Yeah, what he said about the Big Bang theory really bothered me--mostly because it shows that he only understands the popular (yet extremely inaccurate and non-scientific) atheistic version of the Big Bang. But I did like the point he was trying to make when he said it--that our bodies are an amazingly complex divine gift. (By the way the Big Bang theory has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of life as he and many other implied).
Honestly I really hated this line, "We used to think spiritual progress was only achieved through polygamous relationships, but that changed." This line really shows that this individual doesn't understand the doctrine governing polygamy at all--Jacob explains it pretty well.
Actually, this whole article rubs me wrong--mostly because I feel that anyone who presents an idea of the form "The church needs to do this or that." really needs to consider why the church has policies and practices like it does and if we are making statements like this how can we believe that the church is being guided by divine revelation?
I'm sure we could have sat back in Moses's time and said "I don't like how we're all expected to live this inhumane carnal commandments. Moses needs to get a new set of the higher law that he smashed all over the place and let those of us who are ready live it."
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the policies of the church are not the best thing God has to offer us--they are the best thing God can expect the majority of the church to adhere to. If the church were to adopt same sex marriage (which I personally do not believe it ever should) it would only be to the detriment of the majority of the members world wide--thousands would apostatize and leave the church--God needs those thousands of people right now.
Having said all that I don't completely understand what homosexuals go through, but I can relate to the difficulty they face in trying to be good members of the church when having to struggle with something like this. And I do hope that we can find a way to be more loving and accepting of them.
I understand where you're coming from, and I agree that there are a few problems with her argument (the thing about polygamy being the only way to the Celestial Kingdom for example). But comparing this to Israelites complaining about the Law of Moses is maybe not as accurate as, say, comparing it to being a member of the Church during the civil rights movement but before the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978. A lot of people probably recognized that blacks and others were just as worthy of the priesthood, and didn't understand why it was withheld from them. I've heard that there were also people who left the Church (or splintered off into a breakaway like the FLDS) when the ban was lifted, so if the Lord does see fit to change the official Church policy toward loving, committed homosexual relationships, I'm sure history will repeat itself.
Then again, maybe it'll never happen. I don't know. =|
Actually, I wasn't talking about the Israelites complaining about the law of Moses. The law of Moses was the lesser law, but before that Moses gave them the higher law, but they rejected it so he smashed it all over the place. I was saying that if we had lived in Moses time (we, not the Israelites--for certainly they didn't seem to care about the fact they rejected the higher law) then we might have recognized that we all would be better off if we could live the higher law, but because of the unworthiness of the people the higher law could not be instituted in Israel. So we could rebel against Moses because we are aware of a better way of doing things than what is being done, but God's will is to help the majority of the church along in order to foster the growth of the kingdom on the earth.
So, what I said really isn't contradictory to your opinion. I'm saying that we should be aware that this is a better way of living the gospel more fully than we do now according to church policy (just like there was a higher law in Moses' time) but the majority of the church is not ready to live it. Just like in the past there was a better plan for all worthy males to hold the priesthood, but the church and the world were not ready to live that.
What I'm saying is that even though we recognize that there is a higher law (a better way to more fully life the gospel of Jesus Christ) we should not complain against the church because they don't command everyone to live it because if we were to institute such higher laws before the majority of the church was prepared for them it would only result in a large apostasy of the membership and a decrease in missionary success.
The black members of the church in Africa didn't spend their time complaining about their situation--they patiently waited and prayed and lived the gospel the best they could under the circumstances--I'm simply saying that we should do the same thing instead of trying to tell the church and God what to do.
Sorry, I really didn't make that too clear the first time. I hope that makes more sense now.
Yeah, what he said about the Big Bang theory really bothered me--mostly because it shows that he only understands the popular (yet extremely inaccurate and non-scientific) atheistic version of the Big Bang. But I did like the point he was trying to make when he said it--that our bodies are an amazingly complex divine gift. (By the way the Big Bang theory has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of life as he and many other implied).
ReplyDeleteHonestly I really hated this line, "We used to think spiritual progress was only achieved through polygamous relationships, but that changed." This line really shows that this individual doesn't understand the doctrine governing polygamy at all--Jacob explains it pretty well.
Actually, this whole article rubs me wrong--mostly because I feel that anyone who presents an idea of the form "The church needs to do this or that." really needs to consider why the church has policies and practices like it does and if we are making statements like this how can we believe that the church is being guided by divine revelation?
I'm sure we could have sat back in Moses's time and said "I don't like how we're all expected to live this inhumane carnal commandments. Moses needs to get a new set of the higher law that he smashed all over the place and let those of us who are ready live it."
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the policies of the church are not the best thing God has to offer us--they are the best thing God can expect the majority of the church to adhere to. If the church were to adopt same sex marriage (which I personally do not believe it ever should) it would only be to the detriment of the majority of the members world wide--thousands would apostatize and leave the church--God needs those thousands of people right now.
Having said all that I don't completely understand what homosexuals go through, but I can relate to the difficulty they face in trying to be good members of the church when having to struggle with something like this. And I do hope that we can find a way to be more loving and accepting of them.
I understand where you're coming from, and I agree that there are a few problems with her argument (the thing about polygamy being the only way to the Celestial Kingdom for example). But comparing this to Israelites complaining about the Law of Moses is maybe not as accurate as, say, comparing it to being a member of the Church during the civil rights movement but before the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978. A lot of people probably recognized that blacks and others were just as worthy of the priesthood, and didn't understand why it was withheld from them. I've heard that there were also people who left the Church (or splintered off into a breakaway like the FLDS) when the ban was lifted, so if the Lord does see fit to change the official Church policy toward loving, committed homosexual relationships, I'm sure history will repeat itself.
ReplyDeleteThen again, maybe it'll never happen. I don't know. =|
Actually, I wasn't talking about the Israelites complaining about the law of Moses. The law of Moses was the lesser law, but before that Moses gave them the higher law, but they rejected it so he smashed it all over the place. I was saying that if we had lived in Moses time (we, not the Israelites--for certainly they didn't seem to care about the fact they rejected the higher law) then we might have recognized that we all would be better off if we could live the higher law, but because of the unworthiness of the people the higher law could not be instituted in Israel. So we could rebel against Moses because we are aware of a better way of doing things than what is being done, but God's will is to help the majority of the church along in order to foster the growth of the kingdom on the earth.
DeleteSo, what I said really isn't contradictory to your opinion. I'm saying that we should be aware that this is a better way of living the gospel more fully than we do now according to church policy (just like there was a higher law in Moses' time) but the majority of the church is not ready to live it. Just like in the past there was a better plan for all worthy males to hold the priesthood, but the church and the world were not ready to live that.
What I'm saying is that even though we recognize that there is a higher law (a better way to more fully life the gospel of Jesus Christ) we should not complain against the church because they don't command everyone to live it because if we were to institute such higher laws before the majority of the church was prepared for them it would only result in a large apostasy of the membership and a decrease in missionary success.
The black members of the church in Africa didn't spend their time complaining about their situation--they patiently waited and prayed and lived the gospel the best they could under the circumstances--I'm simply saying that we should do the same thing instead of trying to tell the church and God what to do.
Sorry, I really didn't make that too clear the first time. I hope that makes more sense now.