There has been a lot of coverage about the new polygamy essays in the news. If you have not read them, there is one on Kirtland/Nauvoo polygamy/polyandry, one on Utah era polygamy (up to 1890), and one on “post-manifesto” polygamy. There have also been a lot of apologetics blossoming around the essays. They’re easy to find if you’re interested. To highlight the nature and approach of said apologetics, I present the following apologetic letter from a hypothetical future in which the LDS church performs same-sex-sealings.
Dear Inquirer,
I’m excited to clarify some things for you about the church and its history surrounding marriage. Some have recently criticized the church for how same-sex couples were treated prior to 2072. Many church members might think that the church has always allowed same-sex sealings in the temple. However, it is important to evaluate the evidence as written. If you’d like to see more info, consult my three volume set. Many say that the Proclamation on the Family in the Pearl of Great Price is clearly anti-gay. That is because they haven’t bothered to read the text closely. Let me go over some of the more controversial parts.
[1. ]…solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. -PoF 1:1
Yes, but that doesn’t say that marriage between a man and women, or a woman and men, or a man and man, or a woman and woman isn’t ordained of God. During this specific time period this is the emphasis God wanted but it doesn’t preclude same-sex sealings and I can’t find anywhere a statement that says that same-sex marriage is always wrong for all eternity. Sure there are some that say it was wrong at that time, but it does not say it is always and eternally wrong. It is in fact ordained of God.
4. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. -PoF 1:4
Yes, and cis-heterosexual is only one type of gender. There are many other variations of gender and they are eternal and essential.
[10. ]…the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. -PoF 1:10
The sacred power of procreation is the power that occurs as egg and sperm unite within the woman’s womb after the sperm was placed there by a man’s penis. The church wants all couples, cis, trans, homo, hetero, to only move forward with the conception of children when married. That said there is a difference between conception and the power of procreation. The power of procreation implies the combination of sperm and egg in the womb of the woman, naturally placed there by a man. By definition this can only occur with husband and wife. Much like the difference between Celestial marriage, Plural marriage, Polygamy, and Spiritual wifery, the definition of powers of procreation matter here. I can’t find any statements from church leaders that say otherwise.
11. WE DECLARE the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. -PoF 1:11
This doesn’t specify the means. Clearly, when a loving married couple (or group) create life via artificial means, those means are divinely appointed. If they are not married, then it is not divinely appointed.
13. HUSBAND AND WIFE have a solemn responsibility… -PoF 1:13
16. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be… -PoF 1:16
This doesn’t specify that the husband and wife are married to each other. This also means husband and husband, wife and wife, husband and wife and wife, this is all simplified by saying husband and wife irrespective of the gender of their spouse or spouses.
18. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. -PoF 1:18
It does not say that other gendered marriages weren’t also essential. This was said before there was easy access to genetic adaptation of enucleating an egg and then implanting the combined DNA of people of the same sex. At that time, it is true that it took a man and woman to create a child. Thus the marriage between man and woman was highlighted.
19. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. -PoF 1:19
That is a true statement. Children are also entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony at to be reared by a father and father, or a mother and mother, or a mother and father and father. Children are entitled to all of these divine options. Again, the father and mother combination was specifically highlighted at that time period because at that time enucleation of eggs wasn’t easily done.
22. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.
23. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.
24. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. -PoF 1:22-24
The key verse is verse 24. Father, mother, regardless of the gender of their spouse, are obligated to work as equal partners. The specifications of fathers’ and mothers’ roles was specific to that western culture and time period of the 20th century.
The text is clear that in the eternal perspective the equal partnership is how marriage should be. You must distinguish between time and eternity. The first part was culturally specific for that time.
A page from the section “Proclamation on the Family” in the Pearl of Great Price (just after the Articles of Faith).
The end of the chapter is the most important part and where we find the real message of the proclamation:
27. WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God.
28. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
29. WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
This is why our church wants us to promote social programs, economic redistribution, and other protections that enable families to stay together and spend quality time together. This is the heart of the proclamation. The rest is more of a historic footnote.
I hope this helps you better understand the history of the church and marriage equality. So many people cast the church in a bad light by conjecture. I think it is vital that we look at specific statements, from church leaders, deemed to be authoritative to base our opinions. I wish you the best of luck!
Sincerely,
Apologist
Geoff Nelson
Geoff was born in Northern Utah and raised primarily in Central California. He received a BS in Biomedical Physics from Fresno State, a MS and PhD in Bioengineering from Stanford, and is now an Assistant Professor at the University of Utah working as a Clinical Medical Physicist. He served his LDS Mission in Donetsk Ukraine. He's married and has two boys and two girls. He is currently the ward organist and primary pianist.
All posts by Geoff Nelson
I am sorry that I do not speak English fluently… I looked up the meaning of rational on the dictionary and it seems to me that it almost opposes the meaning of “speculation”. It might be very well possible that in this case it is contextualized as to mean refined rhetoric. It seems to be going around here for a while now. Should I suppose then that the phrase ” laying on of hands ” actually means “lying on of lips”? It is a bit confusing to me. But I might also be taking the word “rational” here out of context… Rational would mean the same as “edgy”, right? Or does it means ” copied from the internet and rephrased to better fit our needs and to sound more palatable to our avid audience “?
Anyway, part of the ” rational” rationale on this site is just to much for me to handle… Too much bbq ribs from the internet before the skim milk prophets are dripping on our dried mouths… I apologize for not being so articulated as the scholars here… Better go back to BYU…
Marcelo,
Now look up the word, “satire.”
– Mike, from the year 2072
Excellent post, love it! It reads just like the current apologetic posts. You’ll turn out to the prophet/fortune teller/tarot card reader when this comes to pass.
“It does not say that other gendered marriages weren’t also essential. This was said before there was easy access to genetic adaptation of enucleating an egg and then implanting the combined DNA of people of the same sex. At that time, it is true that it took a man and woman to create a child. Thus the marriage between man and woman was highlighted.” Just beautiful.
Ah, yes. The only thing better than a straw man argument is a straw man argument set 100 years in the future!!! Thanks, “rational” faiths!
Justin, I think you completely missed the idea of this post and you probably need a refresher course in logical fallacies.
Actually, no. A strawman argument is “exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument in order to make your own position appear more reasonable.” It fits. Actually, this blog could be the poster boy for the Strawman argument.
Regardless, is getting technical about this guy’s response to the article REALLY the issue? Or is the article itself the problem? I haven’t been a member of the Church for very long, but I’ve found liberal members are no more compassionate or caring than regular members, they just claim to be. After finding this site I was interested in seeing if this was the “real deal,” as Micheal posted about it being more important to be kind than to be right. But unfortunately, the bloggers here are just as petty and disrespectful of the opposing side as they claim TBMs (or here, apologists) are. When your backs are against the wall, you call for kindness and understanding. But, you still need to make snarky and sarcastic posts to “prove” your points? It makes you look like total hypocrites and undermines your goals far more than you think. At this point in my familiarity with this site, it’s not all that surprising, but it’s still disappointing.
Who is more petty, do you suppose? Us for writing the posts? Or you, for continuing to read them just so you can comment and tell us how wrong and awful we are?
Oh, then it’s a *competition* of pettiness, then? Your pettiness is okay, just as long as someone on the Internet is more petty than you? As I recall, you’re one of those who complained about others finding it “more important to be right than to be kind.” You have zero credibility, Leah.
Mark, you completely missed my point. So entirely, that I can only assume you willfully missed in order to use it to further insult me. I don’t think my response was unkind at all.
It isn’t a competition at all. Nor do I believe it is ever okay to petty. I was trying to help you see that your finger pointing and name calling are not adding respectful dialogue here at RF. And if you dislike everything we post so much, I just don’t understand why you keep reading it.
Surely you understand that we are not going to stop saying the things we think and feel just because they frustrate you. It seems like you would be happier if you just stopped reading RF.
Great post Geoff! Loved this.
@James – Yeah, I’m sure that’s what happened. Please teach me. Lol
Jenn have you read this?
Well done. Enjoyed everything about this.
Geoff, this is freaking brilliant!
Wow. this is as messed up as it gets. Only the someone deceived by the "cunning craftiness of the enemy of our souls" could take something as simple and straightforward as the Proclamation to the Family, and use it in their sinful agenda.
It’s satire. To make a point about apologetics in the Church. Not meant to be an attack on the Proclamation to the Family. Cool your jets, man.
makes sense to me lol
Leah, it looks like it’s you who has missed the point. Your hypocrisy isn’t due to your comment, but the fact that you seem to have no problem with comments or even entire blog posts that are mean spirited as long as you agree with the philosophy. Or you could be just as intellectually dishonest as some of the others here; “it’s satire, so it’s okay!!1!1” You’ve claimed in the past that it’s important to be kind and that we should be working on bringing the Church together. Is that honestly your goal? Or do you want to be like most of the bloggers here and sling mud and then call it a day? Speaking of which! Don’t you find it interesting that you harangue me for “pointing fingers and name calling” when hats pretty much status quo for the blog posts here? Once again, it’s acceptable as long as you agree with the philosophy… More hypocrisy.
As for suggesting I leave, I find it strange how foreign the concept seems to you of differing opinions. Silly me, I thought the entire purpose of a site like this was to show a differing opinion to the regular Mormon. That would have been cool if that were the case, but for every “let’s work together!” blog post there are three attacking posts. Help me! I’m a victim of your hate!… Until you’re on the offensive and then being a d-bag is just fine. You must live in a place that has a lot of one way streets. If that’s the way it is, perhaps you’re correct and I’m wasting my time. If you want to have a discussion of the issues you guys bring up, I figured it would be important to have someone who can actually represent the views you so commonly misrepresent. Otherwise, it’s just strawman after strawman. Wait, you guys don’t farm, do you?
One final thought: if it seemed acceptable to you to suggest I leave because Im not a rank and file liberal Mormon, think of that the next time someone acknowledges how unhappy you seem with the Church and asks why you don’t just leave. Food for thought.
I think her questioning why you read this site is more from it seems many of your responses to articles are very antagonistic, or at least they seem to come across that way.
I personally believe everybody has the freedom to read what they wish (even if it makes them unhappy) and comment how they wish, but my own impression of many of your responses throughout this site are that you are a very staunch defender that comes across as upset by any criticisms toward the church, or perceived wrongs by it and you seem to want to correct others rather than discuss with them. Not that I am any better mind you. I often find it difficult when a criticism I agree with comes up, and some defenders respond in ways I have a difficult time empathizing with. It is so much more difficult for me through text form rather than in person.
I give up, Mark. It doesn’t matter what I say, you’re going to believe the worst in me. I am not all the person you described. But that’s fine, I don’t need you to know me. Christ knows me.
I didn’t suggest you leave because we disagree. Most of the people I attend church with disagree with me about pretty much everything. It isn’t a problem. I suggested it because you dislike everything you read here to the point of getting pretty mean about it. And you don’t push back against the material so much as provide character assassinations for the one who wrote it. Your comments are very divisive, so I’m not sure you can claim to be the one representing bring the church together. I just don’t know what the point is. *shrug*
Oh OK thanks Mr. Barker…
I like it when people are willing to shed more light and knowledge on their fellow men…
Now that I have been educated on how to use my Oxford, I’ma grab my BOM and the April General Conference Ensign and prepare a talk for the morrow… Teach those gullible morons from my ward more fallacies, like eternal families, the joy that comes from abiding by the laws and principles of the gospel, and keeping the Sabbath holy… Better see what those evil women teach them kids at primary…
Mark TBM, don’t quit reading the posts… There is a lot to learn from them…
This is all about satire, nothing to worry about…oh, the refinement of western civilization…
I’ve never commented before but have been a long time lurker. I no longer believe in Mormonism but am tied to it through family. So I have a vested interest in maintaining an understanding of Mormon “happenings” and thought.
I enjoyed the literary devices used in post. I hope I caught the appropriate tongue-in-cheek attitude expressed. I’m not clear on why there was offense taken by the more conservative (appropriate term?) mormon readers. I’d just be careful not to continue in the same tone and rhetoric, you guys sound a lot like Bill Donohue. Not a guy I would consider a bright spot for defenders of the faith.
Also, so much use of the term “us” and “them.” Hopefully this blog will serve as a way for like/differing opinions to express themselves and better understand each other.
Or a place for people to call each other names over who has the right make believe.
"I stand atop a spiral stair
An oracle confronts me there
He leads me on light years away
Through astral nights, galactic days
I see the works of gifted hands
That grace this strange and wondrous land
I see the hand of man arise
With hungry mind and open eyes"
Here's to the future!…
Your objection to his article is the very point of his article.
He was mirroring the current apologetics of polygamy and race which in their embarrassment have twisted the meanings of original intent.
Steve Lowther I'm going to assume you are LDS, since this is an LDS topic forum.
Are you saying that when God speaks through His prophets and specifically condemns homosexual intimacy and marriage, they are taking Him out of context?
Nope, he’s suggesting that His prophets aren’t always speaking for him, even when proclaiming ‘doctrine’.
An honest review of church history makes this abundantly clear.
This is a without a doubt the cunning of the adversary. Like every other anti-Mormon material, it tells it with a half truth and a lie. Plural Marriage is clearly condemned in the Book of Mormon as a regular practice if not instituted to "raise up seed unto me". The Bible does not specify the use of plural marriage, but clearly demonstrates the use of it as part of God's plan.
Brigham Young clearly stated that the blacks would have all the blessings of eternity one day. God allowed only the Levites to hold the priesthood at one time in the Bible. Jesus Christ claimed he was only sent to the lost tribes of Israel before later commanding his disciples to "go ye therefore and teach all nations" in Matthew 28.
In Romans 1, Paul clearly condemns same-sex relationships, as it was done in the Family Proclamation.
The church's stance on Plural Marriage is backed by scripture. The Church's stance on black's in the priesthood can be demonstrated in scripture. The church's stance on same sex relationships are clearly backed by scripture. However, scripture does not give way for same sex marriage or the adopting of it as an acceptable union in eternity. God's creations testify against it!!!
This is without a doubt the cunning of the adversary. Like every other anti-Mormon material, it tells it with a total misunderstanding, a half truth, or an outright lie. Plural Marriage is clearly condemned in the Book of Mormon as a regular practice if not instituted to "raise up seed unto me". The Bible does not specify the use of plural marriage, but clearly demonstrates the use of it as part of God's plan.
Brigham Young clearly stated that the blacks would have all the blessings of eternity one day. God allowed only the Levites to hold the priesthood at one time in the Bible. Jesus Christ claimed he was only sent to the lost tribes of Israel before later commanding his disciples to "go ye therefore and teach all nations" in Matthew 28.
In Romans 1, Paul clearly condemns same-sex relationships, as it was done in the Family Proclamation.
The church's stance on Plural Marriage is backed by scripture. The Church's stance on black's in the priesthood can be demonstrated in scripture. The church's stance on same sex relationships are clearly backed by scripture. However, scripture does not give way for same sex marriage or the adopting of it as an acceptable union in eternity. God's creations testify against it!!!
I gotta hand it to you, Geoff, this blog is bloody brilliant!
And the part about “my three volume set”?
WICKED!!!
I love when people get fired up over a satire piece….makes me laugh again and again.