I asked God if it was OK to bake eclairs
And he nodded his head as he
Brushed some crumbs from his beard.
I asked God if a guy could sing opera..
He said he didn’t really
Think that was too weird.
But God, I said (because I don’t always believe it the first time),
What if I paint my fingernails?
Is that too queer?
Should I hold hands with my dentist?
Can I do my bedroom bright yellow?
(his answer I feared.)
But God said, Dude. (he calls me that, sometimes)
As he sat down next to me to watch Glee,
The answer is
yes
yes
yes
(after the style of a poem by Kaylin Haught)
Wheat & Tares 
God, can I have sexual relations with my friend of the same gender?
No, because that breaks my law of chastity which has been defined as:
To the sisters, it is that no one of you will have sexual relations except with your husband to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. To the brethren it is that no one of you will have sexual relations except with your wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.
Justin, errrgh.
You will notice I did NOT include that line in my poem. Purposely.
I think it’s a great poem BiV. Good message, and very real as far as what I suspect many experience.
I like it, BiV! Very funky sounding 🙂
So often we want God to answer questions about things where it is like “Dude, chill out” to quote a kid I watched talk about how God did not need us to sweat the small stuff and bother him about it.
I know, a different direction than you took, yet an important part of what you said as well.
Nicely done.
Dave Wyndorf says “You try and live and God says no. We go on our way just waiting for that lucky day, I tried every way just so that God can blow me away.”
Justin:
Since disagreements about marital customs were a major reason for the differences between the LDS and what became the CofChrist (you thought polygamous marriage was marriage; we thought it was a violation of what you’ve come to know as the Law of Chastity), let me jump in here.
Same sex marriage clearly is problematic with the Proclamation on Family, since gender roles are so central to LDS conceptions of the purpose of creation. But whether it’s a violation of the Law of Chastity leads right back to the concept of what makes a marriage a marriage.
Our theology about the purpose of creation is more “conventionally” Christian. We had serious theological disputes about 40 years ago when we began to convert polygamous tribesmen in India. Out of that came a revelation we added to our D&C that affirmed that MONOGAMY was the basic principle upon which Christian marriage was built. Not a matter of who; a matter of how many and when. That’s fundamental, in our minds, to the law of chastity.
This year, we further heard God saying to us, in D&C Section 164, that the norms by which we express these fundamental truths of chastity are to be played out within the context of particular cultures. Greeks don’t have to be circumcised, as it were. And that’s perfectly ok with God’s intent for them.
The North American church is now wrestling with this issue, while churches in other fields have other concerns entirely. We’ll see if we’ve divided the cultures correctly, or if the debate will tear us into smaller fragments.
But, my goodness, you’ve got more American gay members than we have members of any kind.
You really ought to be sure you’re right before you sacrifice them like Isaac on an altar. If you look around, there just might be an angel trying to tell you God has a better solution.
Firetag,
I don’t have much concern with what the Proclamation on Family has to say about much things — seeing as how it isn’t canonized revelation.
There are 3 references to marriage in the Gentile LDS modern scriptures — the scriptures directed solely to the Gentiles — which consists of D&C 42:15-17, D&C 132 and the law of chastity as revealed in the temple. A valid (moral) marriage in the eyes of God, must pass all three scriptures.
In the first case, D&C 42:15-17. We can’t interpret the word marriage as meaning anything other what than it meant at the time the revelation was given, therefore marriage means only that union between a male and a female, not between same sexes. So, from this revelation we know that marriage between a man and a woman is valid (moral) in the eyes of God.
However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that same sex marriage is not valid (moral) in the eyes of God, because the revelation doesn’t speak of it, so D&C 42 does not invalidate same sex marriage.
In the case of D&C 132, the Lord speaks about (non-Priesthood) covenants made between a man and a woman in which they marry each other (covenant with each other to be husband and wife) and He says that these unions are only valid (moral) until death. Again, this doesn’t invalidate same sex unions, because it doesn’t speak of same sex unions, so we can say that same sex marriage passes this test.
Finally, the law of chastity: “The law of chastity is that no woman will have sexual intercourse except with her husband to whom she is legally and lawfully wedded and that no man will have sexual intercourse except with his wife to whom he is legally and lawfully wedded.” In this case, the law of chastity does not prohibit a man or woman from entering into a same-sex marriage, but it does stop them from having sex with each other. It is sex that validates (consummates) a marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriages are invalid in the eyes of the Lord, at least as far as the scriptural laws we currently have. The Lord may reveal more later.
Having many gay members who desire to enter invalid (immoral) marriages does not rouse my sympathy. The Lord is clear on His law of marriage.
Firetag, so what I’m hearing is that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ran afoul of your doctrine?
Yes! Now that is the God I know and love. Wonderful piece of poetry.
Justin #8 – I’ll admit, it’s been several months since I’ve attended an endowment session. Has the wording changed recently? Those aren’t the words I remember.
Is that too queer?
Note that everything is answered Yes. 😉
My first instinct was “quit bugging God with every teeny tiny decision. Make the eclairs, paint the room, etc.” But people who don’t get enough regular human validation on earth are going to seek it from God. That’s what religion is all about.
Stephen, etal
Can we aviod another discussion on homosexuality. Holy cow, this has been beat to death at MM.
Keri #11,
You’re right, I believe intercourse was changed to relations.
Justin: #8. Not in CofChrist canon; in our canon, it is the exclusive commitment, not the gender, that makes the sex moral, which is why monogamy trumps polygamy. Similarly commitment could also trump gender under the same principle in terms of the law of chastity as it was understood before it was “Capitalized”.
Section 132 is not in our canon at all.
Stephen #9:
Yep. All you can hope is that prophets get it more right than their contemporaries — not that they get it perfectly.
I love the concept of God as a Father and friend who sits in your kitchen while you bake. It speaks of a simple and yet powerful connection. Of the ongoing dialogue we have with Him in our heads while we drive or garden.
Great peom BiV.