Unchanging Marriage Doctrine

[bridget_night]

On Unchanging Marriage Doctrine:

“God has given us a revelation in regard to marriage. I did not make it. He has told us certain things pertaining to this matter, and they would like us to tone that principle down and change it and make it applicable to the views of the day. This we cannot do; nor can we interfere with any of the commands of God to meet the persuasions or behests of men. I cannot do it, and will not do it.”

D̶a̶l̶l̶i̶n̶ ̶H̶ ̶O̶a̶k̶s̶,̶ ̶G̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶C̶o̶n̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶c̶e̶,̶ ̶S̶u̶n̶d̶a̶y̶ ̶O̶c̶t̶o̶b̶e̶r̶ ̶6̶,̶ ̶2̶0̶1̶3̶ OOPS, I mean
John Taylor - Journal of Discourses, Vol. 25, pp. 309-310

Brigham Young: "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives... I promise that you will be damned," (Deseret News, Nov. 14, 1855).

Brigham Young: "Suppose this church should give up this holy order of marriage, then would the devil and all who are in league with him against the cause of God rejoice that they had prevailed upon the saints to refuse to obey one of the revelations and commandments of God to them," (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 239).

I have many TBM family and friends who believe everything the prophet and GA's say in General Conference. When I was growing up, the church taught to get your own personal revelation about what was said in GC and even when a new prophet was put in to get your own confirmation. I don't hear that so much anymore. From Brother Oaks talk about marriage being only between one man and one woman and will never change, it made me wonder how these TBMormons would respond if polygamy became legal, and the present polygamy families joined the church, and the prophet said it was to be re-established in the church? Maybe this has already been talked about, but unless we can get our own personal revelation about what our leaders say, we are just like followers in a cult. Apparently, the church is saying that it will not accept gay married couples into the church even if it is legal.

[Curt Sunshine]

Elder Oaks was wrong in his statement. Period.

I'm not certain the Church ever will perform gay temple sealings, but I can believe easily that, in my lifetime (probably 40-50 years, at most), the Church will allow legally married, monogamous, gay members to be baptized and attend the temple as individuals. The temple wording of the Law of Chastity would have to be changed to stop it, and that might be done, but I can believe it might happen.

[Admin Note: There is another very recent thread about the possibility of polygamy being accepted. Let's not take this thread in that direction. If anyone wants to comment on that issue, find the other thread and comment on it. Let's focus this thread on the ideas that marriage never changes and that apostles can be wrong about things they say in General Conference.]

[bridget_night]

Thanks Ray! Do you think they will ever allow polygamous couples to be baptized into the church if legal here? I know they won't in other countries where it is legal right now.

[Curt Sunshine]

Bridget, you posted your last comment while I was editing mine.

Look for the recent thread about polygamy, read that thread and add a comment there, if you want to do so.

[bridget_night]

Ray do you mean the thread on Christoperson and gender roles?

[On Own Now]

bridgit_night,

My guess is that Ray was referring to this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4568

or this one:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4663

I don't think either addresses your specific question

Do you think they will ever allow polygamous couples to be baptized into the church if legal here?

I strongly doubt it. It would be like the US allowing slavery again, as long as it is handled by a religious institution. Polygamy is too close to the bone. I believe we are permanently done with polygamy in this life, which is part of why I get frustrated with the Church for continuing to make excuses for it.

[On Own Now]

Also, as for same sex marriage. I dispute that it is part of doctrine! It's not mentioned in the restoration scriptures (BofM/D&C/PofGP), either as legitimate or prohibited. The Bible does specifically list homosexuality among a collection of sins, but it also says women should never speak in church. I don't believe any statement in the bible about it can be taken as definitive, because it simply reflects the society of the time.

Paul mentions it in both Romans (1:26-27) and I Corintians (6:9-10), but neither is a clear doctrinal proclamation about it being wrong. Rather, it is listed as an a priori example. To me, this means Paul, and his audience, already assume it is evil. Yet we know from our own experience that practice and assumptions are not necessarily doctrine. These statements reflect Paul's belief that it is wrong, but not God's declaration. We often hear that BY's Adam-God "Theory" was his own opinion, and not doctrine. Same category here, as far as I'm concerned.

The writer of I Timothy (1:9-10) likewise added homosexual behavior to a list of things that are "contrary to sound doctrine". Again, listing something as an example is not the same as a clear divine commandment.

The most clear doctrinally-specific verse is Leviticus 18:22 ("Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.") The problem is that this is Leviticus. We take Leviticus to be the specification of the Law of Moses. So, it's cherry-picking to select the parts of Leviticus that you believe are eternal doctrines. Admittedly, just because something is found in Leviticus doesn't mean it's NOT doctrine. For example, the same chapter prohibits having sex with animals, and I would say, yeah, that's probably doctrine, and it says not to have sex with your wife's sister, which is probably sound advice, even if not doctrinal. But Leviticus also specifies rules for sacrifices, including eating a sacrifice on the same day or next day, but burning it after that. In other words just because something is found in Leviticus doesn't mean it IS doctrine.

Bottom line: if Leviticus is our best source for doctrine on the subject, I would humbly ask our leaders to seek a modern revelation, and not just inspiration, before declaring on behalf of God that He only accepts heterosexuality.

[Curt Sunshine]

My guess is that Ray was referring to this thread . . . or this one:

Nope, not either one of those. I'll find it and provide a link.

Sorry, it was older than I thought, although still quite recent. Here it is:

US Polygamy - Looking Ahead (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4393&hilit=polygamy+legal)

[Life_Journey_of_Matt]

Sadly, the end of Elder Nelson's talk in the final session contained the same kinds of absolute claims:

Regardless of what civil legislation may be enacted, the doctrine of the Lord regarding marriage and morality cannot be changed. Remember, sin even if legalized by man, is still sin in the eyes of God.
We cannot change his doctrine. It is not ours to change.
We will each have a personal interview with Jesus Christ. We will account for decisions that we made about our bodies, our spiritual attributes, and how we honored God's pattern for marriage and family.

I think prejudices, as the entire world has seen through various examples (racial slavery being one of them), die hard. My father actually explained to me his theory about blacks and the priesthood. He said, "There was just too much residual prejudice. The people of the church just weren't ready as a whole, right up to some of the leaders." I think that may very well apply to our marriage doctrine. However, I think we will continue to make progress as some of those prejudices begin to fade with the older generation, and change can even happen in the older generation. I have a sister who is in a same-sex relationship, and my very faithful father, who has been in high profile callings, recently visited their home as he has often done. This time he came away with a very profound observation. He was sitting there in their living room with just my mother, and he turned to her and simply said, "I feel immense peace and love in this home."

What a comforting sign.

[bridget_night]

Sadly, the end of Elder Nelson's talk in the final session contained the same kinds of absolute claims:

Regardless of what civil legislation may be enacted, the doctrine of the Lord regarding marriage and morality cannot be changed. Remember, sin even if legalized by man, is still sin in the eyes of God.
We cannot change his doctrine. It is not ours to change.
We will each have a personal interview with Jesus Christ. We will account for decisions that we made about our bodies, our spiritual attributes, and how we honored God's pattern for marriage and family.

I think prejudices, as the entire world has seen through various examples (racial slavery being one of them), die hard. My father actually explained to me his theory about blacks and the priesthood. He said, "There was just too much residual prejudice. The people of the church just weren't ready as a whole, right up to some of the leaders." I think that may very well apply to our marriage doctrine. However, I think we will continue to make progress as some of those prejudices begin to fade with the older generation, and change can even happen in the older generation. I have a sister who is in a same-sex relationship, and my very faithful father, who has been in high profile callings, recently visited their home as he has often done. This time he came away with a very profound observation. He was sitting there in their living room with just my mother, and he turned to her and simply said, "I feel immense peace and love in this home."

What a comforting sign.

REALLY LIKE WHAT YOU SAID!!!