Many Mansions of Heaven: Homosexuality within the Kingdom of God

Many Mansions of Heaven: 
Homosexuality and the Kingdom of God

The normalization of homosexuality within American society is a topic on every Mormon mind. Sadly, I think that there are core elements of our theology that are not considered when Mormons form their opinions individually, and when the Church crafts its official policy and doctrinal interpretations. 

My intention to highlight some of these overlooked doctrinal ideas, and highlight how they could illuminate our opinions and behaviors towards homosexuality. 

I have organized my discussion around three key topics: Civil Gay Marriage, Children of Gay Couples, and the Place of a Gay Person within the Kingdom of God. 

The Restored Gospel and Civil Gay Marriage

One of the 13 fundamental beliefs in LDS theology is that “we claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship, how, where, or what they may.” On another occasion, Joseph Smith taught, “Where it provides that no one shall be hindered from worshiping God according to his own conscience, is a law. No legislature can enact a law to prohibit it.”

Marriage is a form of worship, and the Supreme Court decision to legalize civil same-sex marriage was made in the spirit of our own article of faith: Allowing all men and women the privilege of worshiping how, where, or what they may. On page 27 of the Supreme Court’s brief legalizing same-sex marriage it states:

"it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage"

The Supreme Court may as well have cited the LDS 11th article of faith in writing their brief discussing their decision to legalize same-sex marriage. The court made clear that religions can continue to advocate that same-sex marriage should not be condoned, and religions will continue to be protected as they seek to teach the principles of their faith regarding marriage and religion. Clearly it was done with the intention of ensuring that all people are allowed to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience. The brief makes clear that we Mormons can continue to hold our beliefs and practice them freely, and that our friends of the Gay community can practice their beliefs freely. Contrary to claims on the religious right, the ruling is an expansion of religious freedom rather than a constraint on religion freedom because groups with seemingly opposing views regarding marriage are now allowed to practice their respective beliefs without the other imposing their beliefs. 

Thus, the Supreme Court decision can alternatively be viewed as an effort to re-organize society to more closely mirror a long held Mormon ideal (Article of Faith 11 is one of our long standing 13 fundamental faith tenets). 

Both Elder Oaks and Elder Christoffersen urged members of all communities to seek solutions to the marriage debate that were fair for EVERYONE. Elder Oaks said,"We claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience, without harming the health or safety of others. We acknowledge that the same freedom of conscience must apply to men and women everywhere to follow the religious faith of their choice, or none at all if they so choose. We believe laws ought to be framed to achieve a balance in protecting the freedoms of all people while respecting those with differing values." - Elder Oaks ( January 27, 2015 news release)

Additionally, Elder Christoffersen said, “we are suggesting a way forward in which those with different views on these complex issues can together seek solutions that will be fair to everyone” (January 27, 2015 news release- referring to complex issues surrounding our faith and the gay community)

Is not the Supreme Court’s decision fair to everyone? Can we craft a solution more fair than our own article of faith?

We (Mormons) were brutally persecuted due to our unorthodox view of marriage, and even though we abandoned that unorthodox marriage practice, we are still socially shamed because of it. We ought to be glad when others cease to be persecuted because of their marriage practices. 

To require, through coercive regulatory law, that people conform to one view of marriage is to preach the gospel according to compulsion. While we currently have codified beliefs advocating for the limitation of marriage to hetero-sexual couples, we also have codified beliefs that emphasize that while authority to act in God's name can be conferred upon us, when we undertake to "exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or authority of that man" (Doctrine and Covenants 121: 37)

Using coercive means to compel people to follow a precept of the gospel grieves the spirit of the Lord, leading to a withdrawal of authority.

It has been emphasized to us several times that the gospel is not "to be a buffet from which they can pick and choose only the most appealing offerings" (Clayton, April 2013 Conference). Which means that we need to consider the gospel as a whole. We have to share with others our gospel view AND make sure that people are not coerced into keeping commandments-- that they have full agency to choose their glory in God's kingdom. 

President John Taylor said that "Besides the preaching of the gospel, we have another mission, namely, the perpetuation of the free agency of man and the maintenance of liberty, freedom, and the rights of man.”- John Taylor (The Gospel Kingdom, pg. 222)

When the entirety of Restored Gospel theology is considered, there is a compelling case for supporting civil gay marriage and celebrating the expansion of religious freedom that occurred in 2015. 

Imagine how different things would be if we had pursued a strategy in 2008 that considered all aspects of the Restored Gospel instead of a strategy rooted in "the most appealing offerings" from a buffet of beliefs?

A strategy rooted in the Restored Gospel broadly would have considered Article of Faith 11, current policy on marriage (the Family Proclamation), as well as teachings such as "Agree with thine adversary quickly" (Matthew 5:25) and "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you" (Matthew 5:44). Taking all of these theological ideas together, a more effective strategy in 2008 could been reaching out to the HRC saying, "Hey our two groups have differing views on marriage, but we all believe in religious freedom, and that you have a right to practice marriage according to the dictates of your own conscience. Historically, our people were persecuted by the state because we used to practice a form of marriage that did not conform with the state's definition. How about we work together to urge the government to pass laws that enable you to freely practice marriage according to the dictates of your own conscience while allowing us to practice marriage according to the dictates of our own conscience?"

Instead, it we seemed narrowly focused on one thing on the buffet menu: current policy on marriage, and it manifested in an "us vs. them" mentality in which our Church leadership vowed not to budge (Elder Packer). I recognize that there was instruction to engage in disagreement with the "other" side with civility and respect. But actively seeking to legislate a restriction on how others outside our faith should go about worshiping God via marriage still doesn't square with Article of Faith 11 and Jesus Christ's quintessential teachings (Matthew 5:25 and 44), even if it is done with civility and respect.

Our "buffet Mormon" behavior has left us with internal discord as a people, and subtle animosity from the outside that could have been avoided had we behaved in a way that considered the totality of our beliefs and not just one belief.

The Restored Gospel and the Children of Married Gay Couples

In 2015, a section in Handbook 1 (16.13) was added stating that a "natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing." The hand book is reported to further stipulate that said children cannot be baptized unless they meet the following conditions:

• "The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage"
• "The child is of legal age"
• "does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage"

The changes were reported in several news outlets, including Deseret News, which is owned by the LDS Church.  KSL also reported it saying that these changes were indeed confirmed by the LDS Church. 

 (see here: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37248288&nid=148&fm=most_popular&s_cid=popular-1;  and also here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865640835/Church-updates-policies-on-families-in-same-sex-marriages.html?pg=all)

The changes are a bit perplexing given that one of the central 13 articles of our faith is that "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression".  It is also taught in the Old Testament, New Testament, and Book of Mormon that individuals ought not be punished for the sins of their parents.  This theological idea, only holding people accountable for their own sins, is one of the more consistent ideas across canonized scripture. Which begs the question, why disallow persons from entering the faith because of the choices of their parents?

The question becomes especially poignant when we consider the following moment from the life of Jesus Christ:

"And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.

But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:13-14). 

Notice that the disciples rebuked "those that brought" the children, not the children themselves. It is not clear what "those that brought" the children were being rebuked for, most interpretations assume that they were being rebuked for bringing the children, but it could be that they were rebuked for any number of things, and I think that is the point. 

Whatever "those that brought" the children were being rebuked for, Jesus made clear that it should have no effect on the children's ability to come to him. The thought of a child's inability to come unto Christ because of the actions of "those that brought" the child not only displeased Jesus, it MUCH displeased him, and he commanded his disciples to "forbid them not". 

The policy seems to directly contradict these more fundamental doctrines, and even the very spirit that Christ tried to imbue into His followers. 

The official spokesman did not attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction. However, a blog post from "A Well-Behaved Mormon Woman" attempted to provide some context and explanation. The author points out that child under the age of 18 already need consent from their parents if that want to be baptized into the church. This point makes the policy change seem even more strange instead of providing adequate explanation. If a person under 18 has permission from their same-sex parents to become a member of the Church via baptism--- then why hold them back?  

The author also pointed out that the LDS faith is also very careful about how it proselytes to Muslims given the inherent danger in conversion within Muslim majority countries in the Middle East and South East Asia. But again, the author is really only providing half context here. A person who converts in those areas of the world often face physical harm (including death) from family and clan, as well as banishment from the larger community. If a Muslim person is residing in the US, Canada, or Europe, and do not plan to return to that environment, then they are usually baptized. 

The situations are hardly comparable. Children of same-sex couples overwhelming do not reside in countries where conversion presents that type of a problem. As a social scientist I have never observed honor killings or anything of the sort among the gay community.  So again, this does not really present a compelling argument for the policy.  I know that the author states that "The church does a TON to protect children and spouses form being taught one thing at home and another at church."  However, I am not quite sure that holds up to the narratives of several under 18 converts to the church. I have a lot of personal friends who chose to be baptized in high school, and they were taught one thing at home and another at church. It happens all of the time. I am sure there are many members of the church who have a story or two to share about an under 18 youth being baptized and living in a home where things are done contrary to one or more Church teachings. 

And again, if the parents already have to consent to baptism before the child is baptized, then what is the issue here?  And if the parents consent to it, and the under age person agrees to follow the laws and ordinances of the gospel as taught by the missionaries, then why forbid them to come unto Christ when He expressly commanded us to "forbid them not" even in situations where you may rebuke "those that brought" the children? We allow children of other "non-ideal" families to come into the Church (i.e. single parent homes), and we allow children whose parents commit other types of "sin" to come into the Church (drug and alcohol abusers, unwed parents, etc.). 

We are taught in scripture that "whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10).  So if we are all sinners, then we have all offended the law in one point, which means we are all guilty of the WHOLE LAW.  If we are all equally guilty of the WHOLE LAW then we are all equally sinful. 

Let me repeat, not only are we all sinners, we are all equally sinful. 

So if you feel, for whatever reason, the need to rebuke "those that brought" the Children to touch and partake of Jesus' Gospel, I would urge you to forbid not the Children because of it. From what I know about Jesus in reading scripture, and from what I know about Jesus in my personal experiences with Him, He would be displeased if the Church held people accountable for actions that were not their own. In fact, it seems he would be "much displeased". 

And if this is the case, then can't we simply "suffer the children to come unto me"? 

The Restored Gospel and the Place of a Gay Person in the Kingdom of God

First, we were probably the first Christian Church to proclaim that gay people go to heaven.

I know that many conservative Mormons may shutter at that claim, but let me say it again: WE WERE PROBABLY THE FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH TO PROCLAIM IN SCRIPTURE THAT GAY PEOPLE GO TO HEAVEN.

The section heading in section 76 of Doctrine and Covenants says, "If God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body the term 'Heaven', as intended for the Saints' eternal home, must include more kingdoms than one." The section goes on to describe a Heaven that has Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial glories (DC 76:50-119); where the Celestial glory represents the pinnacle of eternal joy, and the Telestial glory is the lowest.

The section also teaches that there is ONLY ONE category of people who do not inherit some degree of Glory in Heaven: Sons of Perdition (DC 76: 30-49). In fact, the revelation goes so far as to say that Sons of Perdition are the "only ones on whom the second death shall have any power" ( DC 76:37).  The second death in LDS theology refers to separation from God and His influence (See https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/death-spiritual). Pay close attention to the syntax in verse 37 of section 76: "only ones on whom the second death shall have any power". It means that apart from Sons of Perdition, no one else suffers the second death to any degree.

A gay person is NOT a Son of Perdition. To become a Son of Perdition, a person needs to know the power of God and "have been made partakers thereof" (DC 76:31-- that is to say that need to be initiated, endowed, sealed, and have the calling and election made sure via gospel ordinances), and then they need to revolt against God (DC 76:32-35).

The critical, and obvious, point made in section 76 is that everyone except an extremely small minority of people go to heaven, and that includes gay people. This was revealed to us via Joseph Smith back in 1832.

If people living an openly gay lifestyle are allowed into God's Heavenly House to receive a degree of Glory, then they can be allowed into God's house on earth to be endowed with the promise of a degree of Glory.

The natural follow-up question to this truth about our theology is: how far along can a gay person progress in Heaven? Can an openly gay person be endowed with in the temple with the promise of Celestial glory?

I think the short answer is yes.

I recognize that the central concern of fundamentalist Latter-day Saints, with regards to this issue, is adherence to the law of chastity. In the temple, as endowed patrons, we covenant to abstain from sexual relations outside of the bonds of marriage  (one of the qualifications for inheriting celestial glory. See Bednar 2013 General Conference for example).

Right now, openly gay Mormons and straight Mormons have an equal path to receiving the promise of Celestial glory in the temple: abstain from sexual intercourse before marriage.

The discrimination really begins post-endowment during marriage and sealing where endowed gay Mormons are expected to remain celibate in order to retain, not only the promise of celestial glory, but to retain access to the temple and membership in the Church.

This stands at odds with our scripture. Within the celestial glory, we have been told that there are yet other sub-glories:

"In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have increase" (DC 131:1-4).

So within the celestial glory there are three sub-glories, the highest of which requires heterosexual marriage because this institution is intended to create a procreative unit where they have the blessing of a kingdom that expands forever via a limitless posterity.

If the patron does not enter into the hetero-sexual marriage covenant, then they do not lose celestial glory or their kingdom, it just says that they lose the blessing of having a kingdom that eternally increases.

There is room here for celestial gay marriage. If an initiate keeps the temple covenants that result in receiving the promise of celestial glory (obedience, sacrifice, law of the gospel, chastity, and consecration), then why can't they be afforded the autonomy to choose to remain a single sovereign of their kingdom, contract a gay marriage, or contract a heterosexual marriage so that their inherited kingdom can eternally increase? (That's three sub-glories)

It builds on our earlier progressive doctrine, and fills a clear gap in our theology (the middle sub-glory in the Celestial Kingdom).

It also incorporates new knowledge revealed about the complex nature of human sexuality. Namely, that it is not a part of our being that we can change. That fact should cause a rethinking of our soteriology (i.e. doctrine of salvation) because one of the fundamental messages of Jesus was that righteousness should not be measured by personal characteristics that we cannot change (see Matthew 3:7-9,Acts 10:34, 2 Nephi 26:33; D&C1:35), and we have changed our soteriology before upon recognizing that some of its elements violated that fundamental principle (i.e. race and priesthood).

Finally, our offering of gay marriage in the temple is the type of inclusiveness that provides true acceptance for our LGTBQ brothers and sisters. Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, follows the same chaste course to the promise of Celestial glory, and everyone regardless of sexual orientation can date, marry the person that fits their sexual orientation, and commit to the same covenants of marital fidelity.

Latter-day saints have a history of being fluid and expansive when it comes to family. It has been noted that Joseph Smith had a "lust for kin" (Givens). In fact, one of the primary rationales for polygamy was to unite all Latter-day Saints together in the bonds of kinship; universal kinship being a core tenet of Jesus' Gospel.

The Church has since discarded Joseph's emphasis on universal kinship and world/community building, and instead emphasizes a traditional and monogamous nuclear family unit. Givens states it poignantly:

"With the abandonment of polygamy in the nineteenth century's closing decade, Mormonism underwent profound change...In particular, the language and aspirations of Mormon soteriology underwent a two-pronged contraction. The first, as we saw, shifted much of the focus from the heavenly family, for all practice purposes, to the orbit of the nuclear family. Mormons successfully became exemplars, rather than subverters, of the domestic ideal...The second development was a shift in the emphasis from world building to character sanctifying...This early twentieth-century reorientation from the communal to the individual and from the other-worldly bonds to this-worldly character formation, was further enhanced by the important developments in the social context of the era" (Givens: 306-307).

It is time to renew Joseph Smith's emphasis on relationships and building bonds of universal kinship.

Our current solutions for LGBTQ Mormons are not solutions. They are attempts at trying to sidestep the elephant in the room, rather than address it head on.

We cannot build a solution by discarding these clear doctrinal principles in our scripture due to scriptural interpretation by the Church through the lens of early 20th century American culture. Remember, we cannot be buffet Mormons.

Nor can you build a solution by saying "we love you, but you cannot experience one of life's fundamental experiences of sexual expression because of a characteristic that you were born with and cannot change." We know that it is not effective because suicide rates among LGBTQ youth in Utah remain terribly high (Knoll, 2016).

We should not only say to our LGBTQ brothers and sisters "welcome", but also make them feel welcome by having a religious system that reflects the gospel of Jesus.

A Note on Bottom-up Revelation

Remember, "we believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." (Article of Faith Nine)

I think Civil and Celestial Gay Marriage is one of those important things.

I know many will retort: But it isn't your place to get these ideas for the whole Church.

That's not accurate.

Consider the case of the non-Israelite woman and the Lord himself in Matthew chapter 15. In this instance, a woman of Canaan cried unto the Lord saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil" (v.22)

Jesus replied with the official policy of his Kingdom at the time which was that "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel...It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs" (v.24-26).

This woman of Canaan--- of no priestly or prophetic office--- argued back with the Lord God Himself, and reasoned, "Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master's table" (v.27).

Reasoning with prophets over policy is one thing, but arguing with the Lord himself? But guess what? It worked.  Jesus replied to her saying, "O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt" (v. 28). Again, arguing with the Lord was not counted as lack of faith, but an abundance of it.

Overall, all of these cases, where those under the Prophet disagreed with him, constitute efforts to SUSTAIN that Prophet.  Sustaining a person means to strengthen the person physically or mentally.  That can include being the one to have the idea or clarification when the mental faculties of the leader are tired and burden.

Which is why Elder Ballard said in 2010:

“There isn’t one person that knows all of the answers to every question. But when the council system is operating we have an opportunity to draw on inspiration from the various members of the council, and even members of the ward if we are doing it right. Everybody has their ear up and they may hear something that is not in their presidency, but just comes out of a hometeaching visit of a visiting teaching visit that solves the issue that the council was worried about.” – Elder Ballard, November 2010 Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting

Elder Ballard reiterates here what earlier scriptural cases indicate: nobody--- NOBODY--- knows all of the answers. Everybody--- EVERBODY--- has to have their ears up to try to hear the voice of the Lord to figure out ideas in terms of moving the work forward. And often----OFTEN--- the key insight comes from those who sit far outside the governing councils, like somebody who is simply being home taught.

Why? Because in mortality, we all "see through a glass darkly" and "know in part" (1 Corinthians 13:12). Which is why it is always a group effort to articulate the voice and will of God as it distills upon our souls collectively as dew from Heaven. (for more on this see https://millennialsaint.blogspot.com/2015/11/disagreement-and-sustaining-prophets.html)

This is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; not the Church of Jesus Christ of General Authorities. Which is why Elder Charles Penrose taught:

"Every man and every woman who has received the Gospel and been baptized into the Church is expected to take an ACTIVE part in this work; not leave it to those who are called upon to preside" (Penrose 1881, Salt Lake Assembly Hall).

As Latter-day Saints we have to be more active in articulating our ideas and insights. President Hinckley's response to a journalist's question on women and the priesthood illustrates this necessity.

Journalist: "At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church...Is it possible that the rules could change in the future?"

Hinckley: "Yes. But there's no agitation for that. We don't find it."

Love driven agitation from those not called to preside has been critical to inspired changes among God's faithful from Eve to Jethro to Jesus to Paul to Joseph Smith and others. In the last decade, love driven agitation was critical to recent changes for women in the Church. The same principle can be applied here for LGBTQ Mormons.