As a rule, it is rare that I preach the gospel of Samantha outside of my personal blog. The reasons for this are endless, but the most important reason I keep my thoughts in my own personal space is because, having researched and pondered and prayed, I see no reason to place those thoughts in an indefensible arena. My blog is a fortress because the bottom line is that IT?S MY BLOG AND I WILL SAY WHATEVER I WANT! However, I shared my ideas about a particular subject with a friend recently, and I have been asked since to reiterate them to several other interested parties.
Given my natural attraction to women, I, like every other faithful LDS person who is same-sex attracted, have pondered the possibility of eternal same-sex couplings. It feels right and comfortable. To many of us, the promise of eternal opposite-sex couplings feels miserable. It?s not what we wish for now. And often, when gospel tenets feel uncomfortable, we search for other answers, other possibilities?anything to help us resolve the inner conflict caused as we try to balance our feelings with our beliefs. This has inspired many to ?re-write? the gospel according to their own beliefs, their own comfort levels, and their own spiritual feelings.
Often those who do this will cite a landmark revelation given June 8, 1978, in which President Spencer W. Kimball announced that the Lord had made it known from that day forward that all faithful, worthy male members of the Church could now be ?ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.? (D&C?Declaration 2). The resulting line of logic goes something like this:
- For many years the priesthood was denied to people of African descent (specifically meaning those referred to as ?blacks or negroes??I apologize to any whom these terms offend).
- The Lord changed this part of the gospel to include them.
- If this is true, it is possible for God to change the gospel, through revelation, to include eternal same-sex marriages and families.
There are, naturally, variations on this theme, and I have simplified what, in many cases have been complex, deeply researched theories backing up the logic and supporting each premise.
I must pause here to mention that I know many who believe deeply, indeed who pray daily that the above speculated revelation may come to pass in their lifetimes. I put forth my own ideas not to belittle their views, nor to debate them. I have the greatest respect for anyone who searches for truth, regardless of whether or not our beliefs concur. I have read many of your writings and research. I have listened to what you have to say. I have never been disrespectful of the things you believe deeply. I request the same courtesy as I state my own views.
The flaw I see in the previously mentioned logic problem is that we are talking about two very different aspects of the gospel when we compare gay marriage to Declaration 2. Many disagree on the basis that continuing revelation is without limitation, and the parallel is not illogical. So, after much study and research, I bring you my reasons for my own beliefs.
In the beginning, God blessed Adam and his posterity with the priesthood. It was limited only by worthiness and gender. It was intended to be available to all people. The worthiness problem became a glaring issue when Cain killed Abel. Obviously, murder will effectively separate one from righteously exercising the priesthood. It?s not always obvious to the casual Old Testament observer, but Cain was not alone in living the ?unworthy? lifestyle, he was just the first to take another life?sort of a historical biblical landmark. At that point, steps were taken to separate those who wished to live the gospel from those who did not. A mark was placed on Cain and those like him (we?ll call them the ?unworthies? simply for clarity in the story), and they were separated from the ?worthies?, or those who had the priesthood. I do not wish to speculate on the ?mark?. It is not necessary for my premise to stand.
At the point of the worthiness separation, for the first time, the priesthood was no longer universal. Steps were taken to keep it within the workings of the church, and those who lived in the society of the unworthies were denied the priesthood regardless of their personal beliefs or worthiness. If men were born into a family of unworthies, circumstance dictated that they would not be ordained members of priesthood quorums. It does not seem, from what I?ve studied, that this edict was lifted, and descendents of Cain continued without the priesthood throughout biblical times.
In addition to this, at one point the priesthood became exclusively available based on tribe and bloodline. The Melchizedek priesthood was reserved for very few people (like prophets), and the number of priesthood holders dwindled until the coming of Christ. During Christ?s ministry and immediately following his death, he began once again, to make the priesthood universal to all people. Gentiles were baptized. The gospel was preached wherever the church leaders went, and this continued until they were all killed which effectively ended the first attempt at what I refer to as ?universal priesthood restoration?.
My point?it has always been the Lord?s intention to have all men ordained to his priesthood. Because of the acts and choices of mortals, this intention has been thwarted throughout history. I?ll come back to this.
Fast forward to the lifetime of Joseph Smith–he fulfilled his predestined calling, restored the gospel in its fullness and brought forth the Book of Mormon. BUT?the priesthood was still exclusive. It was denied to people of African descent. Why?
Mormon fable would have us believe these falsehoods:
- African people were descended of Cain, and therefore denied priesthood and temple blessings.
- Those who were born to families of African descent were less valiant in the spirit world and would bear punishment for that in mortality.
There are certainly more untruths stated as reasons for the exclusion, but they are all ficticious. Some of our past church leaders have allowed the falsehoods to be purported, unfortunately, during their lifetimes. Some, perhaps, even believed those to be true. We are all mortal and imperfect; even those who lead the church have made false statements and/or believed Mormon folklore. It?s an unfortunate fact of life, and one which all who remain in the church will have to come to terms with in at some point during their lifetimes.
The truth, however, is this. The timing of the Restoration coincided with a long tradition of slavery in the
In addition to this, the
Given the social constructs, language barriers, and literacy problems, it would have been unjust for God to endow those of African descent with the responsibilities of the priesthood. To ordain them to a power they could not freely exercise would not fit with the order and logic the Lord has used in his intervention throughout time. In order for the priesthood to become universal, as it was always intended, there would have to be many changes made within the societies blessed with the restored gospel. Some of those changes would deal with educating and equalizing the status of the African people in any country, but most of the changes would be within the hearts of those who were members of the church who viewed their fellow brethren with prejudice and judgment. Only when the general membership grew spiritually mature enough to nurture and love all people, could those who had been less privileged, who had borne the aftereffects of slavery, bigotry, and prejudice, be given the full blessings of the priesthood. Truthfully, the church membership wasn’t, and isn’t, as charitable as it should have been when the blessings were restored–but even the Lord can’t wait on bigots forever.
It is a wonderful thing that the Lord has provided for those who were key actors in bringing about the change, but who were unable to experience personally, the blessings they brought forth to their posterity. In speaking with a lovely older lady, sporting neatly arranged gray dreadlocks, I learned that she understood society?s need to progress to the point where all men might be considered equal before those of her heritage could enjoy the fullness of the gospel. She spends many hours in the temple (where I met her), making certain that her loved ones, ancestors, and even strangers can one day receive the blessings she enjoys. It does not seem, to her, to be a judgment of God against her ancestors, but rather, a result of the bigotry and ignorance of mankind which kept them enslaved and illiterate, effectively stopping the progression she believes the Lord intended. It does seem that God?s plans are always thwarted by the pride and prejudice of man, but only for a moment. In the end, a way is always found for God?s intentions to go forth.
This returns me to the first point I outlined: it has always been the Lord?s intention to have all men ordained to his priesthood. This is the premise which makes the parallel drawn between priesthood restoration and the possibility of a revealed acceptance of gay marriage false.
Marriage, on the other hand, has been limited to a man and a woman. One can argue that there have been times when God has commanded multiple wives, but the marriage contract was still between a man and a woman. Throughout history the traditional marriage has maintained this construct.
I will not speculate about the Lord?s power to make anything happen. He is, of course, omnipotent. My purpose is not in trying to decide if He will reveal that gay marriage will be acceptable in the future or the eternities. It is simply to point out that to base one?s belief that such a revelation will happen on the landmark revelation given in D&C Declaration 2, is a flawed line of logic. The Declaration restored that which had been lost. A revelation changing the construct of marriage would be introducing a new concept, one which has never been historically offered to mankind. The two are unrelated in purpose and principle. The revelations themselves, should one compare them in theory, are not similar historically. The premise cannot stand.
Where does that leave those of us who are same-sex attracted? I suppose that is and always has been an individual decision. My belief is that all who are born to this earth will have an opportunity to sacrifice to the Lord at least one thing that is an integral part of one?s mortal being. That sacrifice will be something dear to each of us. In the end, every person will understand that in the sacrifice of all things, we are blessed in equal ways. It will probably not be in the ways we would choose, but at some point all will acknowledge that our limited knowledge does not compare to that which the Lord has, nor can our ignorance change His limitless love for us. I believe, in every instance, the bottom line is that our Heavenly Father has placed each of us in a position here on earth which will help us learn and grow in the best way possible?even when it?s uncomfortable, lonely, or heartbreaking.
And there you have it?one more aspect of the gospel as I see it. Please remember not to quote or preach the gospel of Samantha, as it belongs exclusively to me. Seek out truth. Never stop learning. Don?t forget to talk often with the One who truly has all the answers.
What a great post! I’m glad you wrote this.
This part could very easily be re-written to reflect what I believe is the rationale for those who believe it is just like gay marriage. If the issue really boiled down to culpability on the part of the saints (like it so often does), rather than plain and simple doctrine about eternal life and eternal families that are completely separate from homophobia, then there might be a compelling case. I don’t see it that way though.
I have, and continue to speculate on this topic. I guess it’s just philosophically interesting to me. But the truth is that the Mormon concept of God is very distinct from others with seemingly similar Christian traditions. Where God is ontologically supreme for most Christians, for Mormons He is all powerful in a more qualified sense—achieving that status by conforming with laws and principles that preceded Him. It’s a very speculative thing, I realize (and perhaps largely counter-productive depending on your point), but I think God is, in fact, unable to make gay marriages workable. The nature of family and creation, I believe, is something that is not contingent on God’s law, but on a natural law to which God’s own physical existence is predicated. (How’s that for tip-toeing toward the deep doctrine?)
Anyway, thanks again. Loved the post.
Yeah, but we can always hope for a miracle. :)
I believe the 13th Article of Faith states: ...we hope all things…
Good luck with that.
Max, that’s a really interesting thing to say. Now I’m going to have to think about that. :-) Maybe a post on hope sometime.
I enjoy the witty comments, the thoughtful and revealing blog, and the many contributions of Samantha, Nevertheless, I propose the following:
Idea that priesthood for blacks opens the possibility of new revelation on SGA=speculation
Ideas on priesthood proposed in doctrine of Samantha=speculation
Why would one speculation prove decisive in disproving another speculation?????
Aren’t both speculations based on the “hopes” and favored interpretations and life stories of those who propose the specuations?????
Aof F #9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
I await the revelations and prefer them over the speculations.
This was not intended to disprove anything, simply intended to show a flawed line of logic, which unfortunately, many gay men and women have put forth as truth. One cannot base one’s hope for a new revelation (i.e. introduction on something that has never previously existed) on the existence of a restored tenet of the gospel. It’s kind of like saying:
1. Perennial flowers bloom when the weather is warm.
2. Perennial flowers cease blooming when it snows in the winter.
3. Perennial flowers bloom again when the weather is warm.
4. Therefore, one day, dogs will reproduce with cats.
While I suppose, given what modern science can do, point four is not impossible, it is certainly a flawed line of logic to prove that it can happen based on points 1-3. This is my whole premise. The priesthood has existed throughout time. It has always been intended to be universal. Man’s differing states of worthiness and belief have caused it to be exclusive to those who could appropriately use it. Once again it is universal. Naturally, the differing conditions of priesthood conferral would be made known through revelation, but the priesthood itself was simply continued (except for the period of time when it was removed from the earth) until it was restored to its original state. Gay marriage does not constitute a historical principle which has existed since the creation–nor can it be restored since it has never existed. Those who wish to find a logical precedent for the the institution for eternal gay marriage need to look elsewhere.
I believe you’re better off in your decision to “await” revelation. It’s certainly a more logical approach.
I don’t think there’s any need for additional revelation or doctrine when people are unwilling to accept the plain and precious truths that we have.
Speculation that builds faith and encourages open-minded investigation into questions of the past is probably a good idea while speculation that borrows outcomes from the future to justify a point of view at odds with plain doctrine (and likely encourages behavior and obsessive preoccupation that is counter-productive to progression) is not.
Samantha
I simply don’t believe that you can put conditions upon the Lord’s revelations. I understand your premise and how it supports your desire that others be seen as having flawed logic. But I do not think it precludes the Lord revealing whatever he chooses to reveal. See the scripture below.
L
In 2nd Nephi: 29 we read this in response to those who think we don’t need any more revelation (a Bible, a Bible).
v 9. … And because that I have spoken one word, ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.
Ron, having you twist what I say is obnoxious. As you well know, I believe in ongoing revelation and see great value in it. But it hardly does any good for those who refuse to believe the revelations they’ve already got.
I don’t mean to twist what you say, but I guess I really don’t understand your point here. Are you saying, the Lord might have a revelation on SGA, but because some are ignoring the ones we have (like the recent cautions about heterosexual marriage) then the Lord will withhold? Do you have a handle on “those who refuse to believe the SGA revelations they’ve already got?” I don’t understand if you have a group in mind to whom the Lord will not reveal his mind and will and/or what it has to do with the question of these speculations. And if you do know of such unbelievers, and if you believe something is being withheld, how many believers are required to get it revealed? It just seems to me this a convenient way to point the finger at some who are hoping the heavens are still open and who you believe are out of line with your inspiration.
My point was, I await the revelations whenever they come, and if others wish to speculate along the lines of these two which are under discussion, fine. I prefer not to go there. And I don’t really think one speculation can prove another one is false.
There is nothing to be gained in disagreeing with you, as you obviously have a personal axe to grind. My premise is sound regardless of whether or not you agree with it. Disprove that the priesthood was, in the beginning, universal and my premise will become flawed. As long as the priesthood began universal, and is now universal, it is indeed a restoration, and not a new aspect of the gospel. Prove that same-sex marriage existed in the beginning and will again be restored, and my premise will be flawed. Unless you can, the logic is sound.
And on a personal note, I don’t particularly care whether others are “seen as having flawed logic.” My concern is with the logic itself, not in those who purport it. I’ve always held that each person’s belief is her/his own–but if you put it out there, it is debatable, and if you open the debate the logic should be sound.
On the other hand, if one wishes to bear testimony, to state one’s beliefs, those are indefensible because they need no proving. They are beliefs, not necessarily facts and do not have to be real to any except the holder. You are welcome to yours, but you will not weaken my logic by throwing about scriptures about continuing revelation. I have made a point to say that it exists, but the line of logic simply shows that there is no parallel between a new revelation and a restoration of that which already exists.
Ron, I was thinking of the sealed portion of the golden plates when I wrote about not receiving additional revelation until we accept what we already have. It was just a random thought that was loosely connected to the discussion. No need to try so hard reading into it or overstating what I said or intended. (Regrettably, there’s an ongoing pattern with that.)
The church clearly teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong. This is undeniable. The issue with holding out hope that this might change someday is not in accepting the truth of ongoing revelation, but in clinging (in some degree) to evil in hopes that it may magically turn to good.
I have no need to defend some personal inspiration on this. First, because I have none, and second, because if there were a cogent way to fit gay love into the plan of salvation I would readily embrace that possibility. Why wouldn’t I? If it makes others happy and has no ill bearing on me, why would I oppose it?
Let’s be clear here: this is not a case of my revelation vs. yours or anyone else’s. This is not a case of speculation. This is not a case of honoring all opinions. This is a case of God’s most fundamental revealed truths (as opposed to administration of the church), immutable as they are, and the inability of many to have the confidence that God knows what He’s doing. Can’t we muster the faith that His plan is best for each individual, but not necessarily just how we want? Sidestepping the clarity of this issue in order to cling to an unsupported, completely untenable possibility will not preserve hope, but will obstruct people from directing their hope toward the truth, the only place where there is real peace.
I think L’s last comment has the most compelling reason not to believe a reveleation allowing gay marriage is forthcoming. I can’t think of a single instance in ecclesiastical history when something clearly labeled as “sin”, and an “abomination to the Lord” for that matter, has been suddenly deemed acceptable and wholesome. The opposite is true – we have seen the rules become narrower, such as in the Word of Wisdom, but not broader. We’ve seen lower laws (Law of Moses) elevated to higher laws (Gospel of Christ); but nothing as basic as the Law of Chastity and its fundamental premise – that sexual behavior is only acceptable by God in heterosexual unions – has ever been “repealed”. There is NO instance of this ever happening in the past, and therefore no precedent that such a thing could occur, and therefore even LESS likelihood that it WILL occur!
Samantha, I think you did a fabulous job, and I completely enjoyed your train of logic.
Regards,
Neal
Samantha, I really enjoyed your take. In my opinion, your logic is perfectly sound. Thanks for so concisely expressing what many have intuited.
Samatha
You say about me “…as you obviously have a personal axe to grind.” Yes, I have opinions. Can’t we be a little more friendly about it, since we all have our own opinions?
I did not know that the Lord can never reveal anything unless he is restoring something. Can you give me a chapter and verse on that one.
Nor do I think it follows that a new revelation has to be like the priesthood revelation in every particular or else the priesthood revelation cannot possibly be used to suggest that a new revelation might occur.
L
You said when I responded to your assertion that I was twisting your words—–”No need to try so hard reading into it or overstating what I said or intended. (Regrettably, there?s an ongoing pattern with that.)”
I will not try to interpret what this means, but I suspect this happens whenever persons (you or me or any of us) try to discuss controversial issues.
My question is this: How can we have something which is clearly labeled as “the gospel of Samantha” and then in your last comment we get this—
“Let?s be clear here: this is not a case of my revelation vs. yours or anyone else?s. This is not a case of speculation. This is not a case of honoring all opinions. This is a case of God?s most fundamental revealed truths…”
Do you mean fundamental revealed truths like “thou shalt not kill” or “thou shalt not commit adultery?” (see below)
I would like to make it perfectly clear that I am offering no revelation here or even a suggestion that there will be one.
Neal
If you are looking for a “single instance” perhaps you would like to consider Nephi or Abraham being asked to kill someone and/or marriage to two wives instead of one in the case of Joseph Smith.
Joseph Smith once said that certain things that are wrong under one circumstance may be right under another.
Samantha:
I agree with your logic, 100%. Especially the following:
Prove that same-sex marriage existed in the beginning and will again be restored, and my premise will be flawed.
It is my personal belief that same-sex marriage, indeed, existed in the beginning and was part of the Plan of Salvation from even before the world began. Of course, I don’t have any proof — nor is there truly any proof to the contrary. All I have is faith (or at least hope, if it’s not true… as one cannot really have faith in something that is not true — at least by Alma’s definition of faith).
I did, however, find some compelling suggestion of same-sex marriage as part of more pure doctrine as such marriages and/or relations were, indeed, allowed in “over 130 North American tribes, in every region of the continent, among every type of native culture” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit).
That is to say, of all the peoples from whose past we have record, we have the greatest record from the Ancient Native Americans — whose past includes a more perfect Zion than we have now. When one [who is astute in Mormon theology] looks at other Native American beliefs, one can usually decipher extreme similarities between Native American cultures and LDS culture. Of course, according to Mormon beliefs, there was some bastardizing of doctrine as the faithful Nephites were killed off. Accordingly, one could perhaps assume that same-sex marriage is merely a part of such degrading of the Truth.
For me, however, seeing as it is found “in every region of the continent, among every type of native culture” I am lead to believe that there is some deeper doctrine about homosexuality that we have lost — if not marriage, then the nature of gender, itself, as these currently labeled “two spirits” were revered quite highly, and to have it be such an almost universal tradition, it must have stemmed from somewhere in common (and, according to the Book of Mormon, it is apparent that this “somewhere” is the Zion right after Christ’s visit, before the last great divisions).
Therefore — again, at least for me — this creates the question: “Do we truly have the same understanding of gender/marriage/etc. as was understood by the peoples in the beginning of 4 Nephi?”
In my case, as I believe was taught by Christ, I judged the doctrine in question according to the fruits being produced. Then I personally chose to side with the doctrines which I found were producing the greatest fruits — homes, families, worthy parents raising worthy children, etc.
Now, I cannot claim that I “know” such is Christ’s side — but I sincerely believe it with all my heart. As one of my friends (an active LDS straight man) put it, “From what you’re telling me, I don’t think you’re being rash at all… I think you’re taking a calculated risk.” And such I am and such are many gay Mormons who, as is perhaps presented by this post, are thought to be following “flawed logic.”
What I guess I’m trying to say — if you’ll forgive my geeky computer programming reference — is that I believe we’re using the same algorithm, but we’re just inputing different data (yours being “same-sex marriages were definitely not in the beginning”, ‘ours’ being “same-sex marriages were possibly in the beginning”).
I honestly think many gay Mormons who are no longer full-fledged members believe and use the same logic as I (and you). So, it’s really not that we’re using Declaration 2 as evidence that new doctrine will be given but that we’re using Declaration 2 as evidence that everlasting doctrine will, indeed, one day be restored. And it’s not that we feel like the Plan of Salvation needs a rewrite but that there are parts to simply be understood more fully — and we believe that such an understanding includes same-sex marriages and families reared by same-sex couples (as perhaps is slightly hinted at according to the customs of Native American Tribes).
I think I’m bold enough to say such is “our” stance, “our” beliefs, “our” faith/hope, and “our” logic… and we’re taking a highly calculated risk based on this logic, even the logic-base you have presented in your post — again, we’re just using a different premise which premise is: “same-sex marriages are and have always been a part of the Plan of Salvation… it just has yet to be restored.”
-Andrew M. Pankratz
Samantha, I recognize your post was based on the comparison of a particular logical progression and I’ve gone outside of that with my comments. If you would like me to take my discussion elsewhere, I’ll understand. Let me know.
Ron, the eternal role and importance of the family is indeed more fundamental than avoiding death or adultery. (By the way, polygamy is not adultery.) God’s overarching aim is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man— eternal lives are explained in the D&C and involve the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. When social issues or individual circumstances require an exception here or there for God’s purposes, He has the right to reveal such exceptions, but every instance I know of has supported and extended His efforts to bring about His overall aim. This is not part of the “gospel of Samantha,” this is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Gay unions extinguish eternal lives and subvert the entire plan of salvation, plain and simple. It’s funny you should bring up Abraham since the Lord Himself discusses Abraham in D&C 132. It’s a wonderful section that has enormous relevance.
Andrew, what do you “calculate” the risk to be? Because I see the odds that native American lore has more bearing on God’s plan than emphatic, incessant, and detailed statements from his divinely appointed leaders to be, well, long.
I am pretty sure any current LDS bishop or high council would treat a case of polygamy as adultery. That probably applies to the times of JS also, prior to the revelation on polygamy.
As to “exceptions” and the overall purpose of the Lord, I was responding to this comment by Neal.
“There is NO instance of this ever happening in the past, and therefore no precedent that such a thing could occur, and therefore even LESS likelihood that it WILL occur!”
He said,
“I can?t think of a single instance in ecclesiastical history when something clearly labeled as ?sin?, and an ?abomination to the Lord? for that matter, has been suddenly deemed acceptable and wholesome.”
I have never tried to address whether gay unions are a good idea or not, although your discussion is certainly relevant. My discussion here has been limited to the circumstances and conditions surrounding revelation which I believe was the focus of the original post.
“I did not know that the Lord can never reveal anything unless he is restoring something. Can you give me a chapter and verse on that one.”
Ron, I did not know that, either. And that was not what I said. Ever. In fact, I have gone out of my way to clear the way for new revelation several times within my post and comment. Once again (sigh–sometimes people should just read!), my point was that a restorative revelation cannot be used as a basis for a new or non-restorative one.
Andrew–your opinions are interesting, but not Biblically correct, and therefore, within the confines of my logic problem, not viable. My logic is based solely on what has been revealed through scripture and modern day revelation within the doctrines of the LDS church and is not meant to have any basis outside of that paradigm.
-L- –I have no problem if you want to morph the conversation elsewhere. Feel free.
Neal wrote (#13):
Maybe birth control could fall into this category. There have been some very strong statements against it by earlier Church leaders, but now it is common practice and acceptable. Granted, “birth control”—or, family planning—was never the sin as much as selfishness or idolatry that might lead people to forgo having children and disobey the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.
I’m sure there are other examples of this as well. Ron named a couple more. Eating shellfish was once proclaimed an abomination, as is anything that is against the Lord’s commandments as we have them now. Church leaders once proclaimed plural marriage as required for exaltation, but “now” it would be an abomination—simply because the Lord “now” commands otherwise.
Ron, you probably feel like you get a lot of flack here. I’m glad you continue to participate, even so. :)
As for potential revelation on same-sex couplings, I don’t believe there’s any precedent to believe it will ever happen. Ever. I don’t have even a *little* desire or hope that it will ever happen. I’ve spent so much time in prayer and study making sense of things as they are now—something which I’ve come to full peace with—that the thought of the time and energy it would require to re-explore and make sense out of anything again at that point isn’t appealing at all. But, should that happen, I would take that time. I just don’t believe it will ever happen. But, given the fact that we do accept something of a more narrative theology, rather than a systematic theology, anything is possible with God.
I’m of the mindset, however, that comparing blacks/priesthood and homosexuality is an apples/oranges issue. They are too different. Helen Whitney asked Elder Marlin K. Jensen the same question in her interview with him for last year’s PBS documentary:
So, even Elder Jensen acknowledged the possibility given our commitment to openness to additional revelation, though he expressed hesitancy that it could ever happen within the framework of our doctrine.
Samatha
Please be patient with me as I try to understand “your gospel.”
So if there are both restorative and non-restorative revelations, is it ok to hope for revelation in general, as long as those hoping for the revelation (and I know a number of Church faithful parents and friends who are) ARE CLEAR that they are hoping for a non-restorative type. Doesn’t the priesthood revelation indicate the heavens are open, even if it is in a different category of revelation than the one hoped for.
Ty
I think you touch on a key point when you cite Elder Jensen and talk about our “openness to additional revelation.” When we stress so much that the Lord could never do such and such, I just come back to the scripture cited earlier.
II Nephi, 29: 9. ? And because that I have spoken one word, ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.
I certainly understand why you, Ty, prefer to have this settled in your mind. Others I know are in a different place, a place of hope, as I know many who were hoping and praying prior to the revelation on priesthood (including one of my stake presidents).
“So if there are both restorative and non-restorative revelations, is it ok to hope for revelation in general, as long as those hoping for the revelation (and I know a number of Church faithful parents and friends who are) ARE CLEAR that they are hoping for a non-restorative type.”
I believe that question was answered earlier when I quoted the 13th Article of Faith, and again (sigh) that has nothing to do with my post. Again, (sigh) I simply point out that to try to link the two is flawed logic. The answer to your question lies within each individual. I would never think of answering it, personally.
what do you ?calculate? the risk to be? Because I see the odds that native American lore has more bearing on God?s plan than emphatic, incessant, and detailed statements from his divinely appointed leaders to be, well, long.
My risk (that same-sex marriages are indeed a Part of the Plan of Salvation) is definitely not calculated solely, primarily, or even largely on Native American lore. I have based it on faith, prayer, fasting, meditation, hope, and — as I stated earlier — judging doctrines based on the fruits being produced. I merely am seeing hints of being backed up academically… but it is, again, solely a risk in faith.
your opinions are interesting, but not Biblically correct…
I guess that depends on one’s translation of the Bible and one’s beliefs of 1) Sodom; 2) The Law of Moses; 3) The Book of Mormon references that Christ was able to reveal more precious truths to the Native Americans than the Middle Easterns due to the latter’s lack of belief and the former’s more sincere oneness of heart; 4) The more plainess, correctness, and coreness of the Book of Mormon compared to the Bible.
My logic is based solely on what has been revealed through scripture and modern day revelation within the doctrines of the LDS church and is not meant to have any basis outside of that paradigm.
Perhaps we have different definitions of logic. My definition of logic does not include any data or premises (to me, logic is the means through data is applied to premises in order for premises to be proven true or false).
My premise, as I mentioned earlier in response to -L- (but to perhaps put it a little more differently) is rooted in the core concepts of what is revealed in scripture and modern day prophets (perhaps not specifically what is said about homosexuality and what gender necessarily entails, but I have rooted my faith in the core concepts of what I feel is being taught and has been revealed Christianity is all about).
The definition of “logic” is: A system of reasoning.
Therefore, I reiterate in terms that you will not mistake:
My system of reasoning is based solely on what has been revealed through scripture and modern day revelation within the doctrines of the LDS church and is not meant to have any basis outside of that paradigm.
As I used the term “based”, as in: the basis of my system of reasoning (logic), I will define that as well. Basis: The fundamental assumption from which something is begun or developed or calculated or explained.
Please note that I have limited my “basis” and my “logic” to the parameters outlined above. Definitions were taken from Websters. Argue with them if you must, but please do not attempt to change the parameters of my logic problem to include your own. That belongs to you and has only passing reference the that which I am talking about. If you wish to disprove one of the bases of my logic, you will need to do so within the specified parameters or the logic stands. If you change the parameters in order to disprove the logic, you nullify your own attempt at disproof.
Samantha,
I, in no way, am trying to prove or disprove anything, nor am I trying to argue my point or my definition of logic. I’m just trying to explain my beliefs further so that they will no longer be misrepresented by those who do not share such beliefs.
For example, you made the claim that we are basing our choices and beliefs of what will one day be revealed on faulty logic (as Declaration 2 is not about new doctrine but restored). And I’m saying that’s precisely what we believe — Declaration 2 is not about new doctrine but restored; same-sex unions are not about new doctrine but restored.
Now, to perhaps understand your logic better, are you saying — again, if you’ll forgive my geeky reference — that your system of reasoning includes a conditional statement that throws an exception (terminates the method/system) if the inputed data is contrary, in any way, to what the LDS leaders are saying?
Indeed, if such is the case — and I apologize if I assumed otherwise — then we definitely are not working with the same algorithm.
Umm…nope, we aren’t. You’re basing your paradigm on a belief with no scriptural basis–in fact a basis which has been specifically contradicted by scripture several times (“neither is the man without the woman”, “a man shall leave his parents and cleave unto his wife”, there are certainly more–I’m sure you know them. I have yet to see the marriage relationship described scripturally in any way other than with man/woman components). I’m basing my paradigms strictly on what can be found in the scriptures (i.e. marriage relationship as listed above, and the reference to Adam ordaining his sons to the priesthood, D&C 107:39-53). So–the logical conclusion–we are working with two different lines of logic. Mine stays within the confines of the tenets of the LDS religion, yours does not.
Am I saying you’re wrong? Nope. I’m saying you cannot use my line of logic to prove your own, which doesn’t stay within the proscribed parameters.
You?re basing your paradigm on a belief with no scriptural basis?in fact a basis which has been specifically contradicted by scripture several times.
My beliefs and bases have stemmed quite literally from very sincere desires, prayers, fastings, meditations to understand these very scriptures that are thought to contradict same-sex unions. Indeed, I believe that the concepts found within these scriptures do nothing but enforce my beliefs concerning homosexuality (when the most core concepts of these scriptures are applied to hope/faith/guesswork concerning the true nature of homosexuality).
And, again and again, I’m just trying to clarify my beliefs and the sources thereof and not have them be defined for me.
Just as it’s frustrating for you to hear someone say that your choice to marry heterosexually is not based on true and pure love for your spouse, it is frustrating for me to hear someone say that my choice to seek out a homosexual marriage is not based on scripture (or true and pure love for scripture and doctrine).
It is very demeaning to the extremely spiritual experiences I’ve had in my life and the extremely sincere efforts I have put forth to understand scripture and doctrine — just as the above example is very demeaning to the extremely loving experiences you’ve had with your spouse and the extremely sincere efforts you have put forth to develop that love.
I’m not saying you cannot believe what you believe about the bases of my faith — and I wouldn’t have said anything were this on your private blog.
I’m just asking that you not define your beliefs publicly as the necessary bases of my faith.
1. I have no idea who you are. Your beliefs are your own, and quite frankly, I don’t care what you believe.
2. Don’t bring my marriage into this. It is not a tenet of the line of logic on which my entire blog entry was based as it is not a homosexual union, nor does it really have any bearing on Official Declaration 2.
3. If you feel attacked, then you are personalizing a non-personal issue. Logic ia logic. When it is sound, it is sound. If it disagrees with your beliefs you have have the option to ignore it or to accept it. Twisting the logic to make it say what you wish nullifies its validity.
4. Making a play to pull my emotions into this is pointless. It will not change the fact that my logic is sound.
5. If you wish to attack me personally, or to make inferences or erroneous parallels about my marriage, feel free. You will not be the first, nor will you be the last. Since I don’t know you, and have no emotional attachment to you, I’ll afford you the same respect I do most people who feel they must pass judgment on something about which they know nothing.
6. Your faith, prayers, and spiritual experiences have nothing to do with the logic problem presented. They are not part of the bases used for the line of logic, nor do they lie within proscribed paradigms.
If you feel demeaned or attacked it is solely your choice, and logically follows that you must feel that way whenever someone publishes that which disagrees with your own beliefs. I have been very careful to say that I have no problem with other people’s beliefs–they are deeply personal. And I have never said that everyone who reads my post must agree with what it says–indeed, I believe my last words were to search, ponder, and talk to the Lord–not to insist that you take my word for anything.
The post stands as what it is–a logic problem presented and solved within the parameters given. You are welcome to disagree with me. I promise not to take it personally, although I wilil continue to reiterate eternally (sigh) that my logic is sound.
It does not bother me, in any way, when someone declares his/her own beliefs. It does bother me when someone else is defining my beliefs or basis of beliefs for me as was done with the statement “You?re basing your paradigm on a belief with no scriptural basis?in fact a basis which has been specifically contradicted by scripture several times.”
My previous comment was not addressing the post but this statement you made concerning the basis of my faith. My previous comment was not made in any manner of attack or attempt to play on emotion. My bringing your marriage into this was not in relation to the post but in relation to telling others why they’re doing what they’re doing in declarative statements.
I do not believe my previous comment was addressing your logic (admittedly, I don’t completely understand what you deem as logic). However, if your logic is necessarily dependent on this statement that my paradigm has “no scriptural basis,” then your logic is not sound — even if we are to take the scriptures at face value, there is still at least a little scriptural basis that Christ’s Atonement covers same-sex marriages (at the very least temporally, but even eternally).
Everyone believes their logic is sound. The irony is, of course, just about no one’s ever is. The postulation that “Logic is logic” can, therefore, be considered a fallacy.
I think the most important thing to take from this discussion is L said,
Yikes.
Since I’m assuming you believe that to be a horrible thing to have said, but I have no idea why or what Cog’s blog has to do with it, does that mean the most important thing to take from this conversation is that I’m wrong or a bad person or what? I don’t get it.
And, I suppose I ought to point out that sound logic is either sound or not, regardless of what anyone believes about it. It can be assessed, not just dismissed as unknowable.
I know, L. I know.
So this is the logic, as I boil it down.
There are TWO types of revelation. One is restorative and one is non-restorative. (This is a distinction I’ve never heard discussed in seminary, institute, nor in all my life in the Church).
If you expect revelation of a non-restorative type based on revelation of a restorative type you are engaged in a logical fallacy. And you should be sent out to pasture.
There is no allowance in this logic, for just the general principle of revelation and for the idea that the heavens are open and that the Lord says …..”…and because that I have spoken one word, ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another.”
No. That has nothing to do with the premises of this logic problem. The premises are not about “types” of revelation.You may type them if you please, but I believe no one who has been taught basic LDS beliefs will argue (although I’m certain that one of you will try to prove me wrong on this, as well) that the modern day church was restored through revelation, just as the priesthood, and temple ordinances, and many other parts of the gospel. I have yet to find LDS doctrine (on which the logic problem was based) which states that same-sex marriages are a part of the gospel as given to our original parents. Therefore any revelation about that would be new information, not having to do with the original marriage plan (which took place between a man and a woman), and therefore not a restored part of the gospel which is why it is flawed logic to assume that Declaration 2 supports the possibility. Please note that I have been very specific. I have not said it won’t happen–simply that the stated paradigm does not support it.
The logic problem does not ague God’s ability or desire to reveal anything.
The logic problem does not assign a value or limit to revelation.
If you choose to extrapolate that my very minute logic problem has scope within the realm of universal revelation–then it becomes your logic problem, not my own. I was very careful to state the terms and limit the problem.
“There is no allowance in this logic, for just the general principle of revelation” –absolutely not, because that’s not what the logic problem is addressing.
Ron and Ty,
The examples of Nephi killing Laban, the health code of ancient Israel, or the practice of polygamy are indeed very different than a fundamental change in a basic doctrine like the Law of Chasity.
Nephi killing Laban was a single event and was a direct order from God, who indeed holds the power of life and death over us. We have numerous examples of God killing people off at His own discretion. The Flood, destruction in America after Chirst’s death, and even a few interesting ones where an individual was struck dead on the spot (Lot’s wife). These exceptions are just that – exceptions. The commandment not to kill was never repealed. God could have simply struck down Laban himself, as He did Lot’s wife for that matter. But he was testing Nephi’s faith.
Polygamy is another issue entirely. This is a practice which God has permitted from time to time; but only at certain times and by certain groups. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, ?I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise? (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 324). Currently the Lord directs that we should not have more than one wife. But when He does direct otherwise, it is not a sin, and it is a purely heterosexual arrangement.
The health code of ancient Israel was given to keep the Lord’s people healthy at a time when sanitation was not a regular practice and people did not understand the root causes of disease. The Lord instructed His people to avoid foods that were intermediary hosts for parasites or easily spolied (pork, shellfish), to wash their hands, etc. etc. We have been given similar counsel in our day with the Word of Wisdom; such revelations being tailored for the times.
Again, none of these examples are even remotely similar to a reversal of basic doctrine. There is simply no precedent for an event like that that I’m aware of. So the idea that the Law of Chastity and the concept of marriage – and all it encompases including Eternal families – would be altered to accomodate homosexual unions is incredibly unlikely, IMHO.
Neal
I think the Lord can do anything he wants and it isn’t up to us to challenge him. We accept all that has revealed, all that he does now reveal and we believe he will yet reveal many things. However, I think it is dangerous to speculate what he may or may not reveal. Right now, we are taught that we shouldn’t participate in homosexual relationships, and we should follow that counsel. We should not live hoping for, anticipating or expecting a change in doctrine. Even when the Nephites knew the law of Moses would be rescinded, they still obeyed it fully.
Given our current knowledge, I think we should plan on being eternally sealed with a member of the opposite sex for all time and eternity, and live our lives according, knowing that extenuating circumstances (like SSA) may delay or even prevent this from happening in this life.
Great comment, Josh. Like you said, “We should not live hoping for, anticipating or expecting a change in doctrine.” That folks do is really my issue with the issue. I think it keeps people from being in the here and now working out real life in the true church.
I cannot understand how one can 1) subscribe to the LDS church’s 9th and 13th Articles of Faith; 2) admit that change is possible — albeit very, very slightly; and then state 3) “We should not live hoping for… a change in doctrine.”
Now, I do understand if the implication is solely “We should not live according to the lifestyle dictated by the hope.” … I can understand if hope is taken out and the statement becomes “We should not live… anticipating or expecting a change in doctrine.” … But I cannot understand (on a Christian doctrinal level) applying hope to the implication.
When I was in school and it snew [sic] heavily, I would always hope for a snow day… but that didn’t stop me from doing my homework and going to bed on time. To apply the same analogy to my current decisions — and perhaps avoid being a hypocrite: there were times when I needed a day off from school — for example, I often had strep throat before I got my tonsils removed; when contagious, such is not an appropriate condition to attend school — and I would therefore miss school Now, a snow day would have been ideal — as it would have meant no homework or catching up — but I did what I had to do as per was my condition.
So, yes, “working out… life [as a member of] the true church” would be ideal… but a strep-stricken kid has to do what a strep-stricken kid has to do: miss school and hope the teacher will allow him to catch up when better.
This is the second part of my “calculated risk” — that even if I am wrong about the eternal aspect of things, I believe Christ at least covered for the temporal “sick day” (that He’ll let me do the work to catch up in the next life [or whenever I 'get better']). That’s the second part of my hope and faith. And, quite honestly, this is where I believe I’m most doctrinely and scripturally sound in my choices, beliefs, and logic… especially within the framework of the LDS faith.
Hope is a splendid virtue, exceeded in grandeur only by love.
Neal said (#13)
“…but nothing as basic as the Law of Chastity and its fundamental premise – that sexual behavior is only acceptable by God in heterosexual unions – has ever been ?repealed?. There is NO instance of this ever happening in the past,…”
Now that several “single instance” examples have been cited which you asked for, you have decided to switch the goal post and put out other conditions you want satisfied.
Neal, you may be able to do mental gymnastics and persuade yourself that there is no difference between heterosexual monogamy and heterosexual polygamy and that this situation has nothing to do with something like a fundamental change in the “law of chastity.”
I doubt you could persuade my great-grandmother who left my great-grandfather (who helped build the St George temple) when he took a 2nd wife (my great-grandmother’s sister). And so she left St. George with her 3 children and my roots are in ID and not in Southern Utah. She thought it was a fundamental change in what she had agreed to in marriage and in the law of chastity.
If you want to diminish the major adjustment of polygamy and say it is nothing, but a gay marriage adjustment is HUGE, I suggest you might check the news from Texas lately.
L– I don’t see how the possibility of gay marriage is anymore a discouragement to “being in the here and now working out real life in the true church” than polygamy is a discouragement to our couples in the Church today living faithfully with one wife/husband.
Again, I do not consider myself to be speaking in favor of some new revelation. I personally was married in the temple and have children and granchildren sealed to me. I am only speaking in defense of what I feel is the fundamental openness of revelation, the fact the the Lord’s thoughts are not our thoughts, and I don’t think we can lock Him in a box in terms of what he can reveal. I believe Elder Jensen in the statement quoted by Ty also leaves open that possibility of new revelation. If others want to ignore Elder Jensen, who spoke on this recently, representing the Church position, so be it. I do not.
Ron, who here wants to ignore Elder Jensen’s statement? Comments have all acknowledged the possibility of future revelation. I agree with Elder Jensen that there’s an academic possibility that such a thing could theoretically happen. But in all your emphatic unwillingness to ignore Elder Jensen’s statement, don’t forget not to ignore the other 90% past the first sentence. :-)
Polygamy is an interesting analogy since it’s such a nuanced topic as well. The FLDS compound in TX gives ample evidence of how ignoring or second-guessing church leaders in anticipation or misunderstanding of some true principle can cause serious spiritual harm. That’s what apostacy is all about–not necessarily about ill intending or evil people.
On the other hand, polygamy is a bad analogy in this case because it’s a principle that 1) doesn’t necessarily violate the law of chastity depending on a variety of circumstances (but violates other current expectations of behavior) since at specific times and places partners may have no sexual relations except with their husbands or wives to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded while in a polygamous marriage. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is always wrong, always has been, and reportedly always will be. It has been repeatedly affirmed that it is a violation of the law of chastity, and marriage will not change that status (although that may be one reason the church opposes gay marriage). This necessary connection making homosexual behavior unchaste regardless of circumstances is a key distinction.
While a change in certain doctrines may be an appropriate hope (e.g. hoping that the law of Moses would be fulfilled when Christ came), my comment applies to hope that this specific doctrine will change. Can anyone honestly feel good about the implications of such a hope? “I hope that the brethren are just being bigotted. I hope that we can’t really trust what the brethren say. I hope that my desires and needs can be fulfilled in a way that conforms to my own checklist of who I am rather than God’s infinite understanding that has already been plainly made clear.” I could go on and on. This type of “hope” does not equal other types of “hope” that are virtuous in the scriptures. It’s an equivocation.
As I said about 37 comments ago, I think the issue of hope is an interesting one and I hope to post on it soon. :-)
I accept the other portion of what Elder Jensen said.
Do you accept that the possibility of gay marriage is no more a discouragement to ?being in the here and now working out real life in the true church? than polygamy is a discouragement to our couples in the Church today living faithfully with one wife/husband?
It seems you didn’t really respond to that even though it is that portion of my comment which was talking about your repeated concern that this hope of revelation leads people to stray from the chosen path.
In short, Church members can live according to current Church rules even when other possibilities exist.
Oh, I definitely agree with your last statement. It can be done, it’s just harder when one’s heart is set on something else. You know, that whole “no man can serve two masters” bit.
Believing in a future that is promised and compatible with church doctrine (polygamy) is different than believing (or hoping for) a future that is not. Anticipating either one could be a step toward apostasy. I gave the example of FLDS folks in Texas specifically to speak to that point.
As I said before, I’ll post more on this later. I think the relevant points have been heard on both sides of the argument and I’m not interested in commenting more on this particular post.
I guess a lot depends on what we define as congruent with current doctrine. My point is not to argue this one way or the other, but to point out that people of faith and good will who have testimonies can differ on that point.
Pingback: Northern Lights » Blog Archive » Hopes and dreams