Really! Seth and Amy? Really!?!

on 23 September 2009

Two Weeks ago, Alan had a great post about Marriage sanitizing the “Sin” of homosexuality If you haven’t read it, stop and read it now.

Are you back yet? Good.

Today, while deciding which apartment to choose for the next couple of months, I decided to sit on a park bench and pray about it like I had been doing the past few days. After the prayer I put in my headphones and decided to listen some music. Well as I listened to these songs a combination of my prayers for answers, the second song, and a line from the movie “Contact” convalesced into the missing piece about Alan’s post that I had been struggling to vocalize. I had found the proof to back up the internally known concept of sanitization that applies not only to monogamy and polygamy as Alan pointed out, but in other abominable relationships as well.

My mind, upon hearing the song “Lost in the Wilderness” started thinking about Cain, that led me to a quote from Contact about how as a little girl in Sunday School she asked too many questions like “Who was Cain’s Wife.” Well IDK if Cain even had a wife but I followed that with. Who was Seth’s wife? He had to have a wife because we exist. Eve, the Mother of all life, was the first woman and so A follows B that Seth married his sister (I like to call her Amy) and that is how we came to pass.

While researching this, I discovered that Abraham also married a close relative. Sarah, his wife, was also his half-sister. Now both of these are odd because we are told today that that is a sin, that that is abomination. And yet, was Seth not the father of many people? Abraham was not cursed for being an abomination; he was blessed with a great posterity. Didn’t the grandchildren of Noah have to intermarry amongst their cousins if not their sisters? And yet they were blessed and honored with the priesthood?

If these were such abominable acts in the eyes of the Eternal Law, then how were these men Prophets? I can only perceive of two answers:
1. The Law of the Eternal Eternities that governs our Heavenly Father allows for various forms of relationships within the covenant of marriage.
2. The Law of the Eternal Eternities that governs our Heavenly Father allows for understanding and exceptions to the Law under trying circumstances.
If you can see other possibilities for this please point them out.

If it is answer 1, then could it not be possible that the same legal rite of marriage that allows a man to marry his sister, half sister, cousin or multiple women could be extended to homosexuality? Could it not be that the LORD in HIS omnipotent wisdom focuses on the family, and the strength that it has in bringing forth a righteous generation and so the key part is righteous relationships, not gender?

If it is answer 2, then isn’t homosexuality a powerful exception? Isn’t a set of circumstances beyond our control, that leaves us open to the constant pull of Satan - as he tries to get us into each other’s pants - with no sanitizing marriage in sight, being guided to live our lives without the quintessential Mormon keystone of family an appropriate exception? I believe so. How about you?

Regardless of which decision, I believe that either 1. There is more to be seen or 2. I have to ask. “Really! Seth and Amy? Really!?!”

4 comments:

Bravone said...

Interesting thought process. One issue, that obviously differentiates the examples you cited from homosexual marriage, is the potential under those examples for procreation to occur. It seems that God allowed such activities to occur more out of necessity than anything, at least that is my assumption.

Regardless of one's religious views, one aspect of opposition to gay marriage that is lost on me, is why more opponents don't see that allowing gay marriage would hopefully create greater commitment and stability within the gay community just as it supposedly does within the straight community.

One would think that marriage would foster greater commitment, less promiscuity, reduced STDs, etc., all things that should strengthen society.

I am a strong believer of the family being the basic unit of society. I do believe that under ideal circumstances, children should be better off raised by a mother and a father. Each has specific innate roles and traits to offer children, but the ideal circumstances don't always occur for various reasons. Two loving same sex parents are certainly better than many dysfunctional heterosexual partners.

Just my thoughts.

Good to be Free said...

I had a conversation with my Grandma yesterday, it was respectful, but we disagreed on this point. In her opinion and I'm sure the vast majority of member's is that somehow a uterus is essential for the creation of future spirit children in the eternities. That spirits will be born out of a celestial uterus? I don't know what scriptural basis there is for this. I have never read anything, so I think it is more of a cultural attitude. My point to her is that I refuse to assume that we have received all of the light and knowledge possible on the subject and that in the meantime we should be encouraging people to live the best lives that they can, including honest, committed, and enduring same-sex relationships.

Sean said...

The conclusions I think are sound. It is the arrogance of humanity, especially those in the religious world, to presume God only works one way. It is my belief that with an eternal perspective there is more than one kind of family. What about single parents, other kinds of family units? Are we to be so blinded by the notion that other kinds of families are unsuccessful or not acceptable in the sight of Heavenly Father? In my near 30 years living I have learned that God seldom only works one way.

Alan said...

@Chris:

Your grandma's attitude is, in my experience, the prevailing assumption throughout the church. The logic being: exalted resurrected people with procreative powers will have the same bodies they had on earth (perfected), which should therefore work the same way, including the way babies are made. I think this idea is particularly powerful for the sisters, who are taught all their lives that their greatest role ever will be as a mother, and for whom the bio functions of those organs and processes have as big a psycho/spiritual impact as the testosterone and drives and external "equipment" have for the guys. So the idea that spirit children creation is different from earthly children creation would probably strike them as nearly incomprehensible.

As a practical matter I think most of what we have yet to learn about how the eternities work is also incomprehensible to us right now, so I'm not saying I agree with your grandma. Just that I understand the perspective, given current knowledge and cultural background.

But I also think intellectual honesty requires her to acknowledge that she's going simply on assumptions and analogies, and that ultimately we just don't know how it'll work.

Post a Comment