Chapter 6- Is marriage too fundamental to redefine?

• Would allowing marriage equality be a less drastic change than permitting polygamy was?

• Will numerous prophetic statements against marriage equality prevent change?

• Do we know for sure that spiritual procreation requires a man and a woman?

• Could temple ceremonies be changed to allow for gay temple marriage?

• What about gay marriage for “time only,” in or out of the temple?

• Do we need to worry about doing a sealing here that shouldn’t continue in heaven?

• If doctrinal change is possible, why hasn’t it happened?

• What about countries in which same-sex behavior is still against the law?

Chapter synopsis: It hurts to know that marriage between same-gender spouses is prohibited in the church even though: 1) doctrinal change regarding marriage has happened before, including canonized scripture being changed to redefine marriage; 2) prior statements by prophets and apostles about polygamy did not prevent doctrinal change about marriage; 3) we know very little about spiritual procreation; and 4) temple practices and doctrine do not prohibit doctrinal change. Lack of apostolic unanimity regarding change, and the prophet possibly perceiving church members as not being ready for change, might explain why change has not yet happened.

Despite all the evidence showing our doctrine has evolved many times, and despite statements from our prophets and apostles that change will still come in the future, many members of the church still struggle with the idea that something as fundamental to our beliefs as marriage could be doctrinally redefined. I think part of the reason is because marriage and family are experienced every day, and drive so many of our feelings of purpose and happiness. So when church doctrine discusses marriage and family, many instinctively pay more attention, and those teachings take root more firmly than some other doctrinal teachings.

The church has changed its scriptural canon to redefine marriage before, to first allow for and then rule out polygamy. Starting in 1835, the canonized scripture (known today as the Doctrine and Covenants) contained an explicit prohibition on polygamy in then Section 101 that read as follows:

“Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.” (Doctrine & Covenants, Section 101, original wording, 1835) (https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_polygamy/1835_Doctrine_and_Covenants_denies_polygamy )

41 years later in 1876, this scriptural prohibition against polygamy was removed and Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants was inserted endorsing polygamy in a revelation previously given to Joseph Smith. He received Section 132 “before it was recorded but delayed making it known. The prophet knew the Lord’s will on plural marriage within the new and everlasting covenant probably as early as 1831” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-132-marriage-an-eternal-covenant ). So Joseph knew that Section 101 contradicted what he understood to be the Lord’s will throughout virtually all of his time as the prophet. Section 132 was recorded in 1843 shortly before Joseph was murdered, but it was still not made public by church leaders until 1852. Even after its public release, it was not canonized until 1876 (shortly before Brigham Young died), which finally allowed church leaders to publicly justify polygamy using modern scripture. However, when a later prophet of the church, Wilford Woodruff, issued a manifesto in 1890 directing the church to abandon polygamy, church leaders had to eventually reinterpret Section 132 as just discussing eternal marriage generally (both monogamous and polygamous), even though the explicit references to polygamy throughout the section are numerous (https://www.templestudies.org/bringhurst-newell-g-section-132-of-the-lds-doctrine-and-covenants-its-complex-contents-and-controversial-legacy/ ).

That history provides a great example of how the doctrine of the church regarding marriage has been extremely fluid. An unconventional form of marriage was secretly allowed by God despite being publicly (and scripturally) prohibited by the church – then, scripture was changed to remove the prohibition against that unconventional form of marriage, so that additional new scripture facilitating it could be added without contradiction – then that unconventional form of marriage became prohibited once more by prophetic mandate and scripture was reinterpreted. That’s a LOT of doctrinal back-and-forth over marriage and paints a different picture than what I believe many church members understand.

If the church has already changed its scriptural canon and doctrine multiple times to redefine marriage, why couldn’t it do so again to allow for gay marriage, especially in light of new scientific discoveries about gay sexual orientation? Couldn’t we just say prior prophets didn’t have access to such new discoveries and so shouldn’t be judged as wrong – that they were instead just insufficiently informed? After all, our current prophet, President Nelson, has said “good inspiration is based upon good information” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/04/revelation-for-the-church-revelation-for-our-lives ). And as a bonus, no current scriptures would even need to be deleted to allow for marriage equality in our doctrine (like Section 101 had to be deleted to allow for polygamy). Gay marriage would just be an expansion of current doctrine, not a scriptural reversal like polygamy was.

Thinking about gay temple sealings as just an expansion or elucidation of current doctrine, rather than as a change in doctrine, is the way I like best to view a possible adjustment in the church’s position. Imagine a world in which everyone was pro-gay when Joseph Smith first revealed the sealing power. In that world, the sealing power would have applied to gay couples automatically unless a revelation said specifically it couldn’t. Well, since we have had no formal, canonized revelation in the real world saying gay sealings are NOT allowed, the sealing power is already set up to address gay relationships. I like to think that new revelation on this subject is needed now only because church members require clarification that it is okay for them to abandon past ways of thought that gay couples are evil. It would just involve a new, more open-minded way of thinking about existing doctrine.

Now, I have wondered, even though the scriptures allow it, are there just too many statements by prophets and apostles that prohibit gay marriage for it to ever be allowed doctrinally? While I don’t know the answer to that question, I find it oddly comforting that multiple prophetic teachings about marriage in the 19th century didn’t prevent contradictory doctrinal change from occurring shortly following their utterances. Below are several quotes from church prophets and apostles in the 1800s that stated that polygamy was better than monogamy and/or that polygamy was required in order for someone to enter the highest degree of heaven. Such statements didn’t stop the church’s position on polygamy from changing.

• “From him I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in celestial glory.” (Joseph Smith, cited by William Clayton, in George D. Smith, ed., An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991), p. 559; also in Andrew Jenson, “Plural Marriage,” The Historical Record, 6 (July 1887): 226.)

• “It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives...The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.” (Brigham Young, “Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City,” (19 August 1866) Journal of Discourses 11:268-269.)

• “Some of the nations of Europe who believe in the one wife system have actually forbidden a plurality of wives by their laws; and the consequences are that the whole country among them is overrun with the most abominable practices: adulteries and unlawful connections through all their villages, towns, cities, and country places to a most fearful extent.”- Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 12

• “I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business... I do not know what we should do if we had only one wife apiece.”- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Deseret News, April 22, 1857

• “This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans...”- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 195

• “Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. ‘And is that religion popular in heaven?' It is the only popular religion there...”- Prophet Brigham Young, Deseret News, August 6, 1862

• “Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman Empire... Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a hold sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.”- Prophet Brigham Young, Deseret News, August 6, 1862

• “We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they envy our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow minded, pinch-backed race of man, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They aught to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices.”- George A. Smith, Apostle, Deseret News, April 16, 1856

• “It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome, with her arts, sciences and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She was a mono-gamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.”- Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 202

• “Talk about polygamy! There is no true philosopher on the face of the earth but what will admit that such a system, properly carried out according to the order of heaven, is far superior to monogamy for the raising of healthy, robust children!”- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 317

• “[Children of polygamists] besides being equally as bright and brighter intellectually, are much more healthy and strong.”- Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 207

• “A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were ‘Mormons.'“- Apostle Jedediah M. Grant, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 346

• “To comply with the request of our enemies would be to give up all hope of ever entering into the glory of God, the Father, and Jesus Christ, the Son. ... So intimately interwoven is this precious doctrine with the exaltation of men and women in the great hereafter that it cannot be given up without giving up at the same time all hope of immortal glory.” George Q. Cannon - Jun. Instructor, May 1, 1885, Editorial

• “Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or nonessential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife sealed to him by authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false...it is useless to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law, or that a man with only one wife can obtain as great a reward, glory, or kingdom as he can with more than one, being equally faithful.” (Joseph F. Smith, Apostle, Journal of Discourses 20:28-20, 1878)

Some current church scholars try to argue that it was never doctrine that polygamy was required to receive the highest degree of heaven. Since polygamy was practiced by only about 20-30% of church members at its peak, some scholars assert that these quotes are only talking about polygamy being required for those who were actually asked by church leadership specifically to do it. (https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Brigham_Young_said_that_the_only_men_who_become_gods_are_those_that_practice_polygamy#cite_note-10 ).

Others argue that the above quotes were just hyperbole to bolster the resolve of the people living polygamy, or to enhance sentiment against the U.S. government as it was trying to abolish polygamy. But, as I read the actual quotes, I can only partially accept such explanations.

The sheer number of quotes like these, and the plain meaning of most of such quotes, suggests that church leaders in the 19th century firmly believed that polygamy was a better system than monogamy and that only people who practiced polygamy would inherit the highest level of heaven. That is consistent with what apostle Bruce R. McConkie controversially stated in his 1958 book, Mormon Doctrine, that God will “obviously” re-institute polygamy after the second coming of Christ:

“Obviously the holy practice [of plural marriage] will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed., Bookcraft, 1966, p. 578) (https://archive.org/stream/MormonDoctrine1966/MormonDoctrine1966_djvu.txt )

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_polygamy )

That also echoes earlier teachings by Brigham Young that the primary purpose of polygamy was to bring about the second coming (see John Cairncross, After polygamy was made a sin: the social history of Christian polygamy, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974, ISBN 0-7100-7730-0, p. 181). And it is consistent with the following statement made in 1891 by the First Presidency and all the apostles of the church in a petition to the President of the United States:

“We formerly taught to our people that polygamy or celestial marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith was right; that it was a necessity to man’s highest exaltation in the life to come.” (Reed Smoot Case, Vol. 1, page 18) (http://bitly.ws/8HXJ )

All of those teachings are no longer publicly taught as the church’s doctrine today. However, some Latter-day Saint scholars have noted that because church leaders haven’t actually denounced the idea of polygamy in heaven, current church doctrine is essentially just putting a pause on polygamy, speculating that it will resume in the eternities for everyone in the top degree of heaven: https://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Eternal-Polygamy-Haunting-Hearts/dp/0997458208 .

If our prophets and apostles changed what they were saying about the superiority of one form of marriage before (including statements that only that one form of marriage could allow someone to enter the highest degree of heaven), why can’t they likewise change their teachings again now to allow for marriage between same-gender spouses (and allow for the possibility that gay couples might exist in heaven too)? Many think that current church leaders are talking about gay marriage often and strongly today for legal reasons (see Chapter 4). Well, if the forceful nature of the above quotes was intended to bolster pro-polygamy sentiment against the government, then why couldn’t all the forceful statements against gay marriage simply become moot in the future as well? I think it’s sometimes good to remember that, even if well-intentioned, not all statements from our apostles and prophets stand the test of time:

“God will not change his law of celestial marriage (polygamy). But the man, the people, the nation, that oppose and fight against this doctrine and the Church of God will be overthrown.” Lorenzo Snow (1886, from jail) - History of Utah, Whitney, 3:471

I think the most compelling (while still not actually convincing) reason some people think doctrinal change allowing gay temple marriage will always be impossible is based in the belief that spiritual procreation occurs in the highest degree of heaven. President Oaks said in his October 2019 General Conference talk titled “Two Great Commandments” that spiritual procreation will happen through the “creative powers inherent in the combination of male and female.” That teaching seems to make sense upon first thought because, if things work in heaven in a similar pattern to how they do here, then only a combination of male and female would be able to reproduce there too. While we don’t know very much about how spiritual procreation is actually carried out, existing scripture teaches us just enough about the way spirits are created that we have a decent basis for understanding that it is an entirely different thing than biological procreation. Different rules of nature apply because an eternal spirit is being created, not a mortal body.

Canonized Latter-day Saint scripture, as interpreted by numerous prophets and apostles, teaches that a human spirit is created by shaping or organizing a pre-existing “intelligence” into a spirit (Abraham 3:22; Doctrine & Covenants 93:29, 33-34)

(http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/quotes/Intelligence%20and%20Spirit.html ). This is different from the idea of creating a spirit ex nihilo (i.e., out of nothing) or through the combination of the essences of a male parent and a female parent, as in mortal biology. In other words, spiritual procreation seems to be more about transforming than conceiving.

President Oaks stated that the transformative process requires the participation of both a male and a female. However, the scriptures mentioned above seem to refute that, referring to organizing instead of conceiving, making no mention of Heavenly Mother in creating spirits. The existence of Heavenly Mother is well grounded in our doctrine since at least 1845, when Eliza R. Snow’s hymn “O My Father” was published. In fact, the revised Young Women theme announced in October 2019 includes the mention of Heavenly Parents, not just Heavenly Father (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/new-young-women-theme-class-name-and-structure-changes-announced?lang=eng ).

I wonder if the truth is that we just don’t know what is involved or how that transformative process is actually carried out. Creating a spirit sounds just plain different from creating a body. We know all about the latter, but we know very little about the former. But President Oaks’ recent assertion that we do know makes it hard for me to find any sense of peace when I think about this area of church doctrine, especially given how long his teaching will remain in circulation within the church going forward.

Doesn’t the idea of spiritual procreation being fundamentally different than biological procreation make more sense than thinking that exalted women will be pregnant throughout all eternity with billions of spirit babies? I personally find it comforting to think that spiritual procreation might have all the benefits of parenthood without the physical toil and limitations associated with parenthood here in mortality. Since science is finding ways that might allow gay couples to actually reproduce biologically here on earth (https://medium.com/neodotlife/same-sex-reproduction-artificial-gametes-2739206aa4c0 ), it doesn’t seem hard to think that God might know a way that gay couples could spiritually reproduce in heaven, right?

Even the creation of the earth occurred through the transformation or organization of existing substance, rather than through creation ex nihilo. Most Biblical scholars recognize that the idea the earth was created out of nothing was largely the result of intellectual developments in the 2nd and 3rd centuries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_1:1 ), not something the original writers of the Bible proposed. The original text of the Book of Genesis supports Joseph Smith’s teaching that the creation of the earth was done through the organizing of existing matter, not ex nihilo (https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1626&context=msr ). We believe that, under the direction of His Father, Christ organized existing matter from chaos to create the earth. And we believe Christ had other individuals helping in that effort as well: “Elohim [the Father], Jehovah [Christ], Michael [Adam], a host of noble and great ones – all these played their parts” (Bruce R. McConkie, Apostle, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1982/06/christ-and-the-creation , 1982) (Abraham 3:22-24). Notice again that Heavenly Mother’s role, if any, is not mentioned at all, making it hard to support the idea that one male and one female are necessary in the eternities.

Based on all those teachings, it appears to me that the process by which a spirit is created is more akin to how the earth was created (by individuals cooperating to organize existing matter) than it is to how a human body is created (by conception, combining the essence of male and female parents). Moreover, we believe that all spirit is matter (Doctrine & Covenants 131:7). So it seems logical to assume that an “intelligence,” as just an unorganized spirit, is also an element of matter, and that, therefore, the process of creating a human spirit from that intelligence could occur through the combined effort of persons that are not just one male and one female. As Elder McConkie stated above, we’re comfortable with the doctrine that Christ and Adam, two male beings, created the earth. So can we get comfortable with the notion that two exalted men (or two exalted women) could similarly create a human spirit? “Elohim” is just the plural of “God” in Hebrew (the name literally just means “Gods” in Hebrew). Perhaps that’s why Elohim is the name used in original Biblical texts for God the Father – kind of as a collective, singular title for both our Heavenly Fathers, both our Heavenly Mothers, or one of each.

Or perhaps, most likely, because biological genders are constructs humankind only understands through the lens of our limited, mortal experience, the nature of celestial gender is impossible for us to completely understand. Maybe attempting to understand the gender traits of our Heavenly Parents as exalted, perfected, divine beings, is as hard for us to do as imagining what eternity truly means. Perhaps “Elohim” is just a collective phrase for divine parents whose gender and procreative traits are impossible for us to fully fathom at this time.

I don’t know the answers to any of those sorts of questions. But I do know that that our doctrine says we are literally children of Heavenly Parents and that we have inherited divine potential from Them (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/spirit-children-of-heavenly-parents ).

If we can get comfortable with the idea that gay couples might actually be able to procreate spiritually in heaven, just like straight couples, then the next logical step is to look at whether it’s possible for our temple marriage ceremonies to change to allow eternal sealings for gay couples. In Latter-day Saint theology, a husband and wife can be married for eternity, not just “until death do [they] part,” provided they are married by an authorized church representative in one of the church’s temples.

Temple ceremonies are so sacred that church members promise not to discuss certain details about them outside the temple. So I will not discuss any of the ceremonial details associated with a sealing. However, I will mention that in January 2019, it was publicly reported that extensive changes were made to the language of various temple ceremonies to make them less sexist. Specific to temple sealing, it was reported that a change was made to reflect “gender equality in the language of the sealing ceremony, where the bride and groom now apparently make the same promises to each other” (https://religionnews.com/2019/01/03/major-changes-to-mormon-temple-ceremony-especially-for-women/ ). (As that article notes, the language of the sealing ceremony previously did not reflect gender equality; men were implied to hold a more elevated status.) If the wording of the sealing ceremony and other temple rites can be changed to accommodate the heartfelt desires of women in the church for greater equality, I have no doubt that, if our doctrine eventually evolves to allow for marriage between same-gender spouses, the sealing ceremony could again be updated to accommodate that marriage equality for our LGBTQ siblings as well.

Short of gay temple sealings, some middle-ground compromises might allow gay couples to be married in this life only and still stay in the church. Such compromise solutions have been discussed for years, including the ecclesiastical equivalent of a civil union, which was proposed by the group Affirmation in the 1970s, long before marriage between same-gender spouses was legalized in all 50 U.S. states in 2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_adoption_(Mormonism) ). Now that marriage equality is legally protected in the U.S., perhaps gay couples could be married civilly and still retain their church membership, even if they cannot hold temple recommends.

Some people postulate that such a gay-civil-marriage-without-loss-of-church membership compromise might already be a possibility for some gay church members, depending on the views of their local leaders. Under the church’s General Handbook released in February 2020, someone who is in a gay marriage is no longer automatically considered to be an apostate (like they were under prior versions of the church’s handbook). That means that while gay marriages are still considered sinful, local leaders have more discretion about whether or not a member in a gay marriage should lose their membership in the church (see Section 32.6.2 here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils?lang=eng#title_number14 ).

While I concede it is possible that some local church leaders may now feel more enabled to NOT to take action to revoke the church membership of someone who has entered into a gay marriage, I am doubtful many local leaders will actually follow that path. I think we may occasionally see such a lack of action to withdraw church membership in cases where the gay person simply stops coming to church anyway. In fact, many inactive straight members of the church engage in conduct (such as living with lovers outside of marriage) that can technically put their church membership in jeopardy. But local leaders do not always seek them out to take action against them (i.e., revoke their church membership) if such church members have simply stopped attending church. So I can see something similar happening (or, better said, NOT happening) with inactive church members who have entered into gay marriages as well. Since the February 2020 handbook update, local leaders may feel like they have permission to leave such people alone, rather than seeking them out to commence withdrawing their church membership.

That being said, until doctrinal change occurs, I think it will remain exceptionally rare for a local leader to allow a person who is attending church and who enters into a gay marriage, to continue to attend church without having their membership withdrawn or restricted in some way – because even under the updated General Handbook, gay marriage is still defined as sexual immorality for which a membership council may be “necessary” (see Section 38.6.5 here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title_number102 ). As evidence of that approach by local leaders sadly being a common reality, I know of many married gay couples who were attending church and had their church memberships involuntarily withdrawn in 2021.

Another level of compromise is this: in addition to allowing married gay couples to simply retain church membership as discussed above, perhaps gay couples could marry in the temple for “time only” (i.e., just for this life), rather than for “time and all eternity.” Temple marriage for “time only” was allowed until May 2021 in the situation where a man and a woman were each already sealed to a spouse who was deceased (https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presidency-discontinues-time-only-marriages-in-the-temple ). In that context, a church-approved marriage that could never lead to a temple sealing was allowed – and could be entered into within the walls of a sacred temple. I would weep with joy to see a change like that in the context of gay marriage. Even if gay couples couldn’t be married for eternity under current doctrine, it would still be a wonderful progression to see the church formally condone such marriages as healthy relationships for gay people in this life – and to allow those marriages be performed in the temple.

Either of these changes – accepting gay marriage for “time only,” in or out of the temple, without loss of church membership – would only require the church to update its General Handbook again to proactively say gay couples are allowed.

However, that’s all I want to say about the possibility of church-approved gay marriages for “time-only” – because my heart yearns for full doctrinal equality for everyone. I see how much LGBTQ individuals contribute in positive ways to the human race and am in awe of their amazing examples of love and caring here on earth. Heaven just doesn’t feel right to me if I have to think of it as a place where gay couples are separated from their spouses. And since this book is all about me expressing my feelings so people can understand better the pain and hope of a Dragon Dad in the church, I feel like shooting for the stars by discussing gay temple sealings.

Another reason a change in the church’s position against marriage equality in our doctrine may be slow in coming is because church leaders are worried about sealing here on earth something that shouldn’t be sealed in heaven. Referring to the sealing power, Jesus said to Peter “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matthew 16:19; Doctrine & Covenants 132:7; Helaman 10:7). Without knowing for sure whether gay couples can be present in heaven, or if they will be able to spiritually procreate, church leaders might not want to make a mistake by sealing them here on earth, since, according to that scripture, any such sealing would have eternal effect. However, I wonder if that worry grossly underestimates the sealing power suggested by scripture. I wonder if truly whatever we bind on earth through the sealing power, God will honor and keep bound in heaven. Maybe God is telling us through His words in scripture that those who have the sealing power are endowed with broad discretion about who they are allowed to seal – discretion that could be extended to the sealing of gay couples.

In any event, what I don’t think many church members realize is that many unrelated men have already been sealed together. Until 1894, many men and women were sealed to General Authorities with whom they shared no biological/familial connection (https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_87.pdf ). And many men who were not related to each other in any way were also sealed to one another directly (in a father-son relationship) as well under the “law of adoption” (https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1625&context=byusq ). The LGBTQ community tried to use the law of adoption doctrine to further its cause a few decades ago:

“There is no evidence to suggest that homosexual sex was involved as part of the original practice of the law of adoption in the 19th century. However, beginning in the 1970s, some members of Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons began to suggest that the leadership of the church should restore the law of adoption in order to allow same-sex couples to be sealed to each other in the temple in a kind of quasi-celestial marriage. It has been argued that this would preserve the primacy of heterosexual marriage but would allow an ecclesiastical equivalent of homosexual civil unions—a homosexual ecclesiastical union. The church did not respond directly to these suggestions.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_adoption_(Mormonism) )

While these are not strong arguments as historical precedents for gay sealings, such past (and now abandoned) sealing practices in the church nevertheless make me wonder whether the doctrine of sealing has more to do with uniting separate families as a whole human family, eventually uniting all of humanity together, through priesthood and sacred covenants, rather than solely binding individuals as romantic couples. Various Latter-day Saint scholars have suggested similar lines of thought (https://interpreterfoundation.org/news-an-invitation-to-thank-dr-richard-bushman/ ).

The church itself even recognizes that the way Joseph Smith taught the doctrine of sealing was more expansive than how it is currently taught today – and that might be one of the possible reasons why Joseph Smith was sealed to up to 14 women who were married to other living men. (Note that some of Joseph’s marriages were religious in nature without romantic sexual activity; it’s not clear whether these sealings were in that category.) The intention of these sealings may have been to create eternal bonds between families, not just between himself and each woman (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo ). To me, these historical sealing practices show how a door could be opened to expand current sealing policies to include gay couples in the future. The church wouldn’t have to teach something new per se – it could instead just point to what was done in the early days of the church and say that the spirit of the early sealing practices allows us to think about sealing more broadly than we currently do.

An interesting sealing practice that is actually done today could possibly also serve as a door to expand sealing policies for gay couples. When a deceased woman was married to more than one man over the course of her life, and if all the parties are presently deceased, the church’s current policy is to seal the woman to all of the men to whom she was married during her life:

“Deceased women married more than once. You may have a deceased woman sealed to all men to whom she was legally married. However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased before she can be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during life.”

(https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/members-guide-to-temple-and-family-history-work/chapter-7-providing-temple-ordinances )

If each of those sealings has eternal effect, then there will be a situation where one woman will be eternally living in marriage with multiple husbands. But I’m not aware of any church leader who has taught about that heavenly scenario (where a woman has multiple husbands forever) being even remotely possible. In fact, no one actually knows how that situation will play out in heaven.

Why is the church okay with the eternal ambiguity of that situation – just letting God sort it out in the afterlife - but not okay with sealing two men (or two women) in marriage? Why can’t we just let God correct that situation too if it turns out gay couples aren’t supposed to be sealed? I think the present injustice and pain suffered by a living gay couple not being able to be sealed is more pressing than that of a dead woman being sealed posthumously to her multiple husbands. Yet church doctrine allows God to undo a sealing for that dead woman if she ends up having a superfluous number of husbands sealed to her - but for some unknown reason, current doctrine can’t contemplate God being able to undo the sealings of gay and lesbian couples if those are deemed similarly superfluous as well. I don’t think that logical inconsistency in doctrinal reasoning is God’s fault. Rather, I suspect that logical failing exists because God can’t force us to be more inclusive of LGBTQ people here and now than we want to be. I think God knows we have to overcome our biases on our own, and then He will reveal expanded doctrine that makes more sense.

Because marriage between same-gender spouses is not specifically prohibited in the Bible, in any other book of Latter-day Saint scripture, or by the family proclamation – and because there are ways to imagine doctrinal change occurring within existing theological frameworks and expanded temple practices - I can imagine a future day when God opens the minds and hearts of our prophets and apostles to reveal a doctrinal clarification to them that allows for gay temple marriage. That would be consistent with our beliefs that God continually reveals truth line upon line and that He will “yet reveal many great and important things” pertaining to His kingdom (Article of Faith 9).

Even though change is possible doctrinally, some likely reasons that change hasn’t occurred yet might be:

• A change like that may be viewed as a negative reflection on the credibility of our church leaders as prophets and apostles. Our leaders don’t want to risk hurting people’s faith in them.

• Some of our leaders might have grown accustomed to using the rallying cry against LGBTQ equality as a convenient way to energize church members – inadvertently feeding off of our collective homophobia to unite us in a “just” cause. It may be that the zealousness of such rallying efforts is making it harder for those leaders to reverse course now.

• Some of our leaders may be hesitant to lose the support of other conservative churches. Our church is part of a conservative political movement against many LGBTQ rights, and some of our leaders may not want to lose the benefits that come from being part of a large coalition.

For those reasons, I would be incredibly surprised to see such a change happen any time before it is either essentially imposed on the church by outside forces (see Chapter 8), or until the teenagers of today grow up to become the prophets and apostles leading the church in the future.

That doesn’t mean I don’t suspect some of the apostles who are currently alive might wish gay marriage were allowed in the church (although I would never expect them to say so publicly because church leaders always like to maintain an image of unanimity in public). I actually think it likely there are robust discussions happening about marriage equality among the apostles and the First Presidency. When my parents were called to preside over a couple hundred young missionaries in Tennessee in 1999, our entire family had the opportunity to meet with an apostle when my parents were set apart (a ritual to formally bless a person to carry out a specific calling or responsibility). Our meeting with the apostle occurred in a room in a church office building in Salt Lake City that, upon entering, he described as the “war room” because it was where the apostles and/or First Presidency met regularly when they are not otherwise meeting in the temple together. He explained that there are often intense and vigorous (but respectful) discussions where differences of opinion are debated on many topics in those meetings. He also explained that a decision to take action on any topic wasn’t made unless there was unanimity among the First Presidency and all the other apostles.

But we should avoid presuming that unanimity of thought among the apostles exists just because the church has formally declared a position on gay marriage. There are reports in biographies of past apostles of robust debates that transpire among the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-12-03-me-923-story.html%3f_amp=true). And when apostles are called, they are charged to support whatever the majority of the apostles desire and to publicly portray complete unanimity:

“Later, the president gave me what is known as the “charge to the apostles.” That charge included a commitment to give all that one has, both as to time and means, to the building of the Kingdom of God; to keep himself pure and unspotted from the sins of the world; to be obedient to the authorities of the church; and to exercise the freedom to speak his mind but always be willing to subjugate his own thoughts and accept the majority opinion—not only to vote for it but to act as though it were his own original opinion after it has been approved by the majority of the Council of the Twelve and the First Presidency.” (Hugh B. Brown, Apostle, Hugh B. Brown and Edwin B. Firmage (ed.), An Abundant Life, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, pages 126-127; https://www.google.com/amp/s/prophetsseersandrevelators.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-calling-of-an-apostle/amp/, 1965)

It may be the case that no change in doctrine about it will occur for many, many years, until several of the current apostles – maybe even all of them – pass away. But I could be wrong – because the reversal of the racial priesthood/temple ban happened even though an apostle who had published incredibly racist teachings to justify the ban was still alive at the time. To his credit, he immediately minimized all his prior teachings on the subject:

“Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.” (Bruce R.McConkie, Apostle, https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Blacks_and_the_Priesthood , 1978)

Based on several accounts, it seems clear that the prophet at the time, Spencer W. Kimball, really wanted to make the change (perhaps encouraged by the desires of most church members, outside social pressures or worries over government retribution against the church, as I’ll discuss further in Chapter 8). Often, official “unanimity” among church leaders (including at the local levels) is expected (and therefore given) whenever the presiding leader states that his strongly held view is the result of divine revelation. So when President Kimball spoke in those terms, the rest of the apostles quickly fell in line and supported him, even though that meant some of them might face some personal public embarrassment over their past teachings.

However, even if a current apostle who is perhaps LGBTQ- friendly becomes prophet someday, I am not sure whether that alone will be enough for doctrinal change to occur – because I believe the prophet may only have the “real intent” (Moroni 10:4) necessary to receive new revelation on a topic when he is personally confident that the majority of church members are ready to embrace the change. This is different from how Jesus implemented change during His mortal ministry. He did not wait for the majority of the Sadducees and Pharisees to be ready for change when He taught them His radical message of love. And it is different from the way Joseph Smith revealed new doctrines and principles as well. He was constantly revealing adjustments and new, radical thoughts. But ever since Joseph’s death, many subsequent prophets in the church have seemed to take on, as their primary responsibility, the role of a reliable steward; someone who protects and encourages deeper living of what has already been revealed, rather than someone who helps facilitate new, radical changes in doctrine. When it comes to the idea of allowing marriage equality in the church, I personally think the general population of the church isn’t sufficiently open-minded enough to prevent such a change from “shaking their faith.” That may not happen for another generation or two yet, at least. And so until that time comes, whomever is serving as the prophet may be consciously or unconsciously hindered in having sincere intent when asking God about changes in the doctrines affecting our LGBTQ siblings in the church.

I don’t know what will happen, obviously. But I do know that it hurts my heart as a father deeply, to be familiar enough with the history, doctrine and theology of the church to be able to imagine a way change could happen, and then hear members of the First Presidency speak words in September and October 2019 that seem almost sure to delay and make change harder to come about, entrenching prejudice more deeply among the general church membership. Nevertheless, I remain committed to speaking up to promote awareness of LGBTQ suffering in the church, to embracing unconditional love instead of prejudice, and to remaining steadfast in my hope that the Lord will someday reveal needed change in the church.

Some ask whether the varying legality of gay sexual behavior around the world might be influencing the church’s approach to marriage equality under our doctrine, since it is a worldwide church. We continue to see headlines about more and more countries legalizing gay marriage. Pew Forum states that as of October 2019, “30 countries and territories have enacted national laws allowing gays and lesbians to marry, mostly in Europe and the Americas.” (https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/gay-marriage-around-the-world/0 ). But despite the growing acceptance of gay marriage around the world, it still remains prohibited in many countries. As of April 2019, there were 71 countries in the world where same-sex relations are illegal, according to Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.com/73-countries-where-its-illegal-be-gay-1385974 . It’s a fair question to ask whether church leaders might be worried that acceptance of marriage equality by the church would have a negative effect on the church’s image or its missionary work around the globe, or put church members in a difficult position if the laws of the land conflict with church policies.

While that is a fair question, I also believe it has an easy answer. The church has been very capable of convincing leaders of countries with laws that are different from those of the United States that the church believes in “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Article of Faith 12) wherever the church operates. Under those assurances, the church is able to send volunteers (not calling them missionaries) into countries where certain religious proselytizing is illegal. The church promises government leaders that those volunteers will only do charitable work within their borders, not try to gain religious converts. So I think the church could just as easily tell government leaders around the world that the church will not condone gay marriage among its members in any country where it remains illegal.

At the same time, the church does not condone laws that make gay sex illegal. To the contrary, the church has actively supported non-discrimination laws protecting gay couples

(https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us/politics/utah-passes-antidiscrimination-bill-backed-by-mormon-leaders.html ). Church leaders have also taught that showing love and respect for LGBTQ people (including those who are in gay marriages) is a doctrinal teaching that church members should follow (see Chapter 3). So the church’s formal doctrine is already more LGBTQ-friendly than the laws of many countries where the church operates. This includes countries in which the church is currently growing rapidly, such as Nigeria and Uganda

(https://www.amnesty.org.uk/lgbti-lgbt-gay-human-rights-law-africa-uganda-kenya-nigeria-cameroon ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_in_Nigeria ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_in_Uganda ), and other countries in the Americas in which the church has operated for a long time, such as Bolivia and Paraguay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_Americas ).

As long as gay marriages among church members are only condoned by the church in countries where marriage equality is legal, I don’t think the church allowing for gay marriage in our theology will have much of a negative effect on the church’s image or its missionary work around the globe. Sure, some prospective converts in countries with homophobic laws or cultures may not be interested in learning more about the church if they discovered it supported gay marriage elsewhere. But, based on the fact that many people in those countries are joining the church currently, even though church leaders have supported certain laws that protect the rights of gay couples in the U.S., I don’t think those prospective homophobic converts would pay too much attention to the church’s position outside their own country. So if the church continued to teach it was a sin to have sexual relations outside of a legal marriage, people who morally oppose gay marriage in any country where it remained illegal could still take comfort in the fact that the church taught that gay marriage was a sin within their borders. I think that is the main thing such prospective converts will care about on this issue.

Thinking of the cruelty of laws in other countries that affect our LGBTQ siblings makes my heart ache. It is a horrible shame that, just for trying to experience loving companionship and natural human intimacy, or just for coming out as LGBTQ, they need to worry about their liberty or physical safety, in addition to worrying about harmful church teachings and their church membership status. I know LGBTQ people in the U.S. and in other countries worry about their safety in certain contexts as well (and I don’t want to discount that fear), but I feel a keen sense of sorrow for the LGBTQ people in countries where the law upholds violence or imprisonment against them, just for being who they are. I am grateful the church does not subjugate its doctrine to the imperfect laws of any country, even though we believe in obeying such laws when under their jurisdiction.