Thursday, 17 August 2006
If lifetime disability, why lifetime prohibition?
by Christian Y. Cardall
While I cannot empathize in an experiential way with male-male attraction, I can say that I would be uncomfortable using my preference alone as a basis for forbidding others from acting on such feelings. A recent Church press resource on the issue—consisting of an interview with Elders Oaks and Wickman—affirms, however, that it is not any human policy, but rather the Lord’s decree, that proscribes same-sex relations. Nevertheless, their reasoning about the nature of same-sex attraction—which many in the discussion at M* hail, rightly, I think, as an ‘advance’—raises a new question.
Once the position is taken—as it seems to be by Elders Oaks and Wickman—that same-sex attraction (and lack of opposite-sex attraction) can be sufficiently strong to amount to a ‘disability’ for a given person for the duration of their mortal life (but not beyond), it seems clear that heterosexual marriage and procreation are already off the table for that person in this life. My sense is that the Church is now advising men who simply are not attracted to women to not marry. This is what I gather is seen as an ‘advance’ by those who infer an implicit acknowledgment of a biological (not necessarily genetic) condition that marriage is not going to solve.
If, then, it is an acknowledged permanent condition in mortality that contraindicates heterosexual marriage, what would the Lord’s rationale be for proscribing the emotional and physical expression of same-sex attraction on a ‘for-time-only’ basis? After all, our Church currently allows heterosexual marriage for this life only, with no eternal expectations, when a widow has been previously sealed. Unless one wants to foolishly fall back on the discredited ’support the widows’ argument once used as a justification for past polygamy, it is difficult to see in these ‘for-time-only’ heterosexual marriages much more than a recognition of the overpowering human need for physical and emotional intimacy in mortality. In this light it seems almost inhumane to deny fulfillment of these needs in this life to those with confirmed same-sex attraction and lack of opposite-sex attraction.
(6 votes, average: 2.33 out of 5)
Loading ...
Exploratory deployment of two Mormon imperatives—“prove all things; hold fast that which is good,” and “awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words”—from perspectives unfamiliar: secular, scientific, humanistic, and cultural (high and low).
It doesn’t seem like that big of a deal to me to live a life without partnering. I mean, I get that people really want to partner and I imagine that not being able to is painful, but it doesn’t seem all that cruel to me for the Church to prohibit people from forming same sex partnerships. I’m sure for some it would be a difficult road to travel, but it seems like people can live happily without partnering.
That said, one potential problem with condoning “for-time-only” homosexual relationships would be that it would have a normalizing effect, which could cause some people who could go either way to fail to reach the ideal because the immediate negative consequences (church discipline, social stigma) of going the homosexual route wouldn’t be there.
That’s probably not enough for you, and I won’t claim that I understand fully, but it’s something.
Tom, you make some good points. As one of my past bishops once said, some things are worse than being single—and sometimes, it’s being married.
I sort of regret making the last sentence so strong. It comes down I guess to Elder Wickman’s claim that “It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.” If it really is a nanosecond (so to speak) of our existence, it’s arguably not a big deal (though this nanosecond’s probationary consequences are alleged to be completely crucial—having it both ways a bit there, perhaps). But it seems to me that if one is going to tell people what to do with their lives based on claims of eternity, to tell people to forego something that’s such an important part of human experience (i.e. intimacy), you really need to know what you’re talking about—because if this life were all there is, you’d be preventing the only chance they’d ever have to experience it. To urge public policy based on eternal claims for which public evidence can’t be produced troubles me some.
Your other argument is one I had in mind to make against this post, as I was writing it: in some cases definitive orientation might be quite clear, but that there may be somewhat of a continuum (particularly in women, I am led to believe) that makes it difficult to allow any leniency.
Because this life is not all there is, not by a long shot. Frankly, I can think of far worse circumstances to be born into than mandatory celibacy.
Yes, of course it’s possible to live a celibate, solitary life. And yes, there are worse things. But pointing that out does not answer the question about “what would the Lord’s rationale be for proscribing the emotional and physical expression of same-sex attraction.”
b
“It doesn’t seem like that big of a deal to me to live a life without partnering,” he said, minutes before getting in bed with his wife.
Ahhh! Here we go again, from one surreal conversation involving sex to another. Once again, the idea of Elders Wickman, Oaks, and Brothers Tom and Mark, married men all (I’m guessing), cavalierly espousing the relative ease of celibacy, well, uh, “Aaaaah!” pretty much describes it.
I think Robert Rees’s Dialogue article “Between Celibacy and Suicide” should be required reading in conjunction with this Oaks and Wickman interview. See: http://www.dialoguejournal.com/excerpts/38-4a.pdf
Regarding celibacy, Rees calls it the “…ultimate commitment. It isn’t that it is impossible to make oneself a “eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake” (Matt 19:12), but the demands of doing so require a heroic sacrifice of so much that we tend to associate with being fully human that, realistically, few are able to achieve it. I don’t by any means wish to disparage the wish to try to live such a life, but to do so in the absence of a religious philosophy that elevates celibacy to a high order of spiritual living (which the Mormon Church has never done) or a social and spiritual community that supports and rewards it (as the Catholics and a few other religious orders do), is, to say the least, extremely challenging.”
This isn’t just about sexual gratification. This is about being able to fully love and be loved, to say nothing about issues of being/essence.
I’d also highly recommend the youtube videos currently available at Mormon Stories.
One more quote from Rees:
[Note: to understand the following quote, you need to know that Rees is talking about two LDS homosexuals: Stuart Matis, who committed suicide because he was unable to overcome his SSA; and Ty Mansfield, who is attempting to live his life as a worthy, celibate Latter-day Saint, despite his SSA.]
“Stuart Matis’s life was so intensely focused on perfection that, ultimately, he could not sustain the stress of trying to live such a life. While Ty Mansfield does not specifically address the idea of perfection, the life of santified devotion and sacrifice that he articulates as the ideal for LDS homosexual seems to require an almost perfect adherence to the highest standard of Christian behavior, a standard which, by the way, those who treat homosexuals as less than fully human fail to reach! The irony, is that it was striving to live Mansfield’s recommended life — strict, sanctified, and celibate — that drove Stuart Matis (and not a few other Mormon homosexuals) to commit suicide.”
I cannot reconcile the stark and plain reality of the quote above with he following pollyanna advice from Elder Wickman:
“The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.”
[sigh] “It’s just now.” I’m sorry, guys, but now is all I have to bet on. Pipe dreams and promises of something that may be only wishful thinking are not enough for me to base my life on.
Even from a believing LDS perspective, we’re told that this life is important, that it matters, that it’s the training ground for what we will become. How does a life devoid of human intimacy and the things we are taught are critically important - family and children - prepare us for an eternal life that is said to be much like this one?
Matt, have you never met a happy, single, celibate person? You’re being silly. I acknowledged that it’s probably difficult road to travel, but it’s not, as Christian’s post suggested, a cruel or inhumane thing for the Church to ask of people who want to be a part of the Church.
Ann, yeah, it’s about faith. For those with strong faith that the Plan of Salvation is true, it makes sense to make sacrifices now for expected rewards later. For those with lesser faith, it makes less sense. I don’t know if my faith is strong enough to make the kind of sacrifice that the church asks of homosexuals with no opposite gender attraction. Probably not, since I find things as simple as tithing pretty difficult.
Ed, my 2nd paragraph in comment #1 lays out one possible rationale.
Why do you have to have sexual relations with someone to live, love, grow, and serve? The relationship that really matters is the one that you have with God, and that is certainly no sexual relationship. And the love of God extends unto the love and service and sacrifice in behalf of all others. Was Paul even married at the time he was an apostle? If I was forced to choose between God and some other intimate relationship, it would be God, no questions asked.
Tom: Yes, I’ve met some happy, single, celibate persons, but every single one of them had the prospect of one day being in a happy, married, and sexually fulfilling relationship. They had something to look forward to, and it was that knowledge that helped them/us remain happy, single, and celibate. Even the rare, single, fortysomething LDS still holds out hope that one day he/she will find his/her partner. The prospect makes all the difference.
Wickman would no doubt argue that homosexuals can look forward to fulfilling and loving sexual relationships in the next life, that their happy, single, celibate waiting period is just a wee little bit longer than it is for us fortunate heterosexuals, a nano-second from the eternal perspective. This strikes me as incredibly naive.
I can’t imagine living my life having to constantly look at things through this “eternal perspective”, denying what is arguably my most natural and meaningful urge: to love someone fully. You will say that single people deny that urge all the time. No, they *control* that urge. It’s a HUGE difference. They can say to themselves, “this urge is natural, it is good, it is Godly, but I can only use it within these boundaries.” Homosexuals must deny the urge. They must tell themselves, “this urge to love this other person is unnatural, it is wrong, and acting on this urge is evil…” They must deny their very essence, their very personhood.
And for what? For the loving embrace of their ward family?
Unlike you, I do find the Church’s position on this both cruel and inhumane. I say that because were the roles reversed, and celibacy for heterosexuals was a condition of membership in the Church and exaltation in the next life, I’d find living a life of celibacy both cruel and inhumane.
Matt, your very last sentence is what hits home with me. The idea of telling other people they cannot have something I cherish is very difficult for me. Until writing this post I didn’t think it would ever be possible, given the Church’s doctrine, for the Church to allow gays to act on their feelings. But I wonder if somewhere down the road this ‘for-time-only’ option might not be a way of both preserving the Church’s doctrinal expectations for eternity while making allowances here in mortality. (No doubt many will still find offensive an absence of eternal same-sex expectations, of course.)
Thanks, Christian, for this very thoughtful take on this issue, and to Matt, for this very insightful passage:
“You will say that single people deny that urge all the time. No, they *control* that urge. It’s a HUGE difference. They can say to themselves, “this urge is natural, it is good, it is Godly, but I can only use it within these boundaries.” Homosexuals must deny the urge. They must tell themselves, “this urge to love this other person is unnatural, it is wrong, and acting on this urge is evil…” They must deny their very essence, their very personhood.”
I think this articulates very well the thing that bothers me as I ponder the interview. I don’t feel it demonstrates a full understanding of and empathy for the experiences and struggles of my gay friends, relatives, and coworkers. It just doesn’t seem adequate to me to equate sexual orientation with any other run-of-the-mill challenge people face as part of their mortal probation.
The prospect makes all the difference.
I’ve heard that a lot, but it’s not at all obvious to me. An argument could be made that suffering would be worse if you have the prospect, but for some reason or another you can’t ever make it happen. Who has it worse: the hungry donkey with a carrot dangling just out of reach or the hungry carrotless donkey?
They must deny their very essence, their very personhood.
I’m afraid we’re not going to come together on this because I simply don’t see a person’s orientation as their essence. I don’t see a heterosexual’s desire to partner with someone of the opposite sex as their defining characteristic, as their essence, or as equivalent to their personhood. Same goes for homosexuals.
And for what? For the loving embrace of their ward family?
For the promise of exhaltation. Again, it goes back to a faith thing.
Unlike you, I do find the Church’s position on this both cruel and inhumane. I say that because were the roles reversed, and celibacy for heterosexuals was a condition of membership in the Church and exaltation in the next life, I’d find living a life of celibacy both cruel and inhumane.
I wouldn’t. I might not have sufficient faith to do it, but that wouldn’t even approach cruelty or inhumanity in my mind.
Thanks, Tom. I think we’ve both expressed our opinions. The heart of the issue is a person’s being/essense: I think our sexuality is integral to our being/essence; you do not.
There have been a few interesting comments on being/essense/personhood point over at Sunstone Blog by three Gay Latter-day Saints. They can speak to their own feelings regarding being/essense better than I can. If you are interested, check out: http://sunstoneblog.com/?p=84#comment-1816 . The comments germane to this discussion are from #32 to #36.
In any case, I’ve enjoyed the exchange. One question I have for you though is this: Are your beliefs on this issue your own personal beliefs, independent of what the Church teaches, or are they the Church’s beliefs, which you believe to be “true” and inerrant? Or are your beliefs and the Church’s beliefs inextricable? Were, for example, the Church one day to reverse their opinion, would your current beliefs still hold?
Christian, your “for time only” idea is intriguing, but it requires all kinds of bizarre brain twists for me. What you are saying is this: Bill, a gay man, was not born normal, but we (the Church) recognize the difficulty of living a celibate life and think it too punative that he should not be able to “love” like the rest of us during this probabation… therefore, since his feelings are no fault of his own, we’ll allow Bill to be married for time only. And in the next life, Bill will be hetero again, his sexual feelings for his life companion, Craig, will dissolve. Both Bill and Craig will now be free of the chains of SSA and be free to marry women (former lesbians, perhaps) in the next life.
However, Bill and Craig will essentially be living sham lives. How bizarre would that feel? Like Neo in the Matrix, I’d imagine. They’re creating all of these very real feelings and memories that are actually not real, they’re ersatz, and they will not carry over to the next life.
Again, the problem with this idea is that we’re treating their sexuality as if it were a minor personality quirk instead of an essential, inextricable aspect of their being. The best quote I’ve seen from you in this regard was at M*:
{begin quote}
Rosalynde (#124): rather than falling back on Freud’s legacy to modernity, that is that sexuality IS the self.
Christian’s Response: It also happens to be Joseph Smith’s legacy to Mormonism, of course, for whom sexuality defines exaltation and divinity.
And why is that? Not to defend Freud per se, but let’s not pretend concern with the centrality of sexuality is some groundless theoretical and cultural fantasia of moderns only. It goes much, much deeper in our natures than that. If Joseph’s theology is not sufficient proof of it, contemporary Mormonism’s very overt and strict concern—one might even say obssession–with a particular vision of sexual purity certainly is.
{end quote}
But hey, your idea in this post is a novel idea that, like you said, makes some allowances for this life, while preserving eternal our current eternal doctrines. You definitely score a point for originality.
Matt: However, Bill and Craig will essentially be living sham lives. How bizarre would that feel? Like Neo in the Matrix, I’d imagine. They’re creating all of these very real feelings and memories that are actually not real, they’re ersatz, and they will not carry over to the next life.
To some extent these same concerns also hang over the situation I describe in the post, when a man marries a widow who has already been sealed. I’m not sure we’d want to go so far as to call something a sham, not real, etc. even if it’s got an expiration date on it.
As I said, I recognize that gay rights advocates would still find even my proposal offensive, since the prospect of having what one considers an essential feature of oneself radically altered in the next life is a nontrivial additional element that goes beyond the dynamics of ‘for-time-only’ heterosexual marriages.
However, the theoretical options I tend to take seriously are either (a) the doctrine and authority of Mormonism are valid, including the procreative definition of exaltation in D&C 132; or (b) there is nothing aside from this life. I simply do not find coherent the views of some activists that Mormonism is somehow valid even if its authorities are wrong in major-league ways. If the prophet were to say that the previously revealed definition of exaltation was so flawed that it now has to be redefined to include a gay version of exaltation, my response would be that the Mormon revelatory apparatus has no credibility, certainly not enough to base life decisions on, and that (b) is that much more likely. I suppose one could try to make space for homosexual (and even heterosexual) non-reproductive relations in eternity outside of exaltation, but I think D&C 132’s attribution of a “separate and single” status to those not exalted militates very, very strongly against this. So I think a ‘for-time-only’ option for gays is the maximum any coherent and credible version of Mormonism could ever offer.
Isn’t it obvious? God designed various aspects of the two genders, manifest in the body, to complement each other. Sexual relations per se are only a small part of that. He did not design the fulness of the male gender to complement itself, nor the fulness of the female gender.
That is why a hard preference for same-gender relations is an abomination in his eyes - it is contrary to his purpose in not only reproduction, but in complementarity, and indeed salvation itself. Males were intended to strengthen females, and females males, in their own way. Not predominantly males-males, nor females-females. That is like a major step backward in celestial civilization, probably to a point prior to the establishment of the first estate.
Christian said: “I simply do not find coherent the views of some activists that Mormonism is somehow valid even if its authorities are wrong in major-league ways.”
Well, if the views of these activists is that Mormonism is *literally* valid or true in all but this one principle, then I agree with you– it doesn’t work for me; too big a stretch. If the activists view is that Mormonism is a *metaphorically* valid way to connect with the Divine/Spirit but for this one principle, then I disagree with you, and I find their arguments and/or quest to reform Mormon Doctrine/Theology perfectly valid.
Christian said: “My response would be that the Mormon revelatory apparatus has no credibility, certainly not enough to base life decisions on.”
Are you saying this would be the straw that broke the camel’s back? Don’t you think there is already enough evidence to seriously doubt the Mormon revelatory apparatus?
In any case, the way you’ve framed the question has definitely made clearer to me what the leaders of the Church and its members are up against. This is more than just Gay rights, more than just defining and/or protecting traditional families… the very credibility of the Church is at stake. How many times can it fall back on the “our leaders are sometimes imperfect, sometimes make mistakes” excuse?
Christian said: “However, the theoretical options I tend to take seriously are either (a) the doctrine and authority of Mormonism are valid, including the procreative definition of exaltation in D&C 132; or (b) there is nothing aside from this life.”
Are you really saying that these are really the *only* two options you can see, or just the only two options for the sake of this argument? You can’t see myriad possibilities between “Mormonism is the only true church” and “there is nothing else”?
Matt, you’re a nice guy.
Are your beliefs on this issue your own personal beliefs, independent of what the Church teaches, or are they the Church’s beliefs, which you believe to be “true” and inerrant?
Honestly, I don’t know exactly how my opinion here meshes with Church teachings. I’m not particularly erudite. As I wrote my last comment I wondered if this line of mine:
was incompatible with the Mormon view of exhaltation. I half expected Christian to chasten me with some Joseph Smith quotes or something.
Or are your beliefs and the Church’s beliefs inextricable? Were, for example, the Church one day to reverse their opinion, would your current beliefs still hold?
I believe the Plan of Salvation as taught by the Church. I don’t consider my belief to be knowledge, and I often doubt different things to different degrees. I’m not as strong in faith in anything (the Church, God, Christ) as I could be. Like Christian, if the Church’s version of the Plan of Salvation changed too much, I would likely lose faith in the Church unless the Lord communicated to me and helped me understand. I might or might not lose faith in Christ or in a version of the Plan of Salvation that I considered true, independent of the Church’s teaching. But as it is, I believe the Church teaches God’s truth.
If one wants to reform theology there is a perfectly ordinary avenue available - start your own Church. But do not be surprised when the leading advocates of such radically unscriptural ideas get excommunicated from this one. The only hope of reform is in the Spirit of God - if God is not behind a reform, it is destined to fail. If he is, it will happen in his own due time.
Christian: I can’t say that I’m surprised that you see not giving into natural urges as inhumane — after all, we are just the effects of natural causes anyway. If we have natural urges, then we are caused to ffulfill aren’t we? Yet your implicit position leads to a fairly obvious absurdity. Apparently you are OK with the Church asking single, hetero folks who have no prospect of marriage to live this “cruel and inhumane” way of life, but if one is homosexual it is suddenly beyond what God can ask of us.
I also got a kick out of your assertion: “I can say that I would be uncomfortable using my preference alone as a basis for forbidding others from acting on such feelings.” Good for you. So would I. Are you suggesting that God is similarly situated and that He should also keep his opinions to himself?
what would the Lord’s rationale be for proscribing the emotional and physical expression of same-sex attraction
Some possible reasons:
It’s against the law of chastity.
It’s against the plan of salvation. As Mark said, even our biology testifies to what that plan includes.
It gives license to sin as He has defined it, and would most likely deny blessings of love and family for the eternities. God cannot look upon sin with any degree of allowance.
This life is not the end.
I could see a slippery slope of other behaviors that I’m sure people would find deserve exception as well.
There is more to life than forming loving relationships, as wonderful and meaningful as they are. Besides, were that not so, God would not be fair or just. Giving homosexuals the “pass” on that trial would leave a whole lot of other people out in the cold. God’s purposes aren’t to create a cushy life for everyone. They are to prove us to see if we can receive all He has in the next life. If you think about it for too long, it’s pretty easy to think of a whole lot of other trials that are probably worse than homosexuality with regard to the opportunity to live full, rich, relationship-filled lives. Think of children sold into sex slavery; think of women who spend their lives abused by men; think of those who know nothing but war, and have little to no chance for loving relationships in this life because everyone they care about and love have been brutally killed and there is no way to build such relationships as they run from refugee camp to refugee camp. And, again, it makes no sense to suddenly “take away” this temporary problem (which in and of itself creates problems because that would be condoning sin) while denying that blessing to millions of others with their own heart-rending trials — others who are in their own ways relationship- and/or happiness/comfort-deprived. We actually don’t have to look very far from our own neighborhoods — look at the widow, the mature single sister who never married, the divorcee who never finds another (exacerbated by a first marriage that was a nightmare.) The list could go on….
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts….
Mark (#17), I think you’ve said in the past that you don’t believe in ‘viviparous spirit birth,’ as I remember you calling it. I confess to being completely mystified by what could possibly be essential about gender in the absence of procreation.
Interesting comments, everyone… I think responses will dribble out throughout the day.
Christian, I see the whole idea of gender (as opposed to sex) as being an extremely profound and far reaching concept of the social, cultural, and emotional differences in inclination between men and women that goes far beyond pro-creative sexuality. As I said, I do not believe there was viviparous spirit birth in the first estate. However, that does not mean that pre mortal spirits are neither male nor female.
I cannot say whether intelligences were male or female. My guess is not. However, I believe Genesis properly teaches that the very first (spirit) man of all men, the first man Adam, was a male in a fundamental sense, that there was a possibility that many intelligences were given male spirit bodies, and that it was discovered that a society of all males was unstable and lacking, such that the female gender was devised to complement and balance the male, and then Eve and a host of other intelligences received female spirit bodies.
The scriptures teach that they could not have children in that state. I read that as saying that there was no pro-creation in the first estate, nor close family relationships of the sort we have now, nor many of the biological incidents of sexuality. In the first estate, even with a balance of male and female spirits, society was seriously lacking. They fell far short of what God had in mind in their creation, transgressing his holy laws according to their own knowledge, corrupting the intent and purpose of the creation of their civilization in the first place. In short, they became fallen man (cf. D&C 20:20).
As such, it was expendient for God to stretch forth his hand a second time to redeem all mankind from their lost and fallen state. He did this by authoring the plan for the second estate, which plan notably included mortality, self government and stewardship far from the residence of God, small families, pro-creation, and so on that we might learn by our own experience how to distinguish the good from the evil - suffering the natural consequences of our sins in a manner more subtle than the fall of so many from their first estate, incorporating the divine nature by degrees into their own bodies, as habit, instinct, knowledge, and memory of what principles lead to life and which lead to death.
And of course sending angels and prophets to minister unto mankind, that they many might have the opportunity to receive the original, divine order of things, according to their faith and their desires - not imposing it on anyone.
As to futurity, it is my opinion that temporal terrestrial parents have temporal terrestrial children, and celestial parents have celestial children, if the latter have viviparous children at all, a proposition I am not convinced of, given the precedent for spiritual parenthood as presidential/lineal/adoptive descendancy. For example we are born spiritual sons and daughters unto Christ by accepting the gospel and following in his footsteps. Similarly by the temple covenants we are formally received into the house and lineage of Abraham, whether we are natural descendants or not.
It is not an accident that Eve (the first Eve) is known as the mother of all living. Prior to her, no one had ever given viviparous birth in all eternity. Similarly, Adam (the first Adam), the first man among all men - prior to him no one had ever had a body with two eyes and ten fingers, not even a body of spirit. The doctrine of No-Death-Before-the-Fall is teaching us that Genesis 2-3 is an allegory of our first estate, millions (if not billions) of years ago. That is my view.
Blake (#21): This isn’t about giving in to any and all natural urges. Many definitely are worth controlling. Who knows; the urge to be argumentative, when one could endeavor in a proper and affectionate manner to reclaim the deluded, might be one of them.
It wasn’t me that used both the words you quoted. I did use one, but then expressed misgivings in #2 about speaking so strongly.
Perhaps you could agree to a regime in which those with same-sex attraction were allowed to marry or have civil unions, but that all singles, straight and gay, remain celibate until they marry.
But you rightly point out that God’s opinion would matter more than yours and mine. How much easier it would be if God granted an interview with Larry King so it would be clear to everyone just what his opinion really is! The changing perspectives we hear, to all appearances coming as much in response to mortals’ experiences as from revelation, could lead some to wonder if God has really issued a clear opinion.
if God granted an interview with Larry King so it would be clear to everyone just what his opinion really is!
Out of curiosity, what do you think of the Proclamation?
M&M (#22), the point of this post is that Elders Oaks’ and Wickman’s new articulation of the nature of homosexuality raises new questions. In light of their interview, I am curious to understand why it is sinful, and why ‘for-time-only’ expression of SSA would thwart the plan of salvation.
One would hope that something is considered sinful because it has genuine deleterious effects. For Mormons, the traditionally understood deleterious effect of homosexuality was that it prevents people from marriage, which brings spirits to earth and qualifies people for exaltation. But this reasoning is undermined by this new (perhaps even trial-balloon) acknowledgment that SSA is for many a permanent condition of mortality that bars them marrying in this life. If marriage is off the table anyway, what other deleterious effects are there? What further thwarting of the plan of salvation would the ‘for-time-only’ expression of irredeemable SSA incur?
Yes, there are many conditions that prevent people from enjoying loving intimate relationships in mortality, but this alone is no excuse for not alleviating such conditions wherever possible.
Regarding you question about the Proclamation, I’ll answer it a little later, as I have limited time at the moment…
First of all, I do not think same gender attraction (SGA) per se is a problem at all. What is a problem is same gender sexual attraction (SGSA). The problem is that our habits, desires, ways of thinking, etc. are precisely what we are here on earth to develop. So if we are afflicted with SGSA we should try to minimize it - developing SGA and DGA (aka brotherly and sisterly love) as appropriate, even if DGSA is beyond our capacity.
In other words, even if marriage is an impossibility, SGSA incident persons have a moral obligation to develop healthly spiritual and emotional relations with those of the opposite sex, as well as healthly spiritual and emotional relations with those of the same sex. SGSA should be considered a cross to bear, one that should be sublimated into SGA and DGA if at all possible.
Resurrection is not a magic wand. What is generally called the law of restoration means the Lord cannot give us or magnify a character we have not developed. Healthy relationships with both genders are part of that character that we should pursue SGSA NGSA XGSA or otherwise, because our character is the core of what we take with us into the eternal world.
Mark (#24), We’ll probably have to agree to disagree. I find the view that gender was created for purposes of complementarity unrelated to procreation rather unconvincing. You make it sound like procreation was practically an afterthought. In contrast, I think that not only the distinctive biological features and emotional tendencies of the two sexes, but also a substantial portion of the social and cultural aspects of gender, can be traced to males’ and females’ biologically specialized roles in procreation and nursing.
Furthermore, it seems quite strained to me to imagine that the prophets have had anything other than this in mind in connection with exaltation, both in D&C 132’s “continuation of the seeds” and in the Proclamation’s ‘eternal identity and purpose’ for gender. To identify these with “presidential/lineal/adoptive descendancy” is not convincing, because as exemplified by the spiritual or adoptive ‘fatherhood’ of Christ and Abraham, there is—in marked contrast to the description of exaltation—no necessity for either gender or marriage.
Finally, I don’t see how you can presume to take anything away about a ‘first Adam’ and ‘first Eve’ from our scripture. Moses 1 specifically says worlds without number have already come and gone, and it is said elsewhere that what was happening on Earth was already done in other worlds. Moreover, Moses is told in introducing the PoGP version of the Genesis account that he is being told only about this world.
More on M&M’s #26 and Mark’s #28 tomorrow, I hope…
Christian,
Please note that I specifically said that Genesis 2 refered to the creation of the spirit bodies for the first man Adam and the first woman Eve - the very first intelligences to ever have male and female spirit bodies, respectively. I am talking spiritual bodies constructed of spirit dust on a spirit earth.
Whether they are even the same characters as our Adam and Eve is difficult to say - it is the principle that matters. Genesis 2-3 is trying to explain the reason for our second estate - namely the inability of very many spirits to live up to the requirements of the first, transgressing God’s holy laws according to their own knowledge, bringing upon themselves spiritual death.
The point that Adam and Eve could not have children in this state and yet it was not expedient for Adam to be alone is critical to the demonstration of the concept that men and women have higher purposes in their differences than pro-creation alone. As a rule men are more involved in the Lord’s justice system and women are more involved in the Lord’s mercy system, for example.
In any case, I think that since the death of Joseph Smith we have developed an undue fixation on viviparous birth in the eternities. Viviparous birth in mortality has a grand purpose, but you will please note that Joseph Smith never ever taught viviparous spirit birth, nor does viviparous descent come anywhere close the to level of significance of the more fundamental principles of the gospel. He that is righteous is favored of God.
This continuation of seeds thing has nothing to do with having 100 billion viviparous spirit children. A/G is now an official heresy in the Church and yet it is part of a reconciliation of three different ideas of parenthood, one of which (VSB) has no basis in the scriptures. The others are parenthood by lineal descent and parenthood by adoption. The latter two have multiple, explicit references in the scriptures. The former has absolutely no scriptural support whatsoever. In fact it is the basis of another of the leading heresies in the Church: that of the “baby resurrection”.
Now I find it a little surprising that you cannot imagine why a righteous man and a woman working together would be better at administering virtually any spiritual enterprise than one man, one woman, two men, or two women. Neither the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, nor man and man, nor woman and woman, in the Lord.
Mark (#28), presumably the resurrection will be a magic wand for Elder Wickman’s daughter’s disability. It’s not clear that it wouldn’t be the same for biologically based, lifetime SSA.
Re (#30), Moses 1:35 indicates that the following chapters refer to this earth, which follows many that have gone before—not some putative ‘first Adam’ and ‘first Eve.’
In case anyone hasn’t noticed, I responded to Matt here and M&M here.
Christian,
It is a strict matter of doctrine that the resurrection does not compensate for the things we have control over. On the contrary, it restores and magnifies the desires, habits, etc. that we have built up in our earthly life. That is why resurrection is delayed for the wicked - there is absolutely no point in resurrecting an unrepentant person. In fact D&C 76 teaches that the sons of Perdition have no promise of resurrection whatsoever, a clarification of the Book of Mormon doctrine on the subject.
Therefore it is incumbent that we resist, bridle, and discipline our unrighteous desires - our resurrection may be delayed for very many years until we re-train ourselves to have inclinations worth preserving eternally, and by all accounts our character is less mutable in the spirit world than here on earth. I consider the idea that one can indulge for a lifetime in something the Lord considers a perversion and expect it to be wiped clean without enormous personal effort. People repent all the time and become justified by grace thereby, but that does not mean they do not have a hard road ahead of them if they have purposely written negative habits into their very soul.
The Moses 1:35 scripture is a good argument. Let’s just say I think that it, or more particularly Moses 2:1 to be a translation / comprehension error for the reason that if it were literally true, the account in the next three chapters would be ridiculous, stupidity writ large, for a long list of reasons I have explained before.
[…] Matt Thurston has asked me if I see no options between (a) the doctrine and authority of Mormonism being essentially valid, literally true, and not subject to major-league errors, and (b) there being nothing aside from this life. I do recognize that there are logical possibilities between these poles, but I think tend to think they founder on either evidentiary or practical grounds. One such theoretical possibility is that Mormonism’s claims to literal truth, top-down prophetic authority, necessity of ordinances, etc. are overblown, and that Mormonism is but one of many ways “to connect with the Divine/Spirit”—and that therefore one might consider it appropriate to attempt to reform what are perceived as problematic authoritative positions or structural elements. If we call positions like (a) and (b) ‘white’ and ‘black’ respectively, my response to ‘grey’ positions like this intermediate one is twofold, consisting of both evidentiary and attitudinal components. […]
[…] In the discussion that followed my query as to why the Lord forbids the expression of same-sex attraction on a ‘for-time-only’ basis in now-recognized cases of a lifetime absence of opposite-sex attraction, I wondered if Church leaders’ evolving understanding of the nature of homosexuality might be evidence that the Lord hasn’t actually expressed a strong opinion on the matter. What, it may then be asked, about The Family: A Proclamation to the World? Is this not a clear statement of the Lord’s view? […]