The Big Doctrinal Question

I would think that the LDS church would have the easiest time with accepting gay marriage. Church doctrine already defines two types of marriage: a civil marriage, which is performed here on earth until “death do you part,” and a celestial marriage, performed by the priesthood in a temple that seals a partnership and their children together for eternity.

Growing up, I understood this doctrine extremely well. It is the heart of the church. As a missionary, I used eternal marriage to bring people to God – and since most of them have heard of God before, and already had a relationship with him, the eternal nature of the family was the only distinguishable, desirable difference between our church and theirs that made it easier for people to accept the gospel as taught by the LDS church.

As I looked into and studied the subject, the doctrine became rather simple: Men, because they were given dominion over the earth, had a right to bind things together for this temporal life. Only the priesthood could bind things afterward (“what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven” only with the proper authority from God).

This is why a couple married in a civil ceremony are not breaking the law of chastity – because we, as men and rulers over this world, have the power and authority to bind a couple together during this life.

But that is also why the temple and the priesthood are so important, so that the things bound together in this life can continue onward in the next.

If you ask any member of the church which is better, a civil marriage or an eternal one, I guarantee 100% will see a difference, and answer that an eternal marriage is better.

Which brings me to my point. Gay couples want nothing more than the marriage that the church already views as lesser anyway. By doctrinal definition, civil marriages performed without the benefit of the temple will be meaningless in the next life.

So why do Mormon’s have such a difficult time with gay marriage?

I can see why other churches, whose doctrine is not so clear, perhaps those who believe that marriage is not given in heaven as per scripture, would believe there is only one definition of God-ordained marriage – but the LDS church should know better. By doctrinal definition a civil marriage is not ordained of God. In fact, he recognizes it only as a temporal occurrence, bound only by the authority of men. By this reasoning, I have the same authority to bind here on earth as any other man born on this planet. Priesthood authority is not required in order to perform a civil marriage.

So why can’t I have what the LDS people see as a lesser, non-God endorsed form of marriage? And what is the big deal if gay people do get married, in the eternal scheme of things.

I actually understand other church’s view of this better: They might consider it doing me a favor to deny me marriage. After all, can you imagine what would happen if I got to the judgment seat and was actually STILL BOUND to another homosexual (and I have discovered that most religions believe these bonds persist after death even though the words in the ceremony might specify otherwise). In this case, there might actually be GENUINE concern for the welfare of my soul.

But the LDS church doesn’t have such an excuse. It won’t make a tiny bit of difference in the eternal plan whether or not I was married in this life, or just a homosexual.

Except, of course, unless marriage can be used to prove the intent of my heart.

But if that is the case, then you would think the LDS church would be front runner in establishing marriage for gay couples. That way, in the afterlife, God could quickly see whether I was a bad gay or a good gay. At least if I were allowed to be married, I would be following his laws as taught by the church as closely as possible. At least then every time I had sex it would be within the bonds of marriage, even if it IS still a sin. The intent that I TRIED would have to mean something, right?

So it seems that by not allowing me to marry, according to LDS theology, I will actually be WORSE OFF in the next life. And if that is the case, and the church still fights against same-sex marriage, then I must take issue with the claim that their stance is God-inspired.

Are there any LDS members who might be able to provide insight on this? I have searched scripture after scripture to find some other explanation as to how civil marriages can be ordained by God but not recognized by him as binding. I can think of no other ordinance where an “imitation” of the ordinance is good enough to be binding in this life but not the next. I can’t even find an example of a civil marriage verses an eternal one!

If I could figure this out I would be able to justify the church’s stance to myself. Until then, it appears that they, indeed, wish for me to be in an even worse place at the judgment bar of God, and the only reasons someone would wish that on another human being would have to be rooted in pure hatred.

And that is a scary thought.

Please email me with comments, suggestions, reading material, your ideas and thoughts. gaysaint@gmail.com

A long time coming...

With all the hype over California’s Proposition 8, and all the hoopla surrounding the after-effects, I decided to take a little break from my blog. I needed to clear my head and ensure that when I finally did sit down to write this piece, that I was doing so with a straight head. Sometimes, I get a little emotional over this issue.

First of all, I need to say that I get it. I understand why the church voices its doctrine in the way that it does. I don’t disagree with the LDS church or its decision to get involved in the Yes on 8 campaign. I understand that to the LDS church and its members, marriage is not just something that exists in this life, but is something that echoes the structure of the eternities. Families are how God gets things done, and marriage and children are the highest, most sacred rite; the closest to Godhood one can get in this life.

I also understand why the LGBT community is so upset over the time and money the LDS church spent fighting what they believe is (and what California ruled was) a civil right to legal marriage.

Gaining a clear understanding of this issue is difficult without the facts, and FACTS have been a bit hard to come by in this case. I feel FACTS have been skewed by both sides of the argument. Unfortunately, most of the evidence I have uncovered does seem to place some blame on the Yes on 8 campaign (notice, I DID NOT SAY the LDS Church), and I do very much feel that the Yes on 8 campaign was run with more dirt and malice than the No on 8 campaign was. I think this is why the LGBT, including myself, is so upset over this issue, and has chosen to place blame with the LDS church.

The fact is: The LDS church, or to put it more correctly, its members, financed more than half of the Yes on 8 campaign, which was full of lies and misconceptions. I received a copy of a letter sent by the Yes on 8 campaign to a businessman who had donated to the No on 8 campaign that was so awful and sickening, that to me, it bordered on blackmail. It wasn’t worded kindly, it wasn’t respectful. This letter told this business that if they did not donate equally to the Yes on 8 campaign, then the Yes on 8 campaign would post the name of this business, and advertise it as being against traditional family values.

The letter had four signatures. One was the chairman of the Yes on 8 campaign, one was a lawyer, one was a Catholic representative, and the other? LDS.

I will do my best to contact the LDS man on this letter in hopes of discovering his reasons for allowing his name to be used. After I let my bishop read this letter, even he was appalled. He told me that there must be a reason, something I was missing, something that only the LDS side of the argument could answer, as to why the LDS church would allow its name to be used in a strong-arm argument. I was assured that this was not the church’s way... although I do believe the current evidence dictates otherwise.

I hope I am mistaken, but even if I am, there will be few others within the LGBT community with more sympathy than I, and fewer still who are willing to seek for answers. If anyone knows any specifics, I would be very happy to discuss them. In fact, I’m salivating for the chance to discuss it with someone who worked closely with the Yes on 8 campaign, because for the life of me, I cannot understand why a church that I believe to be led by God himself would resort to using lies and falsehoods in a dirty campaign. Did the Yes on 8 campaign really think they were telling the truth? They had to know they were being deceptive, right? If God himself is against gay civil marriage, then there must be a better way to reach people than to spread the lie that schools would have to teach children about gay marriage, or that churches could lose their tax exempt status for not performing such marriages if a law were to pass that would require the state or federal government to recognize (legally) such unions. And let’s not forget about those “Six consequences of Gay Marriage” pamphlets that got distributed (written by Glen Greener and Gary Lawrence, two members of the LDS church), that were all refuted by a still-in-good-standing BYU professor (if his arguments weren’t legit, wouldn’t he have been fired like the other BYU professor who supported gay marriage?)

I don’t know how much the ACTUAL church donated to the Yes on 8 campaign, but I am sure that there is now an investigation as to why phone trees, ad production, actors, and website fees weren’t reported. I highly doubt that these funds came from the tithing funds of the church (the legality of such would be questionable), but I would like to know from where it came.

So if anyone might know of someone I can talk to in order to get these questions answered, I’d appreciate an email to gaysaint@gmail.com. Everything said in that discussion will remain confidential. I just need to know... for me.

My personal views of this subject will be discussed further... eventually.