Dreamed to be Complete

Part of receiving my diploma means announcing my engagement to Michael! We are to be married in June in Cape Cod! I'm so excited! We have been together since early November, 2007, not too long after I started this blog. I don't know who's still reading this blog--I assume most of you are people who know me, and so this won't come as a surprise. For those of you that don't know me in person or who haven't heard the news yet, surprise!

I have found that there is no greater fulfillment than the fulfillment of companionship. My relationship and all of its ups and downs have made me a better person. To willfully deny someone the opportunity to experience this or to pursue it is cruel. To those of you who are unsure of your path or who haven't decided where to go, I advise you to try to find a companion. I realize that everyone's needs and personalities are different. Celibacy may satisfy some. But there is something wonderful and beautiful about romantic companionship that you cannot get any other way. Life isn't perfect. The honeymoon wore off a while ago. But at the end of the day, I have a better half that seems to make up for all of my shortcomings. At the end of the day, I have someone to hold and to love and to cherish. I have someone else to worry about and plan for and hope for and encourage and inspire. It's not about me, anymore, it's about us, and that makes me a better person.

Like the Women I See on their 30th Anniversaries

Has anyone else ever noticed that those who oppose gay marriage in an effort to supposedly "defend" marriage usually end up demeaning and cheapening marriage? To prevent gay couples from marrying, they have to create a definition of marriage that excludes same sex couples and justify that exclusive definition. In the process, I've noticed a tendency to make marriage sound very shallow.

For example, how many times have you heard someone say that marriage is for procreation? They don't mean sex, because gay couples have sex, they mean birthing children. Really? So you two got married because you wanted to create offspring? That's the reason? Don't get me wrong, I think it is a very noble thing to have children, but if that is the only reason for marriage, then why don't we arrange marriages or treat them like business arrangements? Can you imagine? "Your a good looking person, let's get married and have children because I bet we'd have good children." In fact, why even have sex? Let's just use invitro technology. Since that's the purpose of marriage after all- it's just to get pregnant.

Here's another example. Marriage is between a man and a woman because that's what's good for society. Really? You two got married because you thought it would improve society. How selfless! (cough, and arrogant). Ok then, let's revert back to the time when that was correct. It will be good for society if these two political families are united. Let's make their kids marry each other. You know what? I want my posterity to inherit a lot of property. They'd do good things with it- they'd give generously to charity. I'll have my daughter marry a Huntsman.

I'm sorry, but when you're at a fancy dinner celebrating someone's 30th wedding anniversary, you're not talking about how good their marriage is for society or how wonderful it was that they were able to conceive lots of children. You don't talk about how great it was that they obeyed their mission president and got married to fulfil the commandments. Why? Because that's not what marriage really is. If that was marriage, then marriage is cheap, and frankly it ought to be destroyed.

What do you talk about at the anniversary? You talk about their love. You talk about their relationship. You talk about the vows they made to each other. You talk about how remarkable and admirable it is that they've been faithful to their vows. You talk about the children they've raised and the accomplishments of those children. You make a joke about what they can do now their children are out of the house. Wink wink. Because that's what marriage really is. That's the stuff of substance--of value. And because you know that you can't in good concious deny that to gay couples--because you know they are capable of having all that stuff of substance, you have to take it out of marriage to exclude them, and that is not defending marriage. It is demeaning it.

For the Mormons, the sin is twice as bad. They have two additional things of substance to add to the definition of marriage, and to take it away from their definition so they can exclude gay couples is shameful. For the Latter-day Saint, marriage is also about beautiful covenants and a supposedly infinite, awesome power to seal that has been given to man by God. There is no reason gay couples can't make the same covenants, nor is there a reason that the sealing power couldn't be extended to them. It's what makes families formed by adoption in the Church every bit as significant as those formed through sexual conception. In theory it really is beautiful. To say that two men can't be sealed by that power is to limit and to therefore demean that power. To say that marriage isn't about covenants and sealing power, for a Latter-day Saint, is really to not understand marriage, and that demeans it.

How much better off would the institution of marriage be if the evangelical were to proclaim, "Marriage is about companionship and family. I love my wife. She is the world to me, and I can't imagine a world without her. Likewise I love the children we've raised. They're good kids. I've learned more from them than they've learned from me. That's why I support gay marriage. I want everyone who can find it to experience this love, this commitment, this family, this marriage."? How much better off would the institution of marriage be if the Mormon were to declare, "I married my wife because I love her and because I want to be with her forever. We've taught our children to make covenants and be faithful to them because we know that the companionship, dedication, and love that we learn in families make us closer to and more like God. That's why we support gay marriage. We want everyone who can find someone to love to be able to become like God through the sacrifices and blessings of marriage and parenthood. We don't think that man was meant to be alone, and we believe that man should have joy. Marriage has brought us joy, and we believe it can bring them joy too."?

I hope the world where I can hear those proclamations is not too far away.

Black and White's Not Always as Simple as it Seems

"Here's the key principle. Society gives benefits to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society. And therefore the burden of proof has to be on the advocates of same-sex marriage to demonstrate that homosexual relationships benefit society. Not just benefit the individuals who participate but benefit society in the same way and to the same degree that heterosexual marriage does. And that's a burden that I don't think they can meet."
(Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council)

I believe that Same Sex Marriage will not only benefit society in the same way and to the same degree as Opposite Sex Marriage, but that Same Sex Marriage will offer something good to society that Opposite Sex Marriage cannot provide. Here are three benefits of gay marriage:

1. Gay couples provide an example for unity, equality, and compromise within marriage because they share tasks differently.
   
   Because it's impossible for two people of the same sex to rely on traditional gender roles within a marriage, gay couples are by nature more creative in how they divide up tasks. Their circumstances are likely to create a relationship in which both parters are equal. Society will benefit by learning how to foster equality within marriage.


2. Marriage makes people more productive. The more people are married, the more productive society becomes.
   
   Marriage is good for individuals, and what is good for individuals is good for society. If people are happier, more successful, and more stable in their personal lives, it will improve the quality of life for everyone in the community. Besides, married partners care for each other. If a gay person cannot care for himself, and his partner isn't allowed to care for him, then society is responsible for him. Equipping gay people with the ability to care for each other alleviates society of a burden it would otherwise have to shoulder.
   


3. Gay couples provide healthy, nurturing homes for orphaned, abandoned, or abused children.
   
   There are so many children who are born into or thrust into circumstances where they don't have a family to care for them. Heterosexuals cannot meet all of their needs. Foster care is an overburdened system. We need more families that can adopt children, and sanctioning gay marriage will do just that.
   

So I will gladly welcome the burden of proof for how gay marriage will benefit society, because I know that it will.

Patience, Little Brother

I think you'll find this NY Daily News article interesting. Basically the author points out how the Vermont law legalizing gay marriage is better at protecting religious freedom because it went through the legislature than if it had simply gone through the State Supreme Court.

For me, this provides a new approach that we could take with those who oppose gay marriage because of concerns over loosing their religious freedoms (despite the fact that freedom of religion is pretty much irrevocably enshrined in the Constitution). We could approach those with those kinds of concerns by explaining that legalizing gay marriage through the legislature will actually help them.

I think it is evident that when State Supreme Courts legalize gay marriage, there is a lot of fear and backlash, and essentially no control over how gay marriage is implemented. I think the same would be true if DOMA was reversed and the Supreme Court permitted gay marriage because of the full faith and credit clause. I also think that it is evident that over time, the former, if not the latter, is almost inevitable at some point in the future.

If the religious right, then, wants control over when and how gay marriage is implemented in their state, then their best bet is to work across the aisle with gay marriage advocates to pass compromises in the legislature. For some states, this means Civil Union laws need to be passed. For others, it means that social conservatives could promise to back a gay marriage bill if that bill includes clauses addressing their concerns. It is possible for both sides to reach a solution, but it means we have to address fears and concerns instead of freaking out about them.

Now if only I could get people to listen to me.

All I Needed Was a Call that Never Came

On my way home from one of my classes today I was wondering what Joseph Smith would think about gay marriage. In jest, I thought to myself that he obviously didn't have a problem with alternate forms of marriage, seeing as he had as many as 33 wives and certainly asked others to practice polygamy. As I was laughing at the irony there, I suddenly realized that, at least according to information the Church presents, I was wrong. Joseph Smith did have a problem with non-Puritan forms of marriage. So much so that he reportedly accepted polygamy only at sword point.

“When that principle [of plural marriage] was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith … he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine” (President Joseph F. Smith, “Plural Marriage for the Righteous Only-Obedience Imperative-Blessings Resulting”, Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29).

Even Brigham Young said, "Some of these my brethern know what my feelings were at the time Joseph revealed the doctrine; I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin, knowing the toil and labor that my body would have to undergo;" (Qtd. in Brigham Young: American Moses by Leonard J. Arrington).

This made me wonder about how willing a Mormon prophet would be to change the definition (or allow for the evolution) of marriage. If these Mormon prophets had to be coerced by God to accept a form of marriage they found socially, emotionally, physically, and historically repulsive, then maybe the same would have to happen for a modern Church leader to accept gay marriage. I'm serious, bear with me here.

I feel like God Himself inspired me to accept gay marriage. It was hard at first, to reconcile that inspiration with what I had been taught, but I could do it because gay marriage was desirable to me intellectually and physically. But I could understand how someone who hated the thought of gay marriage so much and was so entrenched in the historical teachings of homosexuality that he wouldn't even be able to receive that inspiration I received. Maybe he just wouldn't be receptive to it, or maybe when it came it would be dismissed or fought against or even mistaken for Satanic influence. Maybe even the response could be "I'm not ready for this, God" or "We aren't ready for this."

The only thing, then, for me to wonder is why an Angel of God hasn't appeared before Thomas S. Monson with a sword to command him to endorse gay marriage yet. I mean, now would be the perfect time! (I think this summer might have been better, but I'll settle for now). I guess we all need to start praying that the sword bearing angel will come quickly and that Thomas S. Monson will heed his message.

Sung by Pioneers Who Pushed Westward Against an Unforgiving Wilderness

I am treading very carefully with this post because I know I will be touching very sensitive issues. I am not trying to offend active Latter-day Saints, nor am I trying to attack the Church. If you come away feeling angry towards Mormonism, then I hope it is because of your own feelings regarding the historical document I produce, and not my rhetoric. My point here is to explain to active Mormons that is possible to believe in and practice their faith without condemning homosexuality and gay rights.

Proposition 8 is certainly not the first time that the Church has been involved in politics, nor is it the first time that a prophet has stepped into a fight for equality deemed to be of epoch proportions. President Brigham Young, revered as prophet by Latter-day Saints, was the chief executive of Utah Territory. As governor and prophet, he said a lot of things on both politics and religion.

The following is from a speech by Governor Young in Joint Session of the Legislature, Feb. 5th 1852. I find it highly relevant in a day when we celebrate the first black president of the United States and in a day when the Utah legislature repeatedly rejects bills that would give gays only basic rights.

"Again to the subject before us; as to The men bearing rule; not one of the children of old Cain, have one partical of right to bear Rule in Government affairs from first to last, they have no buisness there. this privilege was taken from them by there own transgressions, and I cannot help it; and should you or I bear rule we ought to do it with dignity and honour before God. . .

. . . Therefore I will not consent for one moment to have an african dictate me or any Bren. with regard to Church or State Government. I may vary in my veiwes from others, and they may think I am foolish in the things I have spoken, and think that they know more than I do, but I know I know more than they do. If the Affricans cannot bear rule in the Church of God, what buisness have they to bear rule in the State and Government affairs of this Territory or any others? . . .

. . . [T]he Africans are Citizens, . . . It is our duty to take care of them, and administer to them in all the acts of humanity, and kindness, they shall have the right of Citizenship, but shall not have the right to dictate in Church and State matters. The abolishonists of the east, have cirest them them, and. their whol argument are callculated to darken Counsel, as it was here yesterday. As for our bills passing here, we may lay the foundation for what? for men to come here from Africa or else where; by hundreds of thousands. When these men come here from the Islands, are they going to hold offices in Government No. It is for men who understand the knowlege of Government affairs to hold such offices, and on the other make provisions for them to plow, and to reap, and enjoy all that human beings can enjoy, and we protect them in it. Do we know how to amilerate the condition of these people? we do. Supose that five thousands of them come from the pacific Islands, and ten or fifteen thousands from Japan, or from China, not one soul of them would know how to vote for a Government officer, they therefore ought not in the first thing have anything to do in Government afairs.

What the Gentiles are doing we are consenting to do. What we are trying to do to day is to make the Negro equal with us in all our privilege. My voice shall be against all the day long. I shall not consent for one moment I will will call them a counsel. I say I will not consent for one moment for you to lay a plan to bring a curse upon this people. I shall not be while I am here."
(Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated Feb. 5, 1852, located in the LDS Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah. Emphasis mine.)

What would President/Governor Young have thought about President Obama? That's a subject for a whole other conversation. My point now is this: Mormon's reconcile the above statement. They don't loose any sleep over it. I don't care how they do it, it really doesn't matter. They may say that in this speech he was speaking as the Governor and not as the Prophet, and therefore these words are not binding on the Church or its members. They may say that these are just his opinions and do not constitute revelation or the Word of God. They may say that Brigham Young was just a product of his time and that these sentiments were shared by most if not all Americans in 1850.

However you reconcile it is your business; my point is simply that you have to reconcile it to be Mormon. You just have to. And if you can somehow disapprove with the message of this speech and reconcile it with your belief that Brigham Young was a prophet, can you not do the same with Thomas Monson's fight against gay rights?

Church leaders and LDS politicians are saying the same thing now that Brigham did then. They are saying that gays should be treated with dignity and respect, but that they shouldn't be equal. They shouldn't participate in Church. They shouldn't have their unions sanctioned by the State. They brought this curse on themselves through their own decisions. Gay rights advocates in the east have their whole argument calculated by Dark Counsel--It's Satan's subtle plan to overthrow the family. Let's not pass bills that would attract them and make them come to Utah. We certainly cannot through our silence let secular America make gays are equals. We must and will stand up and fight in the ballot box and in the legislature and in the media.

It's the same thing going on! And if you are active in the LDS faith, I implore you to please disagree with this hateful anti-gay rhetoric. Don't stand for it. Don't put up with it. You can still keep your faith. You have already had to reconcile this once before, you can do it again.

We can put this whole thing in a vault in Salt Lake City and pretend that the Church never preached it! And I'm fine with that. Let's do it. Let's hide everything the Church has said about homosexuals and have the anti-Mormons dig it up for their pamphlets and let Church members scoff and say, "I don't care what you say, I have my faith and I know that's not true." I beg you all to please, usher in that day when the Church will be embarrassed prop 8 ever happened. That day is going to come when the active membership of the Church reconciles what is happening now but doesn't approve. It's going to happen when people who believe in equality don't leave the Church, but instead keep their faith. So, if that's you, thanks. Unfortunately I doubt I will be one of the ones making that day happen.

Then You Go And Cut Me Down

I love this comic so much because it describes a very real awkwardness in a lighthearted way. There is an awkwardness in what the Church currently offers homosexuals. If you strip away all the emotion of prop 8 and all the personal turmoil and history you may have and just look at what the Church offers to those that are already living a gay lifestyle, its kinda funny. We talk so much about gays who grow up in the Church and who must make extensive sacrifices--but what of those who grow up as Unitarians in LA, fall in love and marry in Boston, and raise a family there? What about those good people, established in their homes and families, who answer the door and find two Mormon missionaries?

To be baptized, they would need to get divorced. Who takes the kid(s)? If they believed in the Church, but decided not to get divorced, then they are told they will be angelic, but ministering, servants of others whose marriage is more holy than theirs. How awkward is that? No wonder the Church took such a strong stance on proposition 8. The more secure, stable, and common gay families become, the more awkward and obvious this situation is.

I think then, that it is fair to say that the Church doesn't want to recruit these gay families. The Church doesn't want them to join the Church. It's message is certainly not enticing to them, and the process to join is not possible without destroying their family.

It reminds me of something an old man in Glendale told me while I was on my mission. He said that when he was a missionary in the 60's, he was taught not to teach African Americans because they couldn't hold the priesthood or go to the temple and it wasn't time to bring them the gospel yet. He was taught that if a black man or woman answered the door, he was to say, "Oh excuse me, I thought this was the Jone's house," and the person at the door would smile and say, "Oh no, they live three doors down." There weren't really Jone's three doors down, but this was the way to avoid a conflict or awkward situation.

Is this how missionaries in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Canada, Spain, etc. are trained now in relation to gay families? I can really understand why the Church would be so afraid of gay marriage. And yet, I can also see how the Church has really fenced itself into a corner on this one. At some point, gay marriage will be established in major places of the world, and the Church will be missing a major group of people that it could proselyte to. There will be a large group of people to whom the Church will not be able to bring its gospel.

But that's just it. All the evidence says that the Church doesn't want to bring the gospel to those people. It's an interesting train of thought to consider. And it does beg the question, what are the implications of this thought on gays who grow up in the Church? Does the Church want gay members at all?

Do you want to get married, or run away?

In the March 21 edition of the "YNEWS" here at BYU, Joseph Hadfield reports, "New research shows that happily married adults have lower blood pressure than singles with supportive social networks." This new study shows not only that being happily married is better for your health than being happily single, but "that unhappily married adults have higher blood pressure than both happily married and single adults." This demonstrates that just being married isn't good enough, nor is just having a good supportive social network. There is something uniquely beneficial about being happily married.

It's interesting that this is the kind of study that makes the cover story of YNEWS. Clearly BYU values marriage and wants to find and support things that glorify marriage. It's all we talk about in Elder's quorum and hometeaching visits. Marriage is everywhere. I'm not opposed to that. I grew up in this Mormon-American culture which believes that marriage is the best route to take. So here's the problem. For me, being happily married means marrying a man.

I don't understand why all of a sudden the research is reversed for me because I am gay. I am constantly bombarded with this message, "Marriage is better for man than being single, unless you are gay, and then it is better to be celibate." I don't know how much of this message is created by my own projections, but still, it is getting old. I'm tired of it. Either get off the "MARRIAGE! MARRIAGE! MARRIAGE!" soapbox, or let me marry the person that I want to marry. I feel like they are rubbing salt into my wounds.

Beyond here and on to eternity

In my post yesterday, I mentioned the possibilities of using sealing power to seal two men together. At the time I was unaware of historical precedent for doing that. I now stand enlightened. Apparently (I would love confirmations on this) men have been sealed together by sealing authority in the Church under a principle called "The Law of Adoption." This is not the same as a homosexual union or marriage. Rather it was a way for two men (likely married to women) to enter into some sort of non-sexual, socially codependent relationship. Even still, the precedent opens up possibilities. It is possible to seal two men together with Priesthood authority.

Perhaps it would be different from exalted marriage, and therefore the eternal posterity would not come to those joined in this type of sealing. (solving the biggest doctrinal obstacle to the practice). I would imagine this fitting into our understanding of exaltation and the hereafter by resulting in two same gendered Celestial Angels sealed together. I'm ok being a Celestial Angel (still a God with divine power, but not a Heavenly Father). What I'm not ok with is being alone for eternity. Couldn't this reconcile that?

There is certainly historical precedence for men exercising creative powers together. Our world was created by Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael, for example (and both Jehovah and Michael were single and disembodied). Thus, a same gendered Godly couple could go around creating worlds. Maybe I'll let my straight God friends populate them for me . . .

Wickedness thrust upon them?

I should be doing homework, but Abelard Enigma posted the most beautiful, realistic, appropriate, well-rounded, fair, qualified, informed, and educated descriptions of the three options that Latter-day Saints with SSA face. Please read them.

Option 1 Mixed Orientation Marriage
Option 2 Celibacy
Option 3 A Homosexual Relationship

Reading these options and the well developed pros and cons of each one sent me down a thought path I'd like to share. What do I expect from the Church, and is it a reasonable expectation?

Personally, I expect the Church to one day find a healthy option for same-gender-attracted Latter-day Saints. I don't believe that mixed orientation marriages or celibacy (or suicide) are healthy options. I believe that same gender relationships, even marriages, are healthy options. I won't say it's the only option, in case my imagination isn't good enough, but I will say it is a healthy option.

Is it reasonable (doctrinally and socially) to expect the Church to sanction same sex relationships? I vote yes. In fact, I believe the Church has several resources that put it in more of a position to accept same gender marriages than other religions. Here they are:

1. Revelation. We claim the divine right to learn new doctrines that haven't previously been revealed. We can make changes. We have a fluidity that other Churches don't allow. Generally speaking, the members of the Church follow these revelations when the Prophets receive them.

2. Three books of scripture written for our day that don't condemn or warn against homosexuality. Seriously, if homosexuality is such a big problem, why doesn't the Book of Mormon warn us against it when it was written with our day in vision? Unlike other Churches which rely solely on one book of ancient scripture, we have books of both modern and ancient scripture. And I don't see any incompatibility with any of those books, even the Bible. I think a same gender marriage would work with the standard works.

3. Sealing power. We have the power to seal people together beyond mortality. Why can't it be a man and a man? We use the sealing power to unite a child to parents who aren't biologically theirs. Why can't we use the power to unite a homosexual family? We don't need genes and blood to create families, we just need love, covenants, and Priesthood authority. Let's not forget we have a history of unorthodox marriages that were sealed with this power. Now, it is God's power, and we must use it the way He wants it used, but if he could sanction it for sealing a man to twenty seven women, or to children that aren't his, I have a hard time understanding why God wouldn't want to seal two same gendered people together.

See? It's not impossible for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to accept homosexuality. I think it would work quite well. I hope and pray that one day the Church will do it. I wish it would be more progressive about it, but historically speaking it's not a progressive Church. A black man and a black woman couldn't be sealed together in the Temple until 1979. That's disgusting. I hope that one day a man and a man can be sealed together. And I hope that my children will say, "That's disgusting" when they think that it couldn't happen until 2027.

Love Unfeigned

"What if I was alright? What if I wasn't wound so tight? What if I had the balls to be bad? Would you still look at me like that? Would you be mad that I had held the old me back? Why can't I be somebody else? Somebody who isn't too cool to believe it's okay to be just me" (Bleu).

---

I started leaving Romulus a comment when I realized it was more of a post.

A few days after I came home from my mission, I went shopping with my brother, "Thomas." He is really my best friend. When we talk, it is amazing how similarly we think and yet we are different enough to let the conversations be provocative. Anyway, in the car ride home from this excursion, (and wow it was a fun excursion), I confided in him my fears about getting married. Suddenly I felt like that was my next step, but I knew that I wasn't ready for it. I had never had even as much as a relationship with a girl. (other than a somewhat short, hollow, non physical thing I had going with a girl in high school). On the other hand, Thomas has had great success with a girl whom he has been dating for two years. Their relationship is very deep. They're practically ready to elope. Anyway, I asked him how he had been able to make it work.

My brother started telling me about how he started dating her. There was competition. He described the challenges. He talked about all the schemes he came up with to get her to notice him. He talked about becoming her friend. He talked about how beautiful she was at prom. He talked about how deeply he was attracted to her- emotionally, mentally, and physically. Suddenly I was struck by this revelation. He worked HARD for that relationship. He invested everything into it. He tried so hard to make it work. He agonized over it, obsessed over it, loved it.

The reason I've never had a relationship like he has is because I've never even tried.

Why haven't I tried? That was when I realized I had never been attracted to girls. I have never wanted to put in the work for a girl because I've never wanted a girl. There was no driving motivation for me to do it. I thought I had been attracted to girls. I had pretended to be attracted to girls. I had pretended to work on a relationship. But it wasn't real.

My brother had something that I couldn't fake. He had something that was so real and yet mysterious to me. Something I couldn't have, no matter how much I had wanted to.

So what does that mean? Does it mean that I will never have it- will never love and never have loved? No. No. That's when I realized what I did have- what I had put work and investment into. Guys. I have worked really hard to make relationships work with guys. I may never have had a romantic relationship with a guy, but having something with guys has been important to me. It has been challenging. I have spent uncounted hours scheming ways to get guys to notice me. I have had to compete for it, but I have made such good friends. My attractions to guys is what has always driven me.

I think that this realization was the beginning of accepting who I am.

---

"Maybe I was too much. Maybe I'll take it down a notch. Maybe I'll have the guts to go mad. Maybe I'll mess me up real bad. Maybe I'll make you wish you had the old me back. Why can't I be somebody else? Somebody who isn't too cool to believe it's okay to be just me. What if I can't remember who I'm trying to be?" (Bleu).

Eternal Happiness

One of the reasons I love Mormonism is the spiritual blessings it gives to it's members. I love the Temple and the blessings bestowed in the Temple. I love the revelations and the concept of divine communication with God. I love living Prophets. I love Joseph Smith. The inspired man declared, "As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints" (D&C 121:33). God has indeed poured down knowledge from heaven upon the Latter-day Saints, but he's not done pouring. I believe that God will yet reveal important things pertaining to the eternal salvation and happiness of homosexual Latter-day Saints. In the mean time we need to make use with what we have. As we examine what God has already revealed generally about eternal salvation and eternal happiness, we can better understand what we need to do to experience these blessings.

As far as I'm concerned, Joseph Smith received one of the most significant revelations on Eternal Life in the history of this world. He saw in vision things that had never before been seen, including degrees of glory within Heaven. The promise made to him at the beginning of the vision applies to all of us.

"I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me . . . And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom . . . even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations . . . yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man" (D&C 75:5-10).

For ages to come the Lord will continue to reveal to His servants great things pertaining to His kingdom that have never before been revealed.

Included in that beautiful vision, the Prophet saw the Celestial Kingdom, the ultimate hope of all Latter-day Saints. Both the requirements for this Kingdom and the blessings of that Kingdom are clearly identified.

"They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized . . . and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power; And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, . . .They are they who are the church of the Firstborn. They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things— . . . Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God— Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. . . These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever. . . These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical" (D&C 76:50-70).

I think the excerpt speaks for itself, but I will emphasize that marriage is not a requirement for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom. Also, all members of the Kingdom are considered gods, the sons of God, and have all things in the presence of God forever. As far as I am concerned, that is eternal happiness.

Where does marriage fit into eternal life, then? Further revelation was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith. The Lord explained, "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a 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 an increase" (D&C 121:1-3). Within the Celestial Kingdom-- within eternal happiness, there are three degrees. The difference between the highest degree and the other two is that only in the highest degree is there "an increase." What is an increase? I believe that this refers to eternal posterity. To have children in the eternities, it takes a man and a wife. The same as here. This is not a surprise. I find it interesting that it is only one out of three parts of the Celestial Kingdom that will have an increase. Not necessarily 33% of celestial people, but there are two other levels within eternal happiness that don't have an increase.

In Joseph Smith's most controversial revelation, this notion of increase is developed more.

Those who do not marry an eternal companion in the Temple but who are married outside of the Temple "are not bound by any law [of marriage] when they are out of the world. Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. For these angels did not abide my law [of marriage]; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever" (D&C 132:15-17, emphasis added). (Though this is spoken to those who are married outside of the Temple, it is the closest thing I can find pertaining to single saints and so I will assume that the description applies to those who never marry).

In this description a different definition of "god" is used to denote a difference between a man and a woman united for eternity and a single person. Here the word "god" does not denote one of "the sons of God [of which] all things are theirs" as it did in section 76. Instead the word "god" in section 132 denotes those that "have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them" (D&C 132:20). In reference to Eternal Marriage, the blessings of godhood are that they continue (ie. increase- posterity) and that they have all power (including the procreative power, again, an eternal increase). "[T]hey shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever" (D&C 132:19).

In light of all that has currently been revealed, those who do not marry but are faithful to baptismal and Temple covenants, including homosexuals who choose not to marry, enter the Celestial Kingdom as gods in their saved condition, but do not have continuing seed or the power to procreate. They do have, however, eternal happiness. Those who do marry in the Temple pass by these gods and go on to create and inherit eternal posterity and creative power. They have an added happiness- that of posterity- that the others will never experience.

Understanding this helps me to make decisions and to feel like I have a part in the Plan of Salvation. At this stage in my life, eternal marriage sounds more like eternal hell. To be sealed to a woman would not be happiness for me- at least not now. And you know what? I'm ok with that. I'm ok with divine Angelic status. I think I would love being an Angel- I would find a lot of fulfillment as an Angel. Being single doesn't exclude me from the blessings of divinity promised by the Church. I can still inherit eternal life in the Celestial Kingdom and be happy forever. And who knows, maybe a revelation that allows two men to be sealed together- something that has never before been revealed- will one day be poured down from Heaven.