The Response from a BYU Religion Professor--Part One

The response from my BYU religion professor has arrived. I am going to release his response in 3 separate blog posts. I am doing this because his response was lengthy and chock full of great information, insight and new ideas. I am also editing out some information that pertains to the class discussion we had. If you would like his full response before they are each individually released, please email me at aforee245 at gmail dot com. NOTE: I am releasing these out of order.

My biggest question that I asked him was, "God may be asking men and women who experience same gender attraction to give up the idea of having an earthly family, love, happiness, fulfillment, children, etc.-- only to be rewarded that much more in the next life. To me, however, a life of loneliness and no family--either heterosexual or homosexual--is equal to death."

He said, "...offspring is not necessarily the indication of fatherhood or motherhood. The full ramifications of this is recognition that the life of loneliness and of no family is actualized only if one applies a narrow definition to these terms. This seems to me to be one of the fundamental truths given to women in the church and therefore may be of some aid to you (...) there are a number of different types of individuals who will never be parents in the genetic sense and yet still are family, kin and even mothers and fathers. So you can be as well.

With that said, I know that the definition of “family” that I have talked about is not necessarily going to provide the same sense of purpose as a family of offspring might. God also seems aware of this, because in Isaiah 56:3-7, we have the following: “Neither let the son of the stranger that hath joined himself to the LORD speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold I am a dry tree.” This verse has always struck me because an eunuch is exactly one who cannot produce fruit, or offspring. Yet the Lord admonishes these individuals to not say such things, or in others to become dismayed. Why is this? I’m not completely sure, but I think it may be because when we do say such things we effectively cut off any course of action that would say otherwise.

In other words, when we do say such things we are in effect saying it is impossible and thus I can’t continue in this path of purpose so I’ll go in another direction. We have stressed in class that Abraham achieves what appears to be impossible because he believes fully that becoming a prince of peace is acheivable, regardless of evidence to the contrary. So it is with the eunuch. It may seem impossible, but one either trusts God and that he knows what is doing, or one doesn’t. Look at the next verse: “For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.”

To those who can’t have a family, God promises, if they hold true (which, as an aside, sounds a lot like the iron rod, which Alma suggests is Christ, thus if we reach out and grasp Christ) they will receive a name and place better than sons and daughters. This doesn’t mean you will be better or receive more than sons or daughters, but that you will receive a designation better than “son” or “daughter” (father? friend?), and an eternal designation which will represent your worthiness and right to be with God forever. In fact, this verse is talking about the promises made to Abraham, which we have now spent three days discussing. In other words, your right to be a father is not conditioned on whether you have a physical family, but rather on how true you remain to the covenants of God.

--End of Part One