Sunday, February 15, 2009

Reconciliation: D&C 132

In order to prevent comments of self righteous indignation, I am going to go about this reconciliation in a different manner.

I will simply state two premises, a conclusion, the possible ways to refute the claim, and some tips on how to be successful in refuting. It is not my intention to put the burden of proof upon you but to get you to either think critically about what exactly is said within the 132nd section of the Doctrine & Covenants and/or to think critically about logic.

It should also be said that my reconciliation has nothing to do with my conclusion but with my second premise. Presently, I will not share my reasoning behind my second premise (as was the original intent of this post) -- I may later, but I want to see if there are others who see the same.

Again, this is not me saying, "I'm right unless you can prove me wrong" but "Let's practice our skills in logical discussion here."

  1. The only reason gays should not be allowed to be eternally sealed together is because of the belief that D&C 132 reveals that eternal heterosexual marriage is required for exaltation;
  2. D&C 132 does not actually reveal that eternal heterosexual marriage is required for exaltation (the belief is false).
  1. Gays should be allowed to be eternally sealed together.
To Refute:
  1. Logically prove that there is another reason why gays should not be allowed to be eternally sealed together; and/or
  2. Logically prove that D&C 132 actually does reveal that eternal heterosexual marriage is required for exaltation; and/or
  3. Logically prove that my logic is not sound.
Tips: (the first three tips are respective to the above 'To Refute' list)
  1. Proving this has the highest probability of success out of all three;
  2. a) Verses 23 & 24 explicitly define the means to exaltation and eternal lives; therefore, it would be recommended to prove that verses 23 & 24 are referring to eternal heterosexual marriage; b) The definition of "the law" is important;
  3. Search through the fallacies here and see if I am guilty of any;
  4. Do not be guilty of any of the aforereferenced [sic] fallacies in your proofs;
  5. Try proving all three in the 'To Refute' list;
  6. Don't post your proofs unless you are willing to have your proofs subject for proof, themselves;
  7. Don't be a smug, self righteous ass -- keep your proofs cold (without emotion) and purely logical, and there will be no problems.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. I've been to the temple and well...I'm trying to remember what "done" is speaking of that makes it so clear.

    And really, most - if not all - of what occurs/is said in the temple can be found in the scriptures.


    And let's not forget, done, that there was a time a black man could not be sealed in the temple to his wife.

  3. Now what Lisa is talking about is understandable.. for a person that is trying to remember what it was like. When was the last time you went? The beauty of eternal truths is that if we are long removed from them, even short term, then we forget them. Blacks couldn't receive the priesthood and consequently sealed, but now can. Gays can't be sealed, so.. they soon will be? FALLACY! If Andrew is so stuck on fallacy spewing and keeping in line with logic.

    I get what your saying in your other post, Andrew, about the whole remarrying thing for a needed help meet,the whole myriad of things a straight couple can do wrong, etc. But answer this; in an eternal spectrum, will a barren straight couple get descendants if worthy? How will a gay couple? How does a gay couple fit into eternal progression in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom?

    I know you're hurting. What I don't know is what is like to be you.. I simply don't. Period. But just because you are gay doesn't make you the expert of being gay, or an expert in psychology, or philosophy. It is like saying when I have a kid, I'll be an expert at being a father.. FALLACY.

  4. Read the Miracle of Forgiveness by Kimball. There's a great chapter on homosexuals in there. Lisa, if you don't remember anything, then it's time you go to the temple again. However, if you follow/believe teachings contrary to the Prophet, one isn't worthy of the temple. That's not just my opinion either. To honestly answer the interview questions you must not agree with teachings contrary to the church. That little fact will stop gays from entering the House of the Lord to be sealed.

    The Priesthood also has no power to do things contrary to the Plan of Salvation. Look up what that plan is. How could the Priesthood seal gays? It simply cannot and never will be able to.

    Also, about the prophet ever said that Africans will never receive the Priesthood. It was only stated that they had to wait on the Lord's time. With that being said, being black and acting black isn't a sin. Being gay and acting on that is.

    The church teaches that homosexuality is wrong. They teach that it's a sin. How in the world could one expect to enter in and get sealed? You cannot sin and fight openly against the church. It doesn't make sense. It never will.

    Again, read Spencer W. Kimball's book and go to the temple Lisa. Read the book of Leviticus. If you can refute all of these and change God's will then you will have some grounds to stand on.

  5. Oy. No, what I am saying is that things change, Josh.

    And I don't see where Andrew was ever claiming to be an expert. He's speaking from experience and from his own perspective. Give him a break, huh?

    Anthony: Ah, yes. The Miracle of Forgiveness on homosexuality. Just out of curiosity: do you believe that masturbation often leads to homosexuality, too?

    And uh, yeah. Many did. Look up some quotes, my man. There were some pretty horrible things said about blacks and the word "never" was used.

    And let's refrain from using the book of Leviticus, ok? Reading that in context would make many other things sins as well.

    I remember quite a bit about the temple. Hasn't been that long. I've a FIL who is a temple worker; he says we can talk about pretty much anything except the signs, keys, and tokens of the priesthood. So, please. Do tell. I'm serious. Beyond what has been said (and so much as been said throughout the years I'm at a loss for what to believe) I cannot remember anything that would make it absolutely, unequivocally clear that it will never happen.

    I've just come to a point in my life where I refuse to use absolutes. Sooner or later I'm proven wrong.

    I don't claim the ability to change God's will, but God's will does change and has changed.

  6. All of this talk of gay couples not fitting into the Celestial Kingdom or being contrary to the Plan of Salvation is based largely on assumption.

    It's true that based on our current understanding of the Plan the idea of an exalted same-sex couple seems discongruent and perhaps even heretical, but are we really so presumptuous as to claim that we know everything there is to know about the eternities? In my opinion that's the epitome of hubris.

    We assume, from the language of Section 132 and from the language of the temple and from statements of Church leaders, that exaltation (eternal increase--spiritual procreation) somehow echoes physical procreation and requires both a male and a female. We believe it impossible that a partnership of two males or two females could be qualified to be gods. But in all my study I've never found a single scripture or prophetic statement that provides even a glimpse at how things will work in the eternities, and I'm not willing to state, absolutely and without exception, that God's Plan contains no possibility of any coupling other than male-female.

    It's true that the prophets have spoken against homosexuality. Prophets have made many statements throughout the history of the world that have later been retracted. Policies change. Dogmas evolve. Only a few decades ago people were excommunicated simply for admitting a homosexual attraction. I won't claim that homosexual behavior will ever be seen as acceptable by the Church, but I also refuse to state absolutely that it never will.

    Many reasons have been suggested for withholding the priesthood from blacks. One that is given some credence is that initially the Church wasn't ready to be "integrated"--that prejudice was strong enough throughout the nation in the early days of the Church that the spread of the Gospel would have suffered if the Church was seen treating black people as equal to whites. Whether or not this theory holds any water, the same concept could conceivably be applied to the acceptance of homosexuality. How many people would leave the Church, or refuse to consider joining it, if it embraced homosexuality and gay marriage? How many would have left if it had done so 30 years ago? If homosexuality does fit into the Plan (and again, I'm not claiming it does) it might make sense that God would withhold that knowledge until the world was ready to receive it.

    All Andrew is doing here, as far as I can tell, is presenting an argument for how homosexuality could conceivably become accepted by the Church without contradicting previous revelation. He's not arguing that the Church should embrace gay marriage (I don't think--although I would assume he wouldn't be disappointed if it happened). He's simply suggesting that if it did, there would be no revision of scripture required--simply a revision of our interpretation of the scriptures we already have.

    The Church may never change. Or maybe it will. But to rip someone apart simply for suggesting that it could without contradicting its own scripture is ridiculous. To claim that such a suggestion amounts to a personal attack on one's beliefs is absurd. To adamantly insist that such a change could not and will not ever happen is to claim to know the mind and eternal purpose of God, and that's something I'll have no part of.

  7. As someone who has been to the temple, I don't see why the Church couldn't seal two people of the same gender together.

    I will say one thing though that I think you are leaving out. In order for the Church to sanction same sex unions, it first has to agree to gender equality. That is a whole lot harder to come by. The temple does make it clear that the genders are not equal, although they are more equal in the temple than in Church services. Think about it, where is the priesthood in a lesbian home?

    Sexism is the root of homophobia. Men who want to act like women are bad because being masculine is superior to femininity. To act as a woman should as is self-condescension. It is to make oneself inferior. For a woman to assume masculinity is to step out of line.

    Nothing in the D&C or Temple or Book of Mormon or even latter-day proclamation is really stopping Mormons from endorsing same sex unions. Sexism is.

  8. fkap: I've thought about this as well, and I think it's actually the strongest argument against gay marriage.

    Men have the authority; women must subjugate themselves to that authority. This is how a celestial relationship works. Gay couples are naturally missing this (two men having conflicting authority; two women having no authority); therefore, these relationships cannot be.

  9. And really, if you'll remember: women do perform priesthood ordinances in the temple.

  10. That's true, Lisa, and perhaps implies at the very least that women have the potential to serve as proxy priesthood holders when the situation merits.