
Bryce, et al-we had an interesting discussion. The difference, it appears, is that we see prophets differently. I see them as the Lords servants, both the living and the dead. The prophets of the scriptures and the living prophets represent the Lord. I choose to follow the prophets of God. Those who have decided that following fallible prophets is misguided also cast off scripture, the Spirit, and the church.
Good luck with that.
Jared,
You have found someone you truly care about, have been married for 4 decades, and haven’t been celibate. A gay person can find someone they truly care about, can never marry them, and have to be celibate. That is the difference, that is the unjustice. BTW God loves them, they are children of God, they matter.
Jared,
I have been married 3 decades, and am a very active LDS member. I can and do see the need to show, love, compassion, and acceptance for ALL of God’s children.
Bryce,
You said to Jared…”You think depriving a gay person of their humanity by never being able…” I think you have the argument wrong. Humanity is based on being able to make decisions. Isn’t that what most LDS people claim the war in Heaven was about? Lucifer wanted to take choice away and force everyone. By saying a person does not have a choice and is controlled by some physical urge they have or predetermined outcome which they have no control over you’re the one who is espousing a philosophy which takes away one’s humanity and says there is no choice. In the end I would rather go with the group which says I have choice. After all that is what we did before we came to this earth life.
Jared—
I’m assuming you’re a straight man. If so, serious, non-rhetorical question here: if a prophet asked you to marry another man and, as part of that, have regular sexual intercourse with him, would (or could) you?
If your answer to that is no, does that mean that you’re putting your heterosexual identity above the prophet?
And if your answer is instead that you wouldn’t, but that you think lifelong celibacy would be the divine answer for you at that point, then my follow-up question is—but what about all those talks from general authorities over the decades saying that we all *need* to experience marriage and everything that comes with it as part of our progression in the earthly estate? (Elder Hafen, among others, wrote several books about it.).
Would you be saying at that point that that inspired counsel (and mandate, even) just didn’t apply to you?
All hypotheticals aside, my questions pose what, for me, is the incoherence in the church’s position.
My whole life, I’ve been told, over and over and over and over, from prophets and local leaders and temple videos and parents and everyone with authority, that God does not want us to be alone, that pairing up in lifelong partnerships is an indispensable part of mortality.
But apparently that wasn’t true. According to the church, it’s totally ok for my gay friends to live their whole lives without pairing up. In fact, it would be really bad if they did.
Wait…what? How can both of those things be true? Unless marriage is strictly a breeding exercise (which would then make the marriages of widowed elderly people suspect), then the church can’t tell me I need a partner and then tell my gay friends they don’t. That’s transparently hypocritical.
Mark – of course we have a choice. But like Jared, you don’t seem to grasp that you are imposing a completely different set of rules on gay people than on straight people. If gay people want to fall in love and marry the person they are attracted to, you say they are choosing evil. But if a straight person does the same, you say they are choosing God’s will. That’s the crux of the issue that you, Jared and the blogger I responded to in the OP don’t understand – you are all operating from the same predetermined assumption that same-sex marriage is sinful, but you have no evidence other than tradition and cultural religious belief (which has often proved to be wrong). You ignore easily observable evidence, primarily the experience of our own gay brothers and sisters that shows they are obtaining the same blessings of marriage as straight people.
Bryce,
Your argument is still based on we don’t have choice even though you start out saying “of course we have a choice.” It does not work both ways.
Mark – I don’t know why I’m responding, but I’ll try one last time. Whether GAY or STRAIGHT, EVERYONE who falls in love with someone they are attracted to, and that love is reciprocated, has a CHOICE as to whether they act on that love by entering into an exclusive relationship, committing their fidelity to one another and legally marrying.
I think there is a more basic question. Before the Church can celebrate homosexual marriage, shouldn’t we ask if purposeful homosexual activity is still sin? If it is sin (and our scripture, church tradition, and leaders all say it is sin, as best as I can tell), then it seems the Church cannot celebrate homosexual marriage.
The church has done a very nice job of tolerating the sins of unrighteous domination and even domestic abuse. …even if it does it by turning a blind eye when necessary. Historically, the church made itself comfortable with the abuses of polygamy and then, when the church overturned the policy, it continued to perform polygamous marriages. I’m sure there are other sins the church can manage not to condemn if large tithes continue to come in.
My own theory is that the church is less concerned about marriage equality these days when it’s costing them memberships and public relations but that they’ve backed themselves into a corner that pride (isn’t that supposed to be a sin of sorts?) won’t let them admit.
Mark – You said to Bryce that, “Your argument is still based on we don’t have choice …” You’ve totally lost me. What non-choice are you arguing against? The only thing I can think of is the existence of homosexuality itself; that LGBTQ have a choice in being LGBTQ. Is that what you are saying?
Thanks Bryce. I appreciate your love and compassion for the LGBT community.
Ji – Yes, whether it’s truly a sin is the crux of the matter. Because we as a church finally realize that being gay is biological and not a choice, and we are starting to know real-life gay people who are happy, well-adjusted, and blessed in their same-sex relationships, it is causing many to question the church’s belief that it’s a sin – because it’s so unfair and arbitrary and doesn’t square with actual observation. So apologists (like the blogger I responded to, or Jared, or Mark) are trying to come up with various arguments and justifications for why the church’s position is correct, just and fair. But at the end of the day, all they’ve got is, “because God said so” or “the prophet said so.” Their arguments remind me of apologists who tried to make sense of the unfair and arbitrary priesthood/temple ban by coming up with all sorts of folk doctrines and reasons to make what was truly unjustifiable seem palatable.
Bryce,
There you go again you say “-of course we have a choice.” Then you state “being gay is Biological and not a choice..” The logic of your written words is that because some one is Gay or straight they done have a choice in how they act. It’s logic I do not buy into.
To add to Bryce’s thought, so much of ‘sin’ is about creating harm, especially harm to others. The challenge is for the church to prove that a committed same-sex relationship is harmful. And that’s going to be hard to do.
Ji. Only recent LDS prophets have spoken about homoexualuty as a sin. Joseph Smith never addressed it. « Our scripture » (Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants) is silent on the issue. If these are books written for our day, why don’t they spell it out as sinful? The Old Testament and Law of Moses we write off as being fulfilled and don’t practice. The King James version of the New Testament (which again according to the Book of Mormon) are not totally reliable because of translation error. We can see many liberties taken in the translation of the Greek in the NT of words like « fornication and effeminate ». Many still believe that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of sexual deviancy when the Lord clearly states in Ezekiel 16:49-50 that it was their lack of charity and iniquity (not treating each other equally) that was their downfall. My point is that like Bryce has been saying, how do we really know that God considers homosexuality a sin? There is simply not enough revealed evidence to support it and just because leaders of the church find it reprehensible is no guarantee that God sees it that way. We have seen with the case of blacks and the Priesthood, leaders were predjudiced and wrong
Bryce,
I have stumbled across a few of your articles and feel I am spinning a wheel you have spun. My husband and I have a strong need to offer support, love, and understanding both to those who are gay and to their parents. That we within the church need to be more aware of how others feel by the things we say and the things we do. Is it possible to use your knowledge and help? We have spoke to our local church leaders and they know of our desire to help others. If you can offer guidance, I am not sure how to reach you.
ReTx – very good point. The church has made arguments in legal briefs about the harm same-sex marriage would cause society, families and children (interestingly you don’t hear them so much in church). But these arguments held no sway with the courts because there was insufficient evidence for them; and they look honestly quite absurd as more time passes and we become more familiar with gay people and their lived experience. Kind of like the bizarre racial arguments that used to be made to justify segregation.
Denise – just keep doing what you’re doing in being a voice and standing up for LGBT people when hurtful and ignorant things are being said. Keep your church leaders informed, let them know that there are likely 3-6 or more YM/YW right now in their ward who are struggling with coming to terms with being LGBT, and their souls are likely being crushed by the the things they hear at seminary and church, so they need some positive messages. If you’d like to talk more, find me on Facebook, friend me, and send me a FB message.
I’m a gay man in a mixed orientation marriage; I (understandably) think about this topic a lot. We get caught up so easily in what the Bible does or doesn’t say, are the prophets always right, is homosexuality a choice. At the end of the day it’s a complex issue that for me boils down to one basic question: What do I want for my children?
I’m fairly certain that one of my sons is gay. Do I want him to be able to date someone he finds attractive? Do I want him to live a celibate life? Do I wish upon him a mixed orientation marriage knowing the struggles that my wife and I have gone through? Do I want him to be able to experience the joy of holding his own offspring in his arms for the first time? What do I most want for my son? That is what matters.
Bryce–the scriptures and living prophets have outlined the qualifications Heavenly Father has revealed to obtain the various degrees of glory. The qualification for Celestial glory are the highest. Apparently, you don’t like what the scriptures and prophets have outlined. If that is your choice, then I accept that, and respect your decision. Would you allow the same for those who chose to follow what the Lord has revealed? The Lord’s prophets have done all that they can do based on six millennia of revelation to help gay’s be members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day-Saints. As things stand now, they have no other choice. Would you respect church leaders if all of sudden they changed their standards to be a church member to avoid the challenges of the day. Note: if you think the church changed the priesthood ban without revelation then why would you even want to be associated with the church?
I own a business and have thousands of customers I interact with. Among them are gay couples, both men and women couples. I even do business with a man who is now a women. I received a letter from him (now her) requesting name and gender change to be updated on our records. I get along with all of them. All of them are good people. I respect them, and they in turn respect me. Some of them know I am Mormon. It has never been an issue. To do business, all customers are required to meet certain qualification. Sexual orientation is not one of the qualifications. However, there are financial, educational, and other areas they need to qualify for in order to do business. If they don’t qualify, then I am unable to work with them. Obviously, not everyone qualifies.
In today’s world, to be entitled to participate in educational opportunities candidates are required to meet standards. If they can’t meet the standards then their application is turned down. I’m sure you would agree that a surgeon needs to be qualified in order to operate on a patient at your local hospital. If someone desires to be a Mormon there are certain standards. The church has a right, just like any other organization, to set standards for membership. Note: comparing the priesthood ban with the churches position on SSA doesn’t make sense. Why? Church leaders always said the day would come when the priesthood ban would be lifted. No such thought has ever been said regarding gays.
I’ll close with a hypothetical. If church leaders received a revelation announcing that gays can be married in the temple I would adapt to the revelation.
Jared,
What would you do if you found out your child, niece or nephew, grandchild, was LGBT? It isn’t a choice, and gay children continue to be born into our church, even though there are these standards regarding membership. The church’s standards are harmful to LGBT individuals and their families and loved ones.
” If someone desires to be a Mormon there are certain standards.” Yes. This is very true. Personally, I just think it is a less important truth. A more important truth/standard is Christ standing with his arms open asking all to come unto Him. Which leads back to the recent post on W&T on why we are trying to take on God’s job of saving others rather than focusing on our job of loving.
Valentine-whenever a standard is set there will be those who are hurt when they don’t qualify. I used the example of applying to a school and being turned down. Nearly everyone experiences disappointment at some point in their life. It hurts!
In my circle of friends and acquaintance I see examples of individuals and families dealing with SSA and church standards. It is difficult for some and a breeze for others. All of the families I personally know accept the standards of the church.
Hi Bryce,
Just curious — might there be any sort of projected timeline for the change you describe in the last paragraph of your post? How long are LGBT members expected to wait for a real change in policy to emerge, while demented amounts of painful quibbling and monotonous argument convulses through the body of the membership? Shouldn’t someone be spearheading an effort to get to consensus, or compromise, or to somehow just get the issue settled so everyone can move on with their lives?
Looks to me like neither the LGBT members + their support nor the normcore base of typical Mormon conservatives are going to wind up getting 100% of what they want here, regardless of what God does or does not deign to reveal. And it doesn’t seem like either side will get away with convincing the other side that their side of the argument is the already revealed will of God. I could be wrong. But it seems like the issue has been going in the same painful circles for the past 3-5 years. Everyone who ever paid enough attention to deal with the topic of gay marriage/membership in an LDS church setting is now just tired/uncomfortable/burnt out/completely jaded about it.
Thank you for your post.
Jenny – I have no idea what a timeline would look like on this.Debate, reasoning and logic won’t do much to bring about change (even though that’s mostly what these blog posts are about). What will do most to change the hearts of the members is getting to know real gay people. That, and the younger generations taking the place of the old guard who are set in their ways.
Jared,
My understanding of what the Lord wants from us to be worthy of exaltation, is we love as he does and discriminate against no one.
You obviously think you are required to discriminate, and hurt some of Gods children.
I will not be persuaded to your point of view, and until the Prophet tells you to change, you will not.
I see nothing except culture and prejudice causing this attitude to gay marriage, and I look forward to when that culture is disavowed, as was discrimination by race.
I would not be too certain that hurting gay couples is helpfull for exaltation.
Geoff-Aus–Lehi loved his family! Just before he died, Lehi from the inner most feelings of his heart, gave his parting words to those he loved. If any of his family were gay, or were dealing with any of the myriad of other evils of the flesh that afflict humankind, he counseled them to look to the great Mediator and choose eternal life by denying themselves of all ungodliness. Denying the flesh hurts, but the reward of eternal life is worth it. It is an act of love to encourage gays to follow the prophets of God.
28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;
29 And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom. (Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 2:28 – 29)
Christ loves all of humankind with a perfect love. His prophet Lehi is saying the same thing that Christ would say.
Jared, you missed the point of the 19 78 revelation. God was correcting the racist practices of the past in the church. If God is real and is loving and decent, he/she/it will eventually do the same for the current bigoted actions of the leaders toward LGBTQ… individuals.
Bryce and others are missing some very basic Christian beliefs here. The first is that of the Fall. We are all born with natural inclinations (not of our choosing) which are contrary to what God intends for us. We are all born carnal, natural, selfish, devilish, and lustful. We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. This natural state of things does make those things normal, but it does not make them right. Some people have natural short tempers and are physiologically more aggressive. Some people are burdened with loathsome perversions through no choice of their own. St. Paul said he could sense the war in his flesh, so that the things he should do, he didn’t, and the things he should not do, those he did. He then exclaimed, o wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death? The answer is always, Christ. Christ said follow me, but first count the cost. It involves self denial, picking up your cross, and following Him. It is the hard, straight and narrow way. I believe the prize of eternal life is incomparable to what we may suffer (or enjoy) during this sojourn in the flesh. I believe that a lot of what makes up our psyche is in fact physiological, and when we die, much of that weight will be shed with the death of the carnal body. So it really comes down to a choice, not between celibacy or sex, not between being true to yourself or being lonely, but between the flesh or the spirit. The ecstacy of eternal union with God is something compared to which the midst rapturous love and union between two people is nothing but cotton candy. If any man shall find himself, let him lose himself, pick up his cross, and follow me.
Jack—
Language like that would work much better for other Christian denominations. It would justify celibate catholic priests, for example, or ascetic Eastern Orthodox monks.
But Mormonism has, as a foundational theological teaching, that it’s not good for man to be alone. It teaches that physical intimacy is a holy act, necessary and transcendent on a spiritual level.
That’s pretty hard to reconcile with what you just wrote. And it’s pretty hard to reconcile with the church’s current insistence that gays are the exception, that, unlike the rest of us, it’s actually better if they remain alone.
Marriage is not a requirement for salvation in the celestial kingdom. And things like getting baptized and married are quick ordinances that can be performed during the Millennium and beyond. A life of rebellion and putting oneself first however, cannot be so easily corrected. While Mormons consider temple marriage to be important, it is actually not as important as actually being a christ like person and obeying those commandments which are within our control and which do not depend on the agency of another person (like marriage).
Following Christ has never been the easy way. The gospel is as hard as sticks. The way of the cross is painful. That’s why I’ve always had a difficult time with atheists who say that Christianity is a crutch. It’s actually the complete opposite.
Bryce Cook, Richard Ostler, and Paul n Susie Augenstein have an agenda: the promotion of the eventual acceptance of same sex marriage in the church. Any such “revelation” would not be a revelation. It is a doctrine and philosophy of man. In this hypothetical world, I personally would reject any so called revelation. Bishop Augenstein should be released for what he subjected his ward to.
“Marriage is not a requirement for salvation in the celestial kingdom.” I’m pretty sure 99% of Sunday-attending Mormons would disagree with you….
Read the doctrine and covenants. No celestial marriage required to inherit the celestial kingdom. It would worry me if 99% of them did not know that.
You’ll have to point out to me where in the D&C it says that marriage is not a requirement for salvation in the C.K. Here’s what I pulled from the D&C Lesson Manual which says (endlessly starting with the first sentences, “…eternal marriage is an essential part of Heavenly Father’s plan,” Perhaps ‘essential’ does not equal ‘requirement’?
“President Joseph Fielding Smith said: “Marriage, as understood by Latter-day Saints, is a covenant ordained to be everlasting. It is the foundation for eternal exaltation, for without it there could be no eternal progress in the kingdom of God” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:58).”
So I’m not sure if you see ‘the foundation for eternal exaltation’ as being something different than a ‘requirement for Celestial salvation’. Based on some very uncomfortable comments (for the single/divorced members of my ward) that occurred when we had this lesson on SS, I feel quite comfortable in saying that the vast majority of believing Mormons do believe temple marriage is a requirement. To be honest, It’s such a no-brainer that I’m somewhat surprised we are even having this conversation….
From D&C 131:1-4
1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.
Many members confuse the three heavens or degrees “within” the CK with three degrees of glory.
Marriage is required for exaltation in the CK. To enter the CK one must have faith, repent, be baptized, and receive the holy ghost, as far as ordinances are concerned.
In Section 137:5, Joseph sees his brother Alvin in the CK. Granted it would have had to have been a future vision, but nowhere in any of the standard works is Section 131 contradicted.
I have never heard anyone teach, on my mission, in seminary, institute or church, that celestial marriage is required to enter the CK. Celestial marriage is required to obtailn Exaltation in the CK or eternal life, which is called eternal “lives” in Section 132, or a “continuation of the seeds”.
I went and read the blog post that was refrenced. It was very compelling. Here is the link https://happiness-seekers.com/2018/02/26/actually-the-mormon-position-on-gay-marriage-is-stronger-than-you-think/
Jack:
You’re drawing a really fine line there. But the line you’re drawing–even if true–doesn’t undercut what I’m saying.
You’re drawing a distinction between [marriage is required to enter the celestial kingdom] and [marriage is actually only required to obtain the highest degree within the celestial kingdom]. You think it’s the latter, not the former. Ok, great. Even under that framing, though, there is a highest plane of exaltation that is only available for people who are married. And the church is currently telling everyone that, to obtain it, we have to be married. Hence, the constant drumbead of counsel from prophets and apostles, from church pulpits, telling the YA to get married, that marriage is vitally important. Except… then the church also tells gays not to get married, that it would be a sin for them to do so, that–unlike the rest of us–the Lord apparently wants them to live their lives without intimacy or marital companionship.
That’s my point. Whether you frame it as striving for the celestial kingdom, or instead striving for the highest degree within the celestial kingdom, the church is still saying two competing things–to straights, it’s saying that they must get married; to gays it’s saying that they must not. The distinction you’re drawing really doesn’t change that at all.
Seems clear that when someone Mormon is talking about gaining exaltation or salvation or entry to the Celestial Kingdom, that they are talking inherently about the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom. So much so, that I don’t know in my lifetime that I’ve ever heard a general Authority even reference that there are different levels of the Celestial Kingdom. I’m not arguing that you are wrong as that is my understanding as well. But just that the hair you are splitting is meaningless. No one is aiming or encouraging a fellow disciple to aim for a lesser part of the Celestial Kingdom.
The point is that the church teaches that this union in the celestial kingdom is physical. Eternal life = eternal lives = a continuation of the seeds. D&C 132. Now I don’t know how two physical bodies are going to be able to procreate non-physical spirits from preexisting intelligence, but at any rate two people of the and gender cannot do that. All the platitudes to marital intimacy aside, even from a solely biological perspective, the purpose of sex is procreation, and putting things where they don’t belong goes against the natural order.
Most people like Bryce, Ostler and the Augensteins think the church has it wrong on many levels. I do not understand why they don’t go and join a more liberal church. There are many. There’s a free market in religion. Eat at a different part of the buffet, or they can start their own.
Thanks for all your Christ like judgement. I’m really surprised you haven’t already been transfigured.
Well, under your argument, Gay couples who live a christ-like life can enter the Celestial Kingdom just not the portion of the Celestial Kingdom where they can procreate. I personally don’t know of any gay couples with any sort of expectation that they can procreate together anyway. And since we clearly believe in a spiritual law of adoption, I’m not seeing a problem here beyond an excuse for judgement on other people.
Jesus taught that the servants of the Lord were unable to judge who was wheat and who was chaff. Only the Lord himself was capable of seeing the difference between the two. How is it that you’re so sure you can tell the difference?
Fornicators cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. I believe those same sex couples who are legally married are still sinning. Even if in some improbable hypothetical the church allowed it, in my opinion it would be sin no matter what the prophet said.
I do believe that with time most people will come to their senses, repent, and be redeemed.
And for the record, I don’t consider myself qualified for the CK either. I am naturally selfish, self centered, and angry. I am not completely honest. I lust after money and the flesh. I sometimes watch inappropriate stuff online. I don’t pay a full tithe. The inclinations to be this way are, in my opinion, hereditary and genetic. Hence the fight that I am daily engaged in.
So Jack, you accept and sustain the prophet if you agree with what he says. At the same time you condemn those who don’t agree with you. That’s not Christ like and based on your other comments would keep you out of the CK. Interesting paradox in which you find yourself. God loves all of his children, even gay people like me and hateful, judgemental people like you.
We all have our individual battles, don’t we. Adam Miller writes about letting go of the story we build up about ourselves to find the true, human, flawed, child of God inside. Hard thing to do.
“I do believe that with time most people will come to their senses, repent, and be redeemed.” Hey, something we can agree on.
Here on Earth, we can clone mammals and create artificial sperm and eggs. And in a few years , premature infants born from 22 to 26 weeks gestation could get placed in a synthetic womb. But in Exaltationland, life is still conceived in 19th century terms.
So my question to all ye ardent defenders of eternal heterosexuality,– suppose there was a Relationship Turing test where we evaluated whether a relationship was good,– Do you think only heterosexuals will be in the good category?
For some, apparently, what matter is not the quality of the relationship but the the genitalia. Locks and keys and all that.
I once heard that those who don’t get exalted are smoothed out in the resurrection or sometime thereafter. Like a Ken doll or Oscar statue. I also had a mission comp who thought God and gods look like the classic aliens depicted in ufo mythology and sci fi. Big eyes and head which show intelligence. Small mouth, nose and ears because breathing and eating are not needs. Skinny body because of instanteous travel and levitation ability.
At the point where the conversation degrades to God looking like an alien and people being ” smooth out’, I’m done.
Jack wrote, “The ecstasy of eternal union with God is something compared to which the midst [sic] rapturous love and union between two people is nothing but cotton candy. If any man shall find himself, let him lose himself, pick up his cross, and follow me.”
That’s Catholic mysticism, right there. Which is fine, but as others have pointed out, it’s not really compatible with contemporary Mormonism to the extent that it downgrades marriage and family.
Jack’s failed argument helps crystallize a point that’s nagged at me for some time: the reasons why it feels awkward for Mormons to embrace the natural law arguments advanced by Catholics like Robert George against same-sex marriage. (Several people at BYU have adopted these natural law arguments, and they can be found in some of the legal briefs that anti-SSM Mormon intellectuals have influenced.)
In Catholicism there is a long and nourishing tradition of full-fledged spirituality for unmarried people. That makes a more coherent argument against SSM possible within Catholicism: because marriage is unnecessary for salvation and communion with God, opposition to SSM arguably does not deprive gay people of essential blessings. This argument still has weaknesses, and I don’t find it persuasive, but at least it is more coherent than the Mormon argument, which boils down to the (unhelpful) assurance that gays will be “fixed” in the eternities. The problem for Mormons is especially acute because we are not doing well at making a nourishing place in the church for single people.
We need greater light and knowledge about Mormon teachings on sexuality, gender, and family. These theological blank spaces are linked to each other on a deep level.
The space doctrine I sighted is just that, space doctrine. Mormons are very susceptible to that stuff. It can facilitate both very liberal progressive views, and very conservative ones.
At the end of the day, the OT and NT are very unequivocal in their condemnation of homosexual practices. I could string cite a bunch of very candid and blunt scriptures, but the likes of Bryce Cook would still find some way to rationalize them.
The law of Moses was not done away with in Christ. It was fulfilled. It is not just a sin to murder someone, it is a sin to even be angry. It is not just a sin to commit adultery or fornicate, it is a sin to even entertain the thought. St. Paul did not mince words either, and still considered homesexuality to be very sinful during NT times.
If the likes of Bryce Cook think this can change, then anything can change and there is no absolute truth which cannot be changed by some “revelation.” This is moral relativism. It is a house built in sand.
I do not believe he has any leadership position in the church anymore unlike Ostler and the Augensteins. But he is still a wolf in sheep’s clothing who Paul warned us about, speaking perverse things, not sparing the flock. That does not mean he’s not a nice decent person, but as far as being a true Christian, by their fruits you shall know them.
None of the comments above from “JR” are from me. I had been using the commenter name JR here and elsewhere for quite some time before this relatively new JR showed up. Sometimes I agree with new-JR; sometimes I don’t. I haven’t decided what to do about the confusion resulting from new JR’s adoption of a handle already in significant use in some corners of the bloggernacle. Suggestions?
Going forward, if there the problem is deemed significant, maybe the powers that be would find a way to block use of a handle by any other than the first commenter to use it. On the other hand, that might not be a feasible or economic change to the blog programming.
JR, since there is no system to allow new commenters to know what handles are already in use by other commenters, this will continue to be a problem. I will change mine to JR in AR.
PS, the Biblical narrative shows that all of us, individually and together as a people, are adulterers. Let that bake your noodle for a bit.
Right. We are all sinners. But we must still turn our minds away from sin and toward God. Bryce Cook, Richard Ostler, Paul Augenstein, and Susie Augenstein, not to mention Bill Reel, Kevin Kloosterman, John Dehlin, etc, are advocating that we relabel sinful behavior as a god given gift.
Jack – you are about to be banned from the site. You can comment on content, but when you start rendering judgment against people as though you are their ecclesiastical leader, you’ve crossed a line. Also, spreading gossip and rumor will not be tolerated. How would you know what my calling is? For the record, I serve in my ward HP group leadership.
Let’s take religion completely out of it. Let’s look just at nature and science. This may seem callous to some. But at the end of the day same sex attraction is a defect. It is a deviation from how things are designed to operate. My evidence? In nature if two mammals are attracted to the same gender their genetic code ceases to exist in one generation. The survival of the un-mutated genetic code is passed on through offspring. As far as I know there is no mammal on earth that naturally conceives without the opposite gender.
Conclusion, same sex attraction is a defect and should be treated the same way we treat any other physical defect, or mental illness.
This isn’t a religion argument. It is an argument of science and nature.
Elementary: You might want to go talk to some biologists. Homosexuality has been studied for almost a century. It’s not a defect, it’s a naturally occurring biological variation that has been directly observed in over 150 species. There are reasons evolution has not snuffed it out. Homosexuality is not a defect, it’s a benefit.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486
Elementary
Umm, two terms–Kin selection and Inclusive fitness.
Oh what the heck, here’s another–Allomothering
Now tell me again how things operate.
bryce, are you defending homosexuality in an eternal sense
or just now?
meaning, most members believe ressurection will correct all
sexual damage. hormones, dna, all will be perfect.
so no one will be paralyzed, depressed or gay.
this is basic ressurection doctrine right?
so if the ressurection corrects ssa, then is gay sex now still ok?
it seems that some members are honestly defending eternal principles,
and some are defending peoples needs in the present.
both are valid.
and jesus got in trouble for addressing both.
people were always thinking “is he going to talk about eternal varities or
present repentant needs?”
another anon=
im confused, why can’t 2 gay people marry and give each other love and companionship until death?
i.e. a lesbian and a gay man. can a gay man not find companionship with a woman, or is it just about the sex?
confusing. i mean, living the gospel is all about ambiguity and
searching to find peace in trial and confusion. no?
“can a gay man not find companionship with a woman, or is it just about the sex?”
Dixie – Take a look at Josh Weed’s story. http://joshweed.com/2018/01/turning-unicorn-bat-post-announce-end-marriage/ (If the link doesn’t come through, google :turning a unicorn into a bat: the post in which we announce the end of our marriage)
frankly,
Jesus is a guy who didn’t really seem to favor sex that much at all.
i mean he was on a ministry at 33 and i don’t think his apostles were going to have much of a sex life for the rest of their lives.
If your following a guy who says ITS BETTER TO BE BORN MAIMED
than to spend a life in sin, well, you could easily see how
commanding a gay guy to not do gay is believable.
Jesus said a lot of things that could be counsel for gay mormons.
frankly the bom could be a great anti marriage playbook,
ammon spends 14 years talking about the gospel while he could have had an amazing sex life with the kings daughter.
maybe the church is too focused on sex in general, the focus on family
innevitably leads to too much focus on sex.
when i think of family, i think of sex. when i think of Jesus i think of being spiritual and humble and preaching and helping. I guess sister nelson is helping me combine the two.
how can your gay son not read the bom and come to an agreement that gay sex just might not be the most important thing in this life.
especially since the bom condemns carnality(which could include hetero sex or even just too much sex in general), lust etc.?
LASTLY: jesus stated that there are some who choose to be castrated
eunichs for the kingdom of god.
this is a hard saying, but maybe as a gay member you can spend
more time preaching, ministering, loving, teaching
and maybe thats the decision that ammon made.
and ammon claimed that nothing brought more joy than being
a full time missionary for the whole length of his 20’s.
again, why aren’t more mormon men serving more lengthy missions?
Dixie – why do you believe being gay is a defect that will be fixed in the resurrection? There are some people who believe dark skin is a defect that will be corrected in the resurrection, do you? Is being left-handed a defect? How about having red hair? How is having a homosexual orientation any different than these examples or the multitude of biological/physiological variations that make a person differ from the norm but that do not affect their health or longevity (or make them immoral)?