Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think it’s cool that the church is open to different depictions of this story. My dream is that one day every country or culture could make their own temple video, with actors of their own nationalities. This would go a long way in helping us interpret Adam & Eve as a more universal archetypal journey rather than literal history. I would love to see a black Adam! Well, to be fair, some biblical scholars do believe that the J writer in Genesis did intend for Adam & Eve’s “knowledge” to be sexual awareness. That is how they become as “one of the gods,” who themselves were sexual beings. It was an explanation for why humans pair off and wear clothes, but animals don’t. Now, whether this was the author’s intent or not, it’s up to us to decide which explanation rings the most true to us, which becomes much easier if we interpret these stories as myths. All of the points Ray brought up are covered in much more detail in this Dialogue article: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Dialogue_V44N04_110.pdf Thanks for the responses! The more I think about it, the more a figurative Fall makes sense. And it really really like the idea of the Fall being an allegory for the premortal life. Adam (Michael) and Eve could have even existed, and they were just the ones leading the way among the spirits, making the first choice to come down to the earth. The Fall is just our “fall” to earth. I also don’t think any essential elements of the plan of salvation are lost without a literal Edenic fall, despite BRM and others’ insistence that doing so destroys the need for an Atonement. From what I understand, the traditional consequences of the Fall are physical and spiritual death, or separation from God. Well, these both exist, so I don’t see why denying they came about because Adam & Eve ate some fruit makes the Atonement not necessary. Perhaps death and separation came about because that is what we ALL chose before this life to be born into. Death and separation from God are very much a part of life. Not to mention the fact that we still grapple with our own personal struggles and sins, which would still make a compassionate Savior very much necessary.
Old-Timer wrote:The statement says more than once that everyone on both sides of the issue deserves compassion and civility. It says that explicitly.
The tone I got from this part left me with the feeling they were speaking more about political civility rather than compassion towards the actual people suffering through this. Sorry if I seemed colored by emotion, I just don’t see this as anything more than political posturing. I realize that this would not have been the venue for further revelation or insight into the issue of SSA. I’m still praying for the day when we hear a GC talk addressing this issue in a compassionate, sensible way that does not politicize the issue. I hold out hope that this will one day occur.
Yes, it’s made me realize even more how vital it is to have someone, anyone that you can trust in and rely on during this journey. Connections between people transcend all beliefs and creeds. Human interaction and love must be the basis. My heart goes out to those who don’t have that person they can count on to make that connection of love with. I’ll keep you in my prayers. Quote:Actually, I lot of what’s being researched and published now is preparation for an overhaul of the adult manuals. It’s pointless to change the manuals before all of the historical documentation is completed – or at least enough to make a change mean a real change. I don’t know if we will have a specific lesson on the new explanation for the ban, but publishing it is part of the overall process.
Ray, do you have any more info on the manual overhaul? This is the first I’ve heard of such a thing. Sounds interesting.
Just was reading this statement again and had a thought while reading this part: Quote:“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”
If the church disavows the “theories” used to explain the ban, but not the ban itself, is this still racism? In other words, there was absolutely no reason to withhold essential church ordinances from a certain group of people, but nevertheless it was the will of God? I’ve heard this argument used, and I think it misses the point on what racism is. It’s as if they’re saying all the ugly reasons given for it were wrong but it was still okay because it was God’s will, and that is somehow not racist. This statement seems to me to let people come to their own conclusions as far as the “God’s will” question goes, and I can see church members still spinning it so that it that way (and somehow the policy not being racist). I know from a very good source that church is planning on doing several of these “difficult subject” articles. The one I would love to see is one on prophetic authority, because I honestly feel like this is the main root cause the tension in struggling members. Most of the issues can point back to this. I can’t imagine what the consequences of disavowing the “prophet will never lead the church astray” teaching would be on members, but I think it’s a strategic move that will be need to be made eventually, or the problem will just get worse. We will need to completely redefine what a “prophet” is, which could take years as we root out old ingrained ideas, but it will be worth it.
Thanks everyone! I am very glad I have some support. No one has “thrown me under the bus” yet, so to speak. I’ll make sure that I post the reactions I get when I bring up various topics with people. Being a BYU student at this time has been an interesting experience as well. I wish there was some kind of support group on campus for people to talk about these issues. I wish I knew of more religion professors that maybe were more open-minded and understanding. That’s been a great help to me. Church has been tough lately. I serve in a calling that requires me to attend ward council and PEC and my bishop is very strict and very hardline on the doctrine. I’ve experienced some tension between how I want to run my organization and being micro-managed by him. I was thinking the other day about how little we talk about Christ in sacrament meetings, and it’s very much a “keep the commandments and you’ll be blessed” type of atmosphere. I think it’s just recently been dawning on me how nebulous and rather unhelpful of a teaching that is. What kind of blessings? It’s almost always connected with some kind of prosperity – you’ll find a job, be ok financially, etc. But when those things don’t happen, they are “trials.” So it’s just circular logic to me. I think the only thing anyone could ever promise for keeping the commandments is perhaps inner peace or communion with God, and even that requires more than just checking off a list.
