Why there will not be a ‘revelation on gay marriage’ like there was with blacks and the Priesthood.

One comment I often hear from progressive Latter-day Saints is the notion that there will be a ‘revelation on gay marriage’ just like there was one on Blacks and the Priesthood. Every time I have heard this statement it has made me feel uneasy. For the past few weeks, I have been having a strong prompting to write on this topic, so here is my attempt: The idea that eventually there will be a revelation on gay marriage like there was with blacks and the priesthood exposes false ideas about the restriction on blacks and the priesthood as well as ignorance on how the LGBTQ agenda is incompatible with the Plan of Salvation.

Blacks and the Priesthood.

Many progressive Latter-day Saints, simply view the restriction of blacks and the priesthood as Brigham Young being racist and banning blacks from receiving the Priesthood. Just today I saw a post on Facebook that has had thousands of members share it that made the claim also.

But this is a dangerous train of thought, whereas it might be easy to dismiss addressing Blacks and the Priesthood by simply saying he was racist, it begs the question: “If Brigham Young was a racist and taught racism and instituted racist practices claiming they were approved of God when they were not, then how is he not a fallen prophet leading the Church astray? Many of my progressive friends will admit they struggle with the notion of Brigham Young and whether he was a fallen prophet. This becomes even more dangerous when one asks, “If racism was the root, and Brigham Young was a fallen prophet, then why did John Taylor not revoke it as soon as Brigham Young died?” Some avoid this train of thought with the idea that John Taylor (and other prophets till the ban ended) simply did not ask God if it should be revoked.

But this theory fails an examination. Elijah Abel requested his endowment in 1879 after Brigham Young’s death from John Taylor, who was then the prophet. He was denied. Did John Taylor simply ignore the request of this faithful man and not even ask God? Or Was he racist too? Suddenly you are doing mental gymnastics to keep your theory alive. What about Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, David O. McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Harold B. Lee?? Did they ignore the pleadings of black saints or were racists themselves?? Now you are accusing 10 of the 17 prophets of the restoration of racism or being heartless and unwilling to ask a question despite the pleading of the black Saints.

Furthermore, you have ALL the apostles during this time, if the policy was, in fact, counter to God’s will and based on racism and lies by Brigham, would they not be indicted for supporting that lie, or being racist themselves? Suddenly you throw out 90%+ of the restoration with this train of thought! It is an easy answer, but it causes far more issues than it solves.

Acceptability and Historical Precedence

The alternative to this train of thought is simple: We do not know why, but God confirmed to Brigham Young that the restriction of blacks from holding the Priesthood was acceptable. As such, it required revelation to change this policy, a revelation that was canonized! All theories as to why this restriction was put in place The Church has denounced, including the theory that Brigham Young was racist.

When one understands the acceptability nature of prophetic leadership (See Why I Follow A Fallible Prophet, And You Should Too!) Then you can look at the three-pronged attacks and trials Brigham and the Church were facing: Plural Marriage, Native Americans being viewed as equal, and ordaining black men which was against commonly accepted protestant beliefs. Within this context, one can then see how Brigham, seeing the first two as doctrinal points, could’ve come up with a temporary policy to stop the attacks by moving the Church into the mainstream protestant viewpoint that Blacks should not be ordained clergy. Getting confirmation that this policy was acceptable to resolve the existential threat, Brigham would then be accurate in teaching it as from God, (as it had His approval) and any future prophet would then need confirmation revelation that an alternative plan to amend the policy was acceptable too. But once again, this is just a plausible counter to the racism theory.

Ultimately, we do NOT know the reasons that the Lord approved the implementation of the restriction on Blacks receiving the priesthood, but we DO know that this is not the first time that there has been a restriction to access to the Priesthood or the gospel. In the days of Moses, God denied everyone the ability to be ordained to the Priesthood unless they were from the tribe of Levi, and of the tribe of Levi, only Aaron and his son could be Priests. Do we know why the Lord did this? No, we do not. The same with Blacks and the Priesthood.

The same pattern can also be seen in denying the Gentiles the gospel in the days of Christ. It was not until the promised time of the Gentiles receiving the gospel that the Lord’s chief apostle (Peter) received the revelation to take the gospel to all the world and the Gentiles flocked to the Church. God has a pattern of restrictions on how His work is to be done, and He has NOT given a reason nor does he need to give one to us.

Above and beyond the patterns of the scriptures, the prohibition on the Gospel and the Priesthood (both black and Levite) was never a doctrine (which is unchanging), but a policy (which is always subject to change). Many prophets and apostles spoke of the long-promised day when the restriction would be lifted, and when the Lord saw fit it was. Joseph Smith (who was before Brigham Young) ordained black men to the Priesthood. So any idea that this was a doctrine is, simply put, false. It was a policy and it was understood to be temporary. And the minute the policy on blacks and the priesthood was changed, those who had once been denied flocked to the Church, just like in the days of Peter. Most people do not know, but we have more Saints in Africa than in Europe! And not by a small margin, more than 20% more!

Gay Marriage.

Now that we have established that the policy prohibiting blacks from being ordained to the priesthood was not a doctrine, but a temporary policy and was not due to Brigham Young being a racist, let’s address the notion of gay marriage only being prohibited due to homophobia.

The doctrine behind why the church does not support gay marriage is actually the very core pillars of our doctrine. It is the very premise of the Plan of Salvation. The entire reason we came to earth was to become like our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. This is exaltation. President Ezra Taft Benson taught, “Exaltation is eternal fatherhood and eternal motherhood.” (‘To the Elect Women of the Kingdom of God,’ Nauvoo Illinois Relief Society Dedication, 30 June 1978.)” (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 548).

The whole reason we are here on earth is to create an eternal family. A family unit, as defined by God, is a husband and wife that have been sealed by the Holy Priesthood and entered into the Patriarchal Order of the Priesthood. For those of you who do not understand, the crux of the plan of salvation is eternal heterosexual marriage with the ability to have an eternal increase of your posterity.

So when progressive members of the Church say we need to be more loving and accept gay marriage, they have missed the fundamental boat. The plan of salvation is about exalting people! And exalting people to live in a heterosexual relationship with the continuation of their seed. To want the Church to accept and endorse gay marriage would be asking the Church to forsake the plan of salvation and tell people to settle for less than exaltation. That is not real love! As our beloved prophet has taught, “Real love for the sinner may compel courageous confrontation—not acquiescence! Real love does not support self-destructing behavior.” Therefore, The Church will stand for exaltation and there will not be a ‘revelation on gay marriage.’ Dallin H. Oaks taught this clearly in the October of 2019 General Conference:

The work of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is ultimately concerned with preparing the children of God for the celestial kingdom, and most particularly for its highest glory, exaltation or eternal life. That highest destiny is possible only through marriage for eternity. Eternal life includes the creative powers inherent in the combination of male and female—what modern revelation describes as the “continuation of the seeds forever and ever.”

In his talk to young adults, President Nelson taught, “Abiding by God’s laws will keep you safe as you progress toward eventual exaltation”—that is, to become like God, with the exalted life and divine potential of our Heavenly Parents. That is the destiny we desire for all we love. Because of that love, we cannot let our love supersede the commandments and the plan and work of God, which we know will bring those we love their greatest happiness.

But there are many we love, including some who have the restored gospel, who do not believe in or choose not to follow God’s commandments about marriage and the law of chastity. What about them?

God’s doctrine shows that all of us are His children and that He has created us to have joy. Modern revelation teaches that God has provided a plan for a mortal experience in which all can choose obedience to seek His highest blessings or make choices that lead to one of the less glorious kingdoms.”

Two Great Commandments by President Dallin H. Oaks (bold and italics added).

Seeking to change The Church.

To those seeking to change the Church, hoping and pushing for whatever social cause is their fancy, be it LGBTQ issues or women being ordained to the Priesthood or anything else. I want to leave you with the words of President Harold B. Lee and Elder John A. Widtsoe: Unfortunately, some are among us who claim to be Church members but are somewhat like the scoffers in Lehi’s vision—standing aloof and seemingly inclined to hold in derision the faithful who choose to accept Church authorities as God’s special witnesses of the gospel and his agents in directing the affairs of the Church.” The Iron Rod by Harold B. Lee, April 1971 Conference.

Elder John A. Widtsoe, a former member of the Quorum of the Twelve and an eminent educator, made a statement relative to this word liberal as it applied to those in the Church. And it is equally applicable to those who are progressive, he said: “The self-called liberal [Or progressive in the Church] is usually one who has broken with the fundamental principles or guiding philosophy of the group to which he belongs. … He claims membership in an organization but does not believe in its basic concepts; and sets out to reform it by changing its foundations.” (“Evidences and reconciliations,” Improvement Era, vol. 44 [1941], p. 609.)

Therefore what?

We are all children of the same Heavenly Parents, our identity should be focused on that eternal truth and that eternal truth alone. This truth alone should end racism and persecution of any nature. For when you strip it down, all the labels we place on ourselves and others are meaningless and temporal! There are no Democratic or Republican parties in heaven. There are no rich or poor in heaven. There are no Progressives or Conservatives in heaven. There are no races, no Whites, Blacks, Asians, or Latinos. There are no straight or LGBTQ individuals. These are all titles we use to explain our fallen nature or status.

President Oaks taught this truth when he said, “Most important, each of us is a child of God with a potential destiny of eternal life. Every other label, even including occupation, race, physical characteristics, or honors, is temporary or trivial in eternal terms. Don’t choose to label yourselves or think of yourselves in terms that put a limit on a goal for which you might strive.” Dallin H. Oaks, “Where Will This Lead?” April 2019.