I enjoy your blog a lot but on one historical point here you are way off base. Despite popular belief to the contrary, the Bible does not condemn homosexuality in nearly the ways you think. There is simply too much scholarship and published material to repeat here and which refutes your claims on that point, but let me assure you that you’re simply repeating popular myths, not actual fact.

Joseph Smith himself said that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality and rejecting the prophets, NOT homosexuality. Ezekiel said the same. The notion that it was homosexuality was concocted by a handful of Catholic prelates centuries afterward. Again, there is solid history to confirm this. If you read the words of the story carefully you’ll see they do not inevitably lead to your conclusion. Furthermore, the Joseph Smith Translation says the men of Sodom were after Lot’s daughters as much as his two guests. So homosexuality per se was simply not a factor; the issue was abuse and rejection of the Lord’s messengers.

There is plenty more like this to confirm that all other Biblical verses popularly used to condemn homosexuality do not in fact mean what most people think. Normally you are pretty thorough and you think things through, but on this one you dropped the ball. Please do some objective research before you state such things again. You’ll find this matter is not nearly as settled scripturally as you believe.

Interesting that it happened already in 1902. As far as the policy was concerned, I don’t think anything had really changed between 1895 and 1902.

Heber, there is very conclusive evidence that Joseph’s wives were sealed to him as wife, not some sort of adoption. Joseph was sealed to 27-33 wives (depending on who is counting.) There is one unusual sealing that I discussed in my post on Early Black Mormons.

Jane Manning James, (a free black) joined the church in Buffalo, NY in the 1830’s, and then walked the entire distance from there to Nauvoo. She received poor reception by Nauvoo saints (“with much rebuff”), but Joseph Smith was very welcoming and hospitable. He offered to adopt her as a child into the Smith household. She declined because she didn’t understand the implications.

Margaret Young speculates that if she had accepted, it is likely that she would have received temple ordinances as part of the Smith family. Brigham Young and other church leaders declined to let her receive temple ordinances. After Young’s death, she appealed to John Taylor to recieve her temple ordinances, but was again denied. After she died herself, she was sealed posthumously to Joseph as a servant, so I guess this was a sort of “adoptive” sealing to Joseph as well.

She finally got her wish after Pres Kimball’s revelation lifting the ban. Her temple work was completed shortly after the revelation in 1978.

I’m curious about Quinn’s claims, but haven’t read the book. I find it very difficult to believe that JS or any of the others ever sanctioned homosexual relationships. But what’s this business about JS and BY wanting to seal priesthood holders to each other? I’ve read snippets of that around different places, but I’m not really sure what to make of it. Can anyone shed more light on that?

Last Lemming, I knew someone would introduce gay marriage into this conversation–it was inevitable.

Heber, the Republican Party was founded just prior to the Civil War. It’s purpose was to rid the country of the “twin relics of barbarism: slavery and polygamy.” I find it so ironic that Mormons have embraced the Republican party, and blacks have embraced the Democratic party. Certainly, no good Mormon voted for a Republican in the decades following the Manifesto, because it was pretty clear that the Republicans were “out to get us”, at least as far as polygamy and theocracy were concerned. (The Democrats weren’t as aggressive about it.) It certainly is quite a turnabout that the Mormons were once pariahs, and are now firmly entrenched with Conservative Christians on the marriage debate.

I can see how you would interpret Oaks words as you do. While there was certainly much less regulation of marriage in the centuries leading up to the anti-polygamy raids, I think the essence of Oaks words are true. I have heard that Michael Quinn has tried to make the case that early church leaders such as Joseph Smith didn’t have a problem with homosexuals in the church, but in light of my studies on early Black Mormons, it is pretty clear to me that Joseph and Brigham did not condone inter-racial marriage. Brigham said that inter-racial couples deserved death on the spot. As such, I don’t find Quinn’s claims credible that homosexual relations would have been acceptable to early church leaders. It seems to me that sexual relations without marriage were contemptable to early church leaders, as were homosexual relations. The Bible certainly has many significant prohibitions and condemnations on gay relationships.

Despite the lack of marriage regulations, I can’t think of any society in which homosexual relations were encouraged. The closest group I can think of is Sodom and Gomorrah, and it is hard to tell if those cities actually would have practiced what we would consider gay marriage. The Bible has clear problems with the homosexual relations, and even atheist governments like Communism and Nazism don’t tolerate homosexual relationships. So, in that respect, I think that when Oaks states that “for thousands of years the institution of marriage has been between a man and a woman…there has been no such thing as a marriage between persons of the same gender”, he is on pretty solid footing to make such a claim. Daynes talks of the lack of regulations in marriage, but I don’t think what she says can be construed as showing acceptance of gay marriage at any time in history.

What is interesting to me is the fact that there has always been tension between government and religion on the definition and authority to define marriage. I am sympathetic with the position that gay couples want property and inheritance rights bestowed upon them, just as heterosexual couples. I guess I’m more comfortable with the idea of civil unions.

From Daynes history, it seems that religion has always played the primary role in defining marriage. I was shocked to learn that marriage over the centuries did not require a special ceremony, though it seems clear to me that religion has always had a preference to include a ritual ceremony to establish a marriage. As I look at this history, it seems that “common law” to establish marriage has been much more prevalent than a ceremonial marriage. As we read the Bible, it seems that Jacob, Moses, and Abraham’s marriages were more like “common law”, than a Biblical sealing ceremony as Mormons are taught.

I like the sealing ceremony, and I’m comfortable that it is a modern revelation, rather than an ancient biblical practice that was restored through Joseph Smith. I know Mormons say that “Families are Forever”, and make a big deal about having children sealed to parents. However, it seems to me that the sealing ordinance is really a “couples” ordinance, rather than a “family” ordinance. While sealing children to parents is nice, it seems to me that according to D&C 132, the importance of sealing is not children to parents, but husband to wife. A child may be sealed to a parent, but really, a person must be sealed to a spouse in order to achieve exaltation. Sometimes I think Mormons place more emphasis than is necessary on sealing children to parents.