Natural fallen world evolves differences.
God wants us to learn to love in diversity.

So it could be said that God wants us to see all kinds of sexed marriages as being godly families. I don’t believe it, I know it’s false. It contradicts what is revealed to me personally, and taught by the prophets. As Brigham Young related on a different subject about nice theories:

…that theory, though apparently very plausible and beautiful, is not true, for it is, or would be contradicted by the Prophets, by Jesus and the Apostles, and by all good men who understand the principles of eternity, both those who have lived and are now living on the earth. Brother Hyde was upon this same theory once, and in conversation with brother Joseph Smith advanced the idea that eternity or boundless space was filled with the Spirit of God, or the Holy Ghost. After portraying his views upon that theory very carefully and minutely, he asked brother Joseph what he thought of it? He replied that it appeared very beautiful, and that he did not know of but one serious objection to it. Says brother, Hyde, “What is that?” Joseph replied, “it is not true.”

I am not sure that I am saying anything new, but it seems to me that at least one thing that is being lost is the purpose for why God has created us male and female in the first place. If the church were to announce that same sex couples were able to be sealed in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage the same way a man and woman currently are, why create us as men and women? Why not create us as a single gendered species (something along the lines of the Asari in Mass Effect)? Why did God not make it so that anyone can procreate with anyone, since that would apparently be the order of heaven if God has no preference whether men are married to women or other men, and the same for women?

As I read the scriptures however, it does seem that God did have purpose in creating us as men and women (Gen 1:27), and those purposes are fulfilled in marriage (Gen. 2:24). When Jesus taught about marriage (Matt. 19:3-6), he goes back to these verses about the creation. The leaders of the church after Christ continued to teach this as well (1 Cor. 11:11 for starters). I just can’t read scriptures like these and then feel honest in saying that God has no real purpose in creating us as gendered beings.

I think it obvious the idea that God had purpose in creating us as male and female for the purpose of marriage, and the idea that marriage can be something other than the union of male and female are simply not reconcilable. And if you believe that God’s purpose in creating us as male and female is central to understanding the Creation and the Gospel, at the level say of a doctrine like that baptism is essential for entrance into the kingdom of heaven or that ordinances must be performed by priesthood authority in order to be valid, then it looks like those who say gender is of no real eternal consequence, particularly within marriage, are preaching “another gospel”. They are simply two very different philosophies, and while I have no desire or intent to say that someone who believes differently then me on this issue is not welcome in the church, I also can’t say that if the church were to change its teaching on this that it would make any sort of sense to me in light of what ancient and previous scriptures and prophets have taught.

There’s a lot we don’t know about the exaltation of God’s children and the concept of eternal increase, probably because that’s pretty far beyond the present cares we need to attend to in learning to become like God’s son in the here and now, so we can be worthy to inherit it all he has and become like our Heavenly Parents in the eternities.

We should not encourage anyone to work toward anything less than their fullest potential, because it’s God’s desire for all his children and he can make it possible. I can imagine those who inherit a lower kingdom being happy an whatever capacity they are filling in God’s eternal kingdom, but it will not be one of romantic love and sex. As prophets have spoke that many of the social relationships we have no, we’ll have then, certainly there will be love and concern for others (predicated on a love of God and all his children), but sexual romance that’s divorced from eternal increase is simply not part of the plan of salvation.

That doesn’t make all non-procreative sexual activity (within the bounds of marriage) unnecessary here and now. But in an eternal sense, I imagine an eternity of seeking physical pleasure (be it sexual or otherwise) without eternal increase would be empty.

God’s work and his glory is to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life. That is a work he invites us to participate in. A rejection of that isn’t a rejection of the prophets, but telling God he’s doing it wrong. Which is a pretty ridiculous thing to say given any moment of thought.

ps –
I don’t this from philosophical argument, but based on personal revelation that’s inline with a study of the prophets and scripture. I don’t claim my comment in anyway as authoritative or binding, but just pointing out that this comment is the result of a very sacred revelatory experience connected to the temple. If someone else wants to reject my words, that’s their choice, but they can’t point to a rejection of the prophets words and claim to have any spiritual credibility to their message as far as the church is concerned. So all latter-day saints should be able to easily reject any argument that says, “my personal revelation differs and marriage between the same sex is ok here and now or in the eternities” or anything of the sort.

That said, I’ve really appreciated the careful and considerate tone by John and Jon and many of the commenters. More of this would be good.

The Caravan Moves On

Jonathan: did you mean 1890? I really do think that’s the more illustrative date here.

First, as to the Maxwell quotation, Maxwell was an assistant to the 12 when he spoke in general conference in April 1974 and quoted that statement from a “wise man” who, it seems, was William Law (1636-1761), an English clergyman. In testifying of the truth of that quotation from Law, Maxwell did not then (or elsewhere in his talk) identify what he meant by the “kingdom of God.” The phrase has been used to mean, among other things, the Church (in varying senses of the word from “all Christians” to the LDS Church), Heaven (as opposed to Hell, there being no other alternatives in the hereafter in some Christian theologies, likely including Law’s and the Book of Mormon, though not later LDS theology), the highest degree of the LDS celestial kingdom, a “Zion community,” and the Lord’s peace in your heart. For a variety of historical LDS approaches to defining “kingdom of God”, see, e.g., http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/PDF/Quotes/Kingdom%20of%20God.pdf. To the extent Maxwell may have been referring to an afterlife kingdom of God, it would seem that he was either indulging in hyperbole or simply did not believe the cosmology of D&C 76, the refinements of teachings on degrees in the celestial kingdom, or teachings on outer darkness, because there appears to be a great deal of difference between, e.g. the terrestrial kingdom and outer darkness. The latter alternative (Maxwell’s hypothetical disbelief in current LDS cosmology) is not credible.

Your question seems to presume that the “kingdom of God” is a highest degree of the celestial kingdom, populated by exalted hetero couples (or hetero polygamous unions or perhaps, in the case of some early Mormon “marriages,” complex hetero polygamous and hetero polyandrous unions). I can see no reason why non-Mormon LG people would find that attractive. (At least as to the possible complex unions, neither do many straight folks. Ditto for some straights dissatisfied with their marriages.) Some Mormon LG people have found an expectation of being turned straight attractive. Given the LDS approach to “many mansions” and the three kingdoms of glory, I would not have suggested to your same-sex married acquaintance that “the best he could hope for in the next life [in LDS cosmology] would be to be turned straight and have his husband replaced with a wife.” For some, the terrestrial kingdom might be much better than that. Of course, if he actually were turned straight, then he would probably appreciate a wife rather than a husband, at least assuming some sexual aspect to a celestial marriage. But I can see no reason why he could be expected to imagine that hypothetical outweighing the anticipated loss of a loving, emotionally intimate relationship with his husband. But since there are loving, emotionally intimate relationships without sexual activity maybe the eternally meaningful part of the current spousal relationship would not be lost. Most Christians other than Mormons don’t generally imagine marriages to exist in the hereafter in any event. I think my response would have been to include in the concept of a LDS “kingdom of God” all three degrees/kingdoms of glory and to stress how little the revelations really tell us about them, how they tell us essentially nothing about LG people in the hereafter, and how deeply committed some Church members and leaders are to their varied speculations. (I hope no one responds with the Proclamation on the Family. Even BKP demoted it in writing from his general conference claim of revelation to its being good advice for members of the Church to follow.) Comments?

Yep, heard that one lots of times. My question: if the kingdom of God is a kingdom of forced heteronormativity, what exactly does it have to offer LGB people? I’m not just being flippant. I recently had a fascinating conversation with a non-LDS man who is happily married to his husband. I mentioned that from an LDS perspective (at least as commonly portrayed these days), the best he could hope for in the next life would be to be turned straight and have his husband replaced with a wife. Unsurprisingly, he didn’t see that as terribly appealing. I realize I’m probably not the one to be making the missionary case at this point in my life, but I did find myself wondering what the response of a more orthodox member would have been.

For what it’s worth, I do not want to lose the traditional Mormon concept of embodiment either. For me, the hope of eternal union with my sweetheart would be impoverished without it.

But it seems to me that the idea that every single pair bond must be male-female presupposes that families in heaven are nuclear and separate. Everything about family in scripture, and in LDS sealing practice suggests that family in Heaven is big and extended. Gender complementarity in that larger family structure could encompass the notion that some pair bonds are male-female, some are male-male, some are female-female, some are intersex or non-binary. That’s what real, extended families look like down here.

Maybe all we really need to give up is a focus on the isolated nuclear family, in favor of a richly diverse extended family?

Regarding the embodied nature of God in Mormonism (with God being explicitly/literally male rather than just metaphorically so), and the introduction of Heavenly Mother to provide sexual balance theologically — I think these introduce more challenges than they resolve. BUT I recognize that minimizing their importance does certainly count as rejecting Mormon concepts.

Even if people want to dance around the exact mechanics of procreation in the afterlife, I think that from everything revealed in Mormonism so far, there’s no reason to believe that it’s not heteronormative in the eternities as it is here.

To put it simply: if exaltation is the highest ideal in Mormonism, and if embodied sexual complimentarity is crucial to exaltation, then gay families are fundamentally incompatible with that because gay families are, quite simply, not ideal.