Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Welcome to StayLDS, s_s! 
I am sure you will find many people here you can relate to. I think it’s cool that you’re into science. If religion and science can work together rather than trying to prove each other wrong, then we would actually get somewhere. Well, if it’s even possible for them to reconcile.
Roy wrote:Joni wrote:The understanding that I will be answering to my husband in the CK (and not directly answering to God, which is another problem) has led me to the conclusion that I don’t want to be in the Celestial Kingdom at all.
It has been important for me to depart from the take it or leave it proposition. I take what I can take on my terms and leave the rest. If anyone has a problem with that, then tough luck because their opinions are not factors in my relationship with my God.
I believe that the evolution of our theology has been from a male position and bias from the beginning of time down until now. Heavenly Mother is not presented as an equal partner. Eve also is presented as secondary to her husband in the bible and in the temple ceremony. JS explained to Hyrum that polygamy was the solution for a remarried widower to keep both wives in the eternities – yet no consideration seems to have been given to the plight of the remarried widow. Even today with our very male centric hierarchy it is very difficult to have women’s perspectives represented (I know there are some baby steps in this direction with the ward counsel format).
I believe that this results in having our policy, doctrine, and theology skewed toward men.
I agree with Roy. Society and the Church is more centered around a male dominance hierarchy. Humans and most animal species are more inclined to having males being the leader. But there are a few species that have a female dominance. Have you ever heard of a “king bee”? I’m pretty sure if humans were more female-dominant from the beginning, then the roles of men and women in the church and society would switch. I also think we will see God as a woman.
The story of Adam and Eve was probably made up by people that lived in a male dominated society. So, in the story of Garden of Eden, Eve was probably created for Adam. But I don’t think God sees it that way. I believe He created men and women as equals. Men need women as much as women need men. The human race would have gone extinct if one gender existed without the other. I don’t think God is sexist.
Also, I don’t think gender will matter that much in the next-life. Gender/sex differences are mostly needed in this life. There probably won’t be any biological differences between males and females in the next-life.
Just remember that God wanted women to experience pregnancy. Males will never be able to experience that. Who knows? Maybe God felt women can handle pregnancy and childbirth better than men. So maybe He does think women are better than men in some ways.
I understand your bitterness though. I don’t like it either. Just as others have previously said in this thread, it’s only cultural.
This is by far one of the best reviews of the movie I’ve read so far. No lie. I love her interpretation of it. I don’t really understand why some people think the movie is about homosexuality, but even it was it still has great meaning. I loved the movie and the song “Let It Go.” I listen to it often. 🙂 Thanks for sharing this!
convert1992, First off, welcome to StayLDS! I’m glad you are here, you seem very insightful.
I agree with you, the “families are forever” concept only works for the “perfect” LDS family. I love the concept though. Once you get past the “what-ifs” about your family, it’s a wonderful belief/hope our church has. I’m glad the Church teaches it.
convert1992 wrote:If they approve the separation of civil vs. sealing here in the U.S., no doubt the Church will require you to turn around and get sealed immediately.
Yes, there is definitely going to be a time limit if it gets approved, like 72 hours or something. But, why don’t they allow worthy couples who get married outside of the temple to get sealed immediately? I know the Church urges worthy members to married in the temple only. Did the policy get implemented because of worthy members choosing to get married outside of the temple first? If so, I can see why the church leaders have been iffy on changing the policy.Thanks for replying, convert1992! I really appreciate it!
Dax, in your opinion, do you think the Church would be where it is today(or maybe even better) if polygamy and D&C 132 never even happened? Do you think polygamy was meant to happen even though it wasn’t good? Roy wrote:Perhaps I am misunderstanding your question.
No, you answered my question just fine. Looking back, my post wasn’t too clear and not really what I intended. Let me rephrase it and elaborate a little.🙂 If JS never received the revelation or inspiration(or whatever you want to call it) of the “new and everlasting covenant”, what would be different in the church? Or what would be different if Sect. 132 never existed? Would we still have temple sealings? It wouldn’t really affect endowments because endowments have been around longer than sealings, is that right?
Also, what if a different prophet years later received the revelation of the “new and everlasting covenant”, would they interpret it to mean something other than polygamy or temple marriage?
I don’t know if that made it any clearer. I’ve just been thinking of the “what-ifs” when it comes to D&C 132. I guess I’m also trying to see if anything positive came from D&C 132 and all of the polygamy/polyandry craziness. Maybe the Church was suppose to make that mistake?
Roy wrote:Welcome, welcome. Although I hope you don’t make a habit of “exposing” yourself.
Thank you, Roy! I’ll try and cover up every once in a while.Thanks, amateurparent! I liked and agree with everything you said, especially the part about the social pressures of weddings.
I don’t mean to bump up a really old thread, but I have a few quick questions. What would be different in the church if Sect. 132 was never included in D&C in the first place? Would temple sealings and endowments be the same as they are today? Or would temples have a different purpose?
Sorry if these questions have been answered before.
Thanks everyone for replying! I really appreciate everything you all have said. I love how supportive and helpful you all are. You guys know how to make someone feel welcomed and part of the group. I also have a good feeling the one year policy will change. IMO, I think it will change within the next 5 years. Thanks again!
