Celibate

My dictionary defines "celibate" as "abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, typically for religious reasons."

When I was growing up, celibacy was an alien concept in Mormonism. We certainly learned about the "law of chastity," which in the Mormon context meant reserving all sexual expression for marriage. In some contexts, such as the Roman Catholic, chastity has connotations similar to celibacy of total, life-long abstinence from sexual relations, as in the "vows of chastity" taken by the clergy. Mormons use the word "chastity" in a different way from Roman Catholics. But there has traditionally been no place among Mormons for "celibacy," which always been to them an alien and apostate notion. That is, until recently.

The classic Mormon statement on celibacy is found in the D&C, section 49, verse 15: "And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man." It's possible that this revelation, received very early in the history of the Latter-day Church, in 1831, was specifically directed not against Catholics but against Shakers, who at that point in American history, were vigorously proselytizing throughout the northern United States, and had established dynamic and growing communes in upstate New York and in Ohio, in proximity to the gathering centers of early Mormonism. The Shakers, led by Mother Ann Lee, believed that marriage was a sin, and taught that the pathway to God required total celibacy.

Doctrine & Covenants 49 also affirmed that "it is lawful that [man] should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made" (vss. 16-17). This could also be seen as a strong repudiation of the doctrines taught by the Shakers, since the Shakers believed that universal celibacy was necessary to restore the earth to the paradisaical state that existed before the fall of Adam and Eve. The Shakers believed that the fall literally consisted of sex, and so in order to undo the fall, humankind must stop having sex. Mormons of course had a very different view of the fall: "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." D&C 49 affirmed that far from being a sin, marriage and procreation "answered the end of creation," that it was part of a purpose that was established "before the world was made."

This doctrine was elaborated upon through a later revelation received by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois, in July 1843, D&C section 132 on the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage." In this section of the D&C, which was not made public for some years after it was received, the practice of plural marriage was explained, and the doctrine of "eternal marriage" was revealed. Here, not only was it wrong to teach celibacy, but singleness was described as a form of damnation. Those who do not marry in this life are destined in the next life to "remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity." They "cannot be enlarged" and "henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever," as "ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory" (vss. 16-17).

That's heavy. Especially in light of the fact that since 2006, official statements and publications of the Church in relation to the issue of homosexuality are now stressing that individuals with same-sex attraction are not to marry, unless they feel a "great attraction" to the individual of the opposite sex whom they are marrying.

The role of singles in the Church has always created a challenge for LDS communities, specifically because of the doctrine found in D&C 132. Apart from the Manifesto officially ending the practice of polygamy, there has been no revelation significantly modifying the teachings of D&C 132 since it was first promulgated. And this has been a heavy burden for all those who -- for whatever reason -- have found it impossible to marry in the temple.

The principle of vicarious ordinance work does present a potential loophole which has been unofficially exploited by LDS leaders as well as rank-and-file faithful to at least give some hope and comfort to the "singles" of the Church. After all, it is painful enough to have to live singly in this life -- especially in a culture where everything seems to revolve around coupling and having families. To be told that as a consequence of being unable to marry, you will suffer singleness not only here in this life but for all eternity, to many that's a burden that seems almost incapable of being born. It is natural, I think, to want to offer some hope, so many faithful Latter-day Saints have adopted the belief that those who are unable to find a mate in this life will be provided the opportunity to find and marry an eternal mate in the next life.

There is, of course, no scriptural basis for this belief, which is rapidly becoming so widespread among LDS faithful as to have risen to quasi official status. This belief becomes logically almost impossible to resist, given the Church's official position on homosexuality, because otherwise it just does not seem fair, and Latter-day Saints believe in a God who is perfectly fair. But in fact, D&C 132 specifically teaches against a belief in post mortal marriage. D&C 132 is unequivocal that these marital contracts are contracts that must be entered into "in the world." If you marry any other way "in the world" or if you do not marry in this way "in the world," the conditions are spelled out. You will remain "separately and singly" in the next world. (See especially verses 13, 15 and 22-23.) In fact, D&C 132 could be seen as an extended elaboration upon the biblical principle: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25). D&C 132:16 affirms this as an absolute principle. In the next life, there is no marrying or giving in marriage. That's why we have eternal marriage in temples in the world.

So if you are gay, or handicapped in such a way as to preclude marriage, or divorced, or just a good, old-fashioned life-long bachelor or "spinster," the best you can hope for -- at least in so far as is spelled out in D&C 132 -- is eternal servanthood. Seemingly as if to rub salt into the wounds of all of us who find ourselves in any of these situations through no fault of our own, D&C 132: 22-23 concludes, "For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it."

Now I have a testimony of the Church, and I also have a testimony of these teachings. I do not reject them. I have no basis for rejecting them. I realize at some intellectual level that these teachings should fill me with despair, and at some point in my journey of faith they did just that. In fact, this doctrinal problem was at the heart of the despair that nearly led me to take my own life in 1986. But somehow I've come through the other side of despair, doubt, anger, and rejection and found what I can only describe as perfect hope and joy, grounded in the personal reassurances I've received through the Spirit that I am OK, that there is nothing wrong with me in my created being, and that everything will work out for me not only in this life but in eternity. I don't know how things will work out for me (or others in my situation), but I know they will.

Those of us who are faithful LDS and non-temple-married will each have to make our own peace with this teaching in our own way. Some of us can and do reject the doctrine itself as simply out of harmony with what we know or believe of the love, justice and mercy of God. Of course LDS doctrine related to marriage has become so important in LDS community and LDS culture that it's hard to reject this doctrine piecemeal. Many of us have rejected the Church in its entirety over this doctrine.

I don't have a problem with the belief that those not given an opportunity to find a mate in this life will be offered that chance in the next one. There's no scriptural basis for it... yet. That tiny word "yet" can be pregnant with hope in a Church that sees continuing revelation at the core of its reason for existing.

A long time ago, Chedner wrote an essay describing how he came to terms with this doctrine by making peace with eternal servanthood. I have always remembered that essay. (I can't provide the link, because it was a LONG time ago and I don't have the patience to go searching for it. Though I'll post a link here if Chedner is so kind as to provide it.) Of all the ways of finding hope, that resonates best with me. I like it not just because it is scriptural, but because of the movement of soul that is required to accept this as a form of hope. To give up desire for glory and dominion and to choose instead the way of selfless love and service is the heart of the gospel way. It is, without question, the way Christ himself walked -- whether or not Christ himself married in this life. It is not just "a" scriptural way of finding hope, it is "the" scriptural way.

In my last post I described a spiritual path that gay Saints may follow, that leads from despair to self-knowledge, from self-knowledge to self-love, and finally from self-love to unconditional love of others, which will enable us to fully realize Zion, the highest aspiration of our religion. I suggested that the "self-love" stage "includes acceptance of our limitations and recognition that it is legitimate for us to seek to meet the basic human need for intimacy and relationship." I think it is worthwhile to reflect on the meaning of celibacy in relation to that statement, because I do see celibacy as a potentially faithful and enriching spiritual path, one that can lead us to the end goal of Zion.

Celibacy will fail as a spiritual path if it is not grounded in healthy self-love and in a belief in the legitimate right each of us has to establish intimate relationships according to our ability. If our celibacy is based upon fear of our sexuality, or is grounded in some sense that we are inferior in our created selves or not deserving of an intimate relationship just like everyone else, those reasons for entering into a celibate path will gnaw at our souls until they destroy us. In this I must wholeheartedly second the words of D&C 49:15: "Whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God."

The Church has officially enjoined gay men and lesbians without some significant level of bisexuality to live lives of celibacy. In terms of purely practical considerations -- in comparison with the old policy of encouraging people to simply ignore their same-sex attraction and get married to a member of the opposite sex -- this is a huge step forward, if only because it does not encourage the creation of unions that for the most part, result in tremendous, destructive heartache and loss of faith. It has a second, spiritual benefit, of giving gay men and lesbians time to think about their choices in terms of relationships and sexuality. If we are in doubt about our path, it is good to avoid making indelible commitments until we are sure. So celibacy can give us time and space -- either to discern whether we feel called to the celibate life, or to prepare for a relationship. I was celibate until the age of 24, and it didn't kill me.

If life-long celibacy is chosen, not out of fear of sex or fear of damnation, but out of a desire for service; if celibacy becomes an expression of self-love that then turns outward toward using all of one's time and energy and gifts for helping others; then it can and will save not only us but others. It can allow us be "ministering angels" in this life, it can enable us to serve in the way Christ served, and to receive all the unfathomable joy that can come with that.