Why my husband is like the LDS Adam

(This post is an expansion of an idea that I have articulated in comments at Main Street Plaza and Exponent II.)
A couple of weeks ago, my J-term class was on break and I got to talking about my marriage to a Mormon with the other students in the room. People knew enough about Mormonism to be surprised that an active Latter-day Saint would marry outside the church. “Doesn’t that mean he won’t get to go to heaven?” one of them asked me.
I tried to think of how I could explain it in simple terminology to people who probably did not know a lot about Mormonism. I decided on this: “He can still go to the highest heaven. But he won’t be able to achieve godhood.”1
There was some surprised murmuring from the other students. “Wow,” said the student I was talking to. “He must really love you.” He went on to talk about how giving up godhood to be with the woman he loved must have been a tremendous sacrifice. It may sound silly that I’d never reflected on this before, but I was a bit taken aback by the realization that my husband’s decision to marry outside the church was itself a gesture of his love for me, and his willingness to sacrifice for me.
The thought occurred to me that I had heard another story like this before. As I understand it, the LDS account of the Fall (as presented in the temple) is a bit different from the traditional one. We evangelicals like to argue a bit about what exactly the text means when it says, “[Eve] took of [the] fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate” (Genesis 3:6 NRSV). Some believe the phrase “who was with her” indicates that Adam was present at the temptation the entire time and did nothing to stop it.
You’ll have to bear with me here. Having never been through the temple, I’m at the mercy of the summaries of others. But my understanding of the temple account of the Fall is that there is no debate on this issue; Adam was not present at the temptation of Eve. Not only that, but after she ate of the fruit, Adam had a choice: eat the fruit himself and be cast out of the Garden with Eve, or stay and be separated from the woman he loved. Adam chose to eat.
In that way, from the LDS perspective, I think my husband is like the LDS Adam. He decided that a lifetime spent with the woman he loved was preferable to eternity without her.
Another commentator at Exponent II pointed out that this isn’t really the case with the LDS version of the Fall, that Adam was acting more out of duty to his prior marriage covenant with Eve and his desire to keep the commandment to have children. I think this is still a useful analogy for Mormons in interfaith marriages and single Mormons who are considering it though, because most Mormons who enter into interfaith marriages feel that they have few prospects for marriage within the church. You are forbidden from having children as a single and will perhaps even be disciplined for it if you try. So which commandment do you keep: the commandment to marry in the temple, or the commandment to have children, which requiressome form of marriage?2
I’m sharing this because I hope it will be meaningful to Latter-day Saints in interfaith marriages, who I feel so often have it stressed to them that marrying outside the church was the wrong choice. It gives you a way of looking at your marriages so that they may not have been the wrong choice, depending on your circumstances. It may have just been the preferable wrong choice out of two wrong choices. My husband really liked the analogy.
—————
[1] There seems to be a huge cultural notion within the LDS church that a temple marriage is required for the celestial kingdom. Reliable people have shown me that this is false; the only thing required for entrance to the CK is baptism & confirmation. Otherwise every faithful single person in the LDS church would be doomed for one of the lower kingdoms.
I’m also aware that it’s possible my husband will get a “second chance” if someone seals him to me after death. Still, the analogy holds for now.
[2] Credit for this second insight into the analogy goes to Nicole aka that1girl.

Comments

Why my husband is like the LDS Adam — 26 Comments

  4. I really enjoyed this entry as I do your perspective on other issues pertaining to the LDS Church. I suppose it could be added that, depending upon your husband’s righteousness, he might still attain godhood while being post-mortally sealed to another equally-righteous woman during the Millenium. We look at relationships with such a romanticized, tunnel-visioned, mortal lens. Who knows what will happen? As my favorite bishop would say, “It’ll all come out in the wash.”
  7. I liked this post very much. I disagree with the other commentator who said that Adam was acting out of duty. I’ve heard that story before–maybe they teach this in the RLDS church too. Life is complicated. Yes, sometimes you do things out of duty, but that doesn’t mean you don’t love the other person. It may very well have been a mixture of both love and duty.
  8. I like your thoughts on this a lot, too, Jack.
    David T–YIKES!! Talking about looking at things with tunnel vision… I’m not so sure our doctrine would insist that godhood depends on being married to a faithful LDS spouse in this life, or in being sealed to one after death. (As Jack pointed out in her last paragraph).
    Anyway, this was very thought-provoking.
  9. Yeah, David T., I’m not totally sure what you meant by your comment. Maybe you could clarify? My husband already knows that he has my permission to have me sealed to him if he outlives me, and if I outlive him, his family has my permission to have us sealed postmortem. I don’t believe in any of it and I’d rather they didn’t, but I doubt they’d honor a request not to anyways, so I see no reason to waste time and energy getting them to promise not to do it.
    Then again, it’s entirely possible that I’m TK-bound if Mormonism is true after all of the darker things I’ve said about the LDS church. Who knows.
    I’m glad you all enjoyed the post. Most of my posts are just me spouting off on whatever is interesting to me. This one . . . well, it’s weird, but I really felt like this idea came with the help of the Holy Spirit. I don’t know all of what that means, but I do hope it’s helpful to someone out there.
  10. I really enjoyed reading this, and I’ve been thinking about it all afternoon. I don’t feel qualified to comment on the theology right now, but you are an excellent writer and I am glad you posed this.
  13. I’ll cast my lot in with the “great post” group. I really like this take on what Adam did.
    I could even draw parallels into choices that we all have to make, such as leaving a desired job or profession to be able to provide for your family instead.
  14. I’m glad you all enjoyed the post. Most of my posts are just me spouting off on whatever is interesting to me. This one . . . well, it’s weird, but I really felt like this idea came with the help of the Holy Spirit. I don’t know all of what that means, but I do hope it’s helpful to someone out there.
    I’m in accord. :)
    The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
  17. The way I understand part of the interaction between Adam and Eve as they enacted the Fall goes like this. Eve has partaken of the fruit and offers it to Adam. He reminds her that they were told not to eat it. Eve explains why he should and clarifies that it is better that they experience sorrow so they may know good and evil — that is what the creation of the earth is about. Then Adam tells her that (as if remembering) he understands that this is the way it is suppose to be. Eve understood (remembered) before Adam understood (remembered) the whole plan. Adam didn’t partake of the fruit just out of love and duty. You might use those qualifiers as part of his action but when you ponder the interaction, he did remember and understand and partook to enact the plan of mortality and its accompanying law of sacrifice.
  18. Jack, We assume that married people who never heard the gospel in mortality can attain exaltation via accepting the fullness of the gospel in the spirit word, and through the grace of Christ and by proxy temple sealings.
    So if a couple who were both non-believers in mortality still have a chance, then it would seem logical to me that a believer plus a non-believer couple could also still have a chance.
    So, as I understand it, in the Spirit World, it’s theoretically possible that you might slap your spirit-forehead, say “Doht!”, repent of your non-belief, accept the Restored Gospel, and still go to the top tier in the CK.
    On the other hand, Paul might “repent” of marrying a non-believer, and by the grace of God be matched up with some CK-worthy woman who never married in mortality.
    And, it’s still early enough, who knows, maybe you’ll come around while Paul falls from grace, and you’re the one who goes on to the CK and eternal progression with someone else.
    There are so many scenarios. And that’s one of the tough parts of Mormon doctrine, is that we don’t have one source book that combines and prioritizes (e.g., stay single versus marry out of the temple) all the various “must do’s” prescribed by modern prophets over the years, let alone mix in both officially stated and implied exceptions.
    I think the best effort at synthesizing all the various “to do’s,” “must do’s” and rules seems to be: “Do the best you can, and God through his infinite grace, justice and mercy will sort it all out.”
    Due to the LDS doctrine of continuing revelation and continuing receipt of “further light and knowledge”, we can’t take every passage from the Doctrine and Covenants and apply them literally, exhaustively and universally in the absolute as mainstream Christians are wont to do with Biblical passages.
    Such as: proxy temple work seems to be one _huge_ exception to the description of the inhabitants of the various kingdoms in Section 76. And, sections 76 and 132 threw a whole new light on the question of the woman married to the 7 brothers in the New Testament.
    In recent times, prophets and apostles have emphasized that “worthy individuals who remain single _through no fault of their own_ will not be denied any blessings in the worlds to come.” Yet, there are many members who have not heard that, or don’t understand it.
    Another _exception_ I heard years ago, and I think it’s still pretty much in effect is that when people hear the gospel, if they don’t hear it taught _by the power of the Holy Ghost_, and they reject it, then it’s not counted against them as having heard it.
    Now, whether Mr. Jack was hoping the two of you would still “make it” to the CK as a couple sealed in this life or sealed later by proxy, or if he was giving up hope of exaltation entirely, or secretly hoping he’d still have a chance with someone else if you never accepted the restored gospel, I obviously don’t know.
    But thanks for letting your readers in on this insight of yours.
    I would also like to point out that culturally and doctrinally, LDS believe that there are blessings (even if only a blessing of emotional and spiritual comfort) in the here-and-now knowing that a sealing has taken place. (Even before the marriage sealing is “sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.) Therefore, regardless of Mr. Jack’s attitudes or hopes in regards to your relationship in a far off future world, I’m confident that he was knowingly giving up some of the emotional/spiritual blessings-of-the-here-and-now (due to not being “sealed”) in exchange for the many other blessings and benefits he saw in being married to _you_ specifically and in particular. If he has a Spirit-borne testimony of the Restored Gospel, he indeed was sacrificing to marry you.
  19. Wow. This is great, Ms. Jack Meyers.
    I have a number of friends who stayed single because they couldn’t get married in the temple. One of them suffered from a terminal disease and decided, barely in his twenties, that he didn’t want to commit a woman eternally when he was bound to die.
    It turned out that he lived until his mid-forties. Other people are twice divorced by then.
    Another friend decided to remain single because there was no one available to marry in the temple. She is leading a lonely life.
  20. Have you considered submitting your essay to Sunstone? This is an important argument. There are a lot of people who would benefit from it.
  22. Jack, I know I’ve mentioned this to you separately, but it may be worth mentioning here. When I was discussing my marriage to DH with my mom a month ago, she seemed surprised to think that I could be in the same position if I had never married. (I think she has been worried about me – a hold over from earlier prophets who said that if you married outside the church, you were doomed. Doomed!)
    I pointed out that even if DH never converted in this life and never chose to convert in the next (and by extension, be sealed to me), I would no longer be married after I die. Alternatively, if I had chosen to never marry (rather than marry a non-member), I also wouldn’t be married after I die. In both cases, I’m unmarried after I die, leaving me ready to wrestle the other single ladies upstairs for those Sons of Helaman we’re always promised in RS. If the worst case scenarios in both situations (i.e., assuming DH doesn’t convert and assuming I never would have married otherwise) leave me in the same position after I die, I don’t see the harm in seeking love in this life.
    And now that I’ve typed “single ladies” I have Beyonce’s song stuck in my head. And I hope it’s stuck in yours.
  23. I should say that I have included the above comment to point out that the choice to marry someone of another faith (along with 1 Cor 7) isn’t necessarily a wrong choice. At the very least, it’s a choice that leaves you in a similar position to choosing to remain single (at least if you’re Mormon – I’m unfamiliar with the “consequences” for EVs.)
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity