posted
this is the biggest problem I have with religion... especially Christianity... The sheer solidness of it. It's like a wall, an impossibly high one. All one has to say is, it's a sin, it's wrong and no argument, no matter how logical can break it down. It's extremely frustrating because people are not doctrine... Because there are things that happen outside of a system, regardless of how solid it is.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I really think this is the crux of our disagreement - whether or not God is a source of directions on how to use our gifts as well as the provider of them.
I think he does - that he doesn't leave us alone, hoping to not hurt ourselves to badly in pursuit of experience.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
this is the biggest problem I have with non-religion. The sheer solidness of it. It's like a wall, an impossibly high one.
All one has to say is, 'you are shoving your morality down my throat!' and no argument, no matter how logical can break it down.
It's extremely frustrating because there are consequences the whole community experiences even to things that you think only affect you, or you and your partner...
Because there is nothing we do that doesn't affect others.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, I know practicing polygamists. Ones who went into it fully knowing the situation.
Now, fifteen years in, troubles are arising for the third in the group, the one who doesn't have any legal marriage rights, the one who has been caught in something that she can't extricate herself from, the one who found that a marriage works best between two equals.
One can make polygamy legal, but not equal. A nation could set forth laws, but cannot guarantee against dominance of one against the many within the relationship. You can legislate equal rights and responsibilities within the relationship, but cannot prevent later wives in the marriage from being delegated to subservient roles.
Look at the societies that permit and promote polygamy that exist in our world. Look at the roles of women within those families. Even among the Mormons, the woman's role was subservient to the male and her rights were more curtailed than those of the man, and this is looking at it from a more enlightened perspective.
Polygamy, in practice, just doesn't work in the society we have strived to establish in the United States, because it actually works against equality of station and respect.
I agree. But these same types of arguments are the ones used by those who oppose homosexual marriages.
I mean, trouble after 15 years is not worse than a lot of traditional marriages. And the trouble in extricating herself from the situation is exacerbated by her "lack of legal rights." So recognition would help her, because she would have a set of enforceable rights.
Just to be clear, I am opposed to legal recognition of polygamous marriages. My point is (and NOT aimed at you), trying to justify legal recognition of homosexual marriage because "Christians don't own marriage" founders on the rock of polygamy.
You find polygamous marriages troubling because "they're not equal." Others find homosexual marriages troubling because they're not between a man and a women. You worry that a person entering a polygamouos marriage doesn't know what she's getting into and may be harmed. Others worry that homosexuals seeking to marry don't know what harm they're going to cause themselves. I've yet to see someone explain the difference.
I've basically given in to the fact that civil recognition of a marriage is now simply a legal convenience. Divorce rates, Dana Congers, etc. have shown to me that the sanctity of marriage is not related to its recognition by government. Rather, the recognition by government simply creates a lot of easily seen default relationships in many matters of law (property, guardianship, etc.). These conveniences are significantly less in polygamous marriages, so the justification for having them is not compelling enough to legally recognize them. On the homosexual side, the convenience is precisely the same as that given to a heterosexual couple. So I think it's worth providing it to them.
quote:Because there is nothing we do that doesn't affect others.
I believe this is the biggest problem. The belief that everything I do in some way affects you is, I think, used as an excuse to intrude where you have no business.
I think the statement is easily demonstrated to be false just based on logic alone.
To believe otherwise is to believe in that mystical "butterfly effect" that I was refering to earlier. That my sneeze (my little sin) affects you when you are nowhere near me, have never and will never meet me, and so on.
The thought that there's a guy living in Alaska or Timbuktu who is affected by a dirty thought I had last night while eating a Portabello mushroom is just not right.
It's claming an interconnectedness of humans that, frankly, is denied us for one very important reason: There could be no personal responsibility for anything if we were all THAT connected.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've already discussed the proper use of conscience.
This is not a trap that I can fall into, Amka.
People know the difference between right and wrong and willingly operate within the right. It's not that surprising.
But they do have choice.
If we're going to call things "gifts" from God instead of mandates, then we have to leave room for self-direction.
If there is no choice or self-direction, the entire concept of sin becomes sort of weird, doesn't it?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note the word DO as opposed to the word THOUGHT.
Things we DO affect the trends in society. When a certain trend is harmful to society, every person that does that thing is putting one more drop into the river that is threatening to flood.
A societal acceptance of premarital sex will statistically increase the number of children born out of wedlock with only one parent, and the number of abortions. Even if someone is responsible and it never happens to them, even if both parties would immediately marry and take care of an accidental child, their engagement in that activity is a condoning of it. Another 'yes, it is okay to have premarital sex between two consensual people, it harms no one' thrown out to society. Not everyone will be as responsible as this hypothetical couple, but this couple is an example. Others will look at this couple and think that it harms no one.
And more babies will be born out of wedlock or aborted.
quote:Women got the short end of the stick in traditional monogomous heterosexual marriage. Why is this relevant here? If the laws can provide protection from unequal treatment in monogomous marriage (at least to the extent we think it's still worthwhile), why can't it in polygamous marriages?
I never said it can't. I said that in every iteration of it to date, it hasn't. And that there has been no example of a realistic way of handling it, only "feelgood" hypotheticals about how people can get along and be happy together.
quote:I'm responding to your inconsistent remarks in this thread. Saying over and over again that it's a straw man does not make it so.
But pointing out why does show why it is not so. I have already pointed out why—polygamy is a multiple marriage arrangement, where homosexuality is a sexual preference. You want to see Yet Another Discussion on why they are not the same? okay, here:
quote:I'll break it down in simple terms for now, but I will probably get more in-depth as I go on later:
Homosexual marriage = marriage between two human beings | Polygamy = marriage between more than two human beings || In other words, one is monogamy, thus not polygamy, thus not the same in anything but social stigma.
Homosexual marriage = marriage between two human beings| interspecies marriage = marriage between a human and a non-human || not the same, because one includes two humans and one includes a human and a non-human.
The only main difference between homosexual marriage and inbred marriage is the probability of recessive flaws being passed on. Other than that, they both weigh in heavy on the social stigma scale.
You see, bringing up polygamy to argue against homosexuality is not arguing against homosexuality, it's arguing about polygamy. Using straw men and slippery slopes may sound all well and good, but they imply having no logical basis for your argument against. When there's a lack of logic involved, how to you argue against that? You can't, because it just turns into a "it's what I feel" or "I have faith in it" argument. It's no longer logical discourse.
Of course, this just means (I predict) that this thread is going to dig even deeper into this ultimately off-topic and unrelated argument, instead of actually logically eddressing homosexual marriage itself. Feel free to prove me wrong. Or let pride get in the way, and prove me right.
quote:I'm pointing out the utter inconsistency of your own arguments equating opposition to legal recognition of homosexual marriage to bigotry, when that same reasoning applies to polygamous marriages.
Aren't you the one who told me to read your other posts in this forum? If the Hatrack search wasn't so crappy, I'd have pointed out where I and others have already made this argument. Were Ornery's not so similarly crappy, I have even longer posts over there. In other words, it's been covered over and over and over and over, and there are still people who cling to that same claim. There is no changing their minds any more, only pointing out the illogic behind constantly using it. There is no inconsistency with what I say, only inconsistency with interpreating what you think I'm saying, and reading between the lines too much. I tell you what: I'll let you know when I'm not saying something completely at face value. I feel no need to be anything but straight-forward with what I say. I'd appreciate the consideration of being taken that way.
Jon Boy:
quote:I believe that God approves or monogamous heterosexual marriages, and occasionally polygamous heterosexual marriages. Marriage is an important institution, so even if people aren't going to be sealed in the temple, it's still important for marriage to exist on earth.
Even if those marriages are forever separated from the Church? Even if they are not even remotely Christian? Even if there is no option of them ever being Christian? And can you answer the "why or why not" part?
quote:We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. . . . The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
As has already been asked here, what about those who want no children? What about single parents? What about abandoned and foster children?
Are you seeing where the religious definition of marriage causes problems outside of the faith yet? I mean, I already said this, but just because your faith defines it a certain way does not mean it is defined that way outside of your faith. Implying that it does is laying false claim to the institution of marriage.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point is (and NOT aimed at you), trying to justify legal recognition of homosexual marriage because "Christians don't own marriage" founders on the rock of polygamy.
No, aimed at me, right? Can you get over your grudge? I already apologized for what you took offense at, can you lay off the constant attempts to contradict me for its own sake, and not for a real reason?
I have never made "Christians don't own marriage" as the foundation for justifying homosexual marriage. I said that religions do not own the institution of marriage as a reply to the original claim in the first post that marriage is considered (by the poster) a union that is endorsed by god. It neither has to be endoresed by any god nor has to defer to any faith. So get the hell off my back (in the personal sense). Jon Boy brought up the straw man of polygamy separately, and as I have been addressing in a totally different thread already, there are things about currently-defined polygamy that are inherently unequal, and are not condone-able by law. As I said in that other thread addressing polygamy, and not homosexuality, I am open to there being another solid example, if one could be shown. It is a different subject, and arguing polygamy has absolutely no bearing on homosexual marriage except that it has to do with marriage in general. Outside of that broad generality, there is no equity.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka...private behavior is not a drop in a river reaching flood stage.
And, we are getting off topic again, I think. Basically, we can talk about sending a message to children (and idiots who can't think for themselves) elsewhere.
I don't think that's what you were proposing earlier in your talk of "everything we do affects everyone...". But if it was, you grossly overstated your own belief, IMHO.
To deny someone their freedom based on a vague fear is way outside the realm of what a Christian philosophy should espouse. If that's what you meant, I just have to say that not only do I disagree with you, but I think your way leads to creation of "Thought Police." And I think that fear is far more realistic than the one you expressed about permissiveness permeating society.
You posit that we should avoid these things because people (other than you and a few others) are too simple minded to act in their own best interest. I just think that's cynical.
Besides, the only reason floods are bad is that people foolishly choose to live in the flood plain. For lots of other reasons, a periodic inundation is just fine!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if those marriages are forever separated from the Church? Even if they are not even remotely Christian? Even if there is no option of them ever being Christian? And can you answer the "why or why not" part?
Yes. I thought I already answered the "why or why not" part with the quote. Marriage is one of the fundamental units of society. It provides structure, and that structure is important, regardless of the couples religion or lack thereof.
quote:As has already been asked here, what about those who want no children? What about single parents? What about abandoned and foster children?
I think it's unfortunate that some couples choose not to have children, but it's not something you can force on people. But since marriage isn't just about raising children, I don't think it's appropriate to deny someone marriage solely on the basis of their desire to have no children.
I'm not quite sure what the relevance of single parents and abandoned and foster children is. If you can explain, I'll try to answer.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I'm actually fascinated with this. Do you believe that God does not hand out prescriptives for behavior? Of any kind? That we are left to figure out what is hurtful to ourselves and others based solely on our conciences? That's what I'm getting from your posts. Is that right?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there are no directions, no definitive statements to go against, how could someone possibly be held accountable for anything?
There is no sin if there are no wrong choices.
Held accountable according to what? That is the crux. If you are going to hold me accountable according to your doctrine, I will deny your basis of authority.
Are you saying that heterosexual couples are not sinners, or that heterosexuality is not a sin? There's a big difference there, you know. And what's that quote from Romans? Something about all of us falling short? I guess that doesn't apply to marriage (or only selectively), right?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jon Boy brought up the straw man of polygamy separately.
It was an analogy, somewhat like your constant comparisons to racism. My point was not to equate polygamy and homosexuality. My point was much the same as Dagonee's: when your reasoning is taken and applied to another situation involving marriage, it becomes more apparent that your support of homosexual marriage is just as illogical as others' opposition to it.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In John's defense, the slippery slope argument can go both ways.
If the government makes gay marriages illegal for some of the social policy reasons that have been raised here, the same rationale can be used against other heterosexual marriages, such as marriages between two infertile individuals, or marriages between victims of child abuse.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bob, I'm actually fascinated with this. Do you believe that God does not hand out prescriptives for behavior? Of any kind? That we are left to figure out what is hurtful to ourselves and others based solely on our conciences? That's what I'm getting from your posts. Is that right?
Well...I don't think that's what I've been saying, but perhaps I'm doing a bad job of emphasizing the points that I think need to be understood.
If we're talking gifts, I think God gives them freely.
Free will is a gift from God too.
I think God expects us to seek wisdom and act in an upright and responsible fashion.
and I think that failure to use a gift from God is a sin.
And we know it!
And truly thinking feeling humans know when they are on track with what they should be doing and when they are not.
Does that make more sense?
Whether God is specifically prescriptive or not is a real question in my mind. I think the whole prescriptive/"thou shalt not" approach of the Mosaic law was set on its head by Jesus. He gave us general guidelines and said "you know what to do."
I try to live in that world.
Whether that's what God truly intended, I can't say.
quote:I'm not quite sure what the relevance of single parents and abandoned and foster children is. If you can explain, I'll try to answer.
It was only relevant according to the quote you gave from the church leaders. According to that short quote, only a mother and a father are to raise a child, which brings into question divorce, abandonment, single parenting, and related issues.
The point is that while this doctrine is fine to follow according to your faith, as long as you belong to the faith, it is not applicable (to individuals) outside of that faith. Yes, this means that they are not part of the faith, but that is the only authority that the faith has over the individuals' personal prefernces and choices that do not conflict with other things. Imposing such doctrines as law would be to endorse inequality and denying individuals rights based intrinsically on a doctrine to which they do not belong. That is the point of everything I have said.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:we are left to figure out what is hurtful to ourselves and others based solely on our conciences
quote:truly thinking feeling humans know when they are on track with what they should be doing and when they are not.
Don't these statements say the same thing?
I'm not trying to put you on the spot; I'm trying to figure out what you're saying. If the statements do not say the same thing, what is the difference?
quote:It was an analogy, somewhat like your constant comparisons to racism.
Except I already pointed out that I wasn't comparing it to racism, but to bigoted legislation. That's why I constantly referred to the legislation and not the racism!
Are my posts not being read? Why do I have to keep saying the same thing over and over in the same thread, when I already answered this false accusation? Are you people even reading what I'm saying, or just scanning for hot-words to reply to with the same-old remarks?
[edit] And I'm outta here for a few hours, so don't get hot if I don't reply with the cat-like speed of the last hour or so.
[ March 09, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
They're similar enough to express compatible sentiments.
Why? I guess I'm missing the point of your question. I've said both of those things in the context of these discussions and believe both of them to be true.
I don't think either statement implies that God is prescriptive though.
I might quibble with the word "solely" but only because conscience without reason seems lazy to me.
quote:You see, bringing up polygamy to argue against homosexuality is not arguing against homosexuality, it's arguing about polygamy.
It’s an analogy. You know, like the one you keep making (I think it’s you, it might be someone else) about anti-miscegenation laws. I happen to think the race analogy (edit: or "bigoted legislation" analogy, if you prefer) is one of the most compelling arguments for legal recognition of homosexual marriage. Ultimately, comparing ethical principles across analogous situations is the best way to distill those principles to their essence. I think the polygamy argument is one that is prima facie reasonable to make and as such requires careful refutation.
Frankly, the best argument I’ve seen in favor of allowing legal recognition of homosexual marriage has been Dan_Raven’s, although not for the reasons I think he wrote it. The point is, there are religions that think homosexual marriage is favorable; society prohibiting them is a burden on that religion. The same argument can be made in favor of polygamy. I think it ultimately fails, but it requires explanation.
Polygamy is only being discussed here as it relates to homosexual marriage. You have to remember, there are a lot of people on this forum that belong to a faith that renounced a religious practice of marriage. They have to be wondering why they were required to do that when others aren’t.
quote:Of course, this just means (I predict) that this thread is going to dig even deeper into this ultimately off-topic and unrelated argument, instead of actually logically eddressing homosexual marriage itself. Feel free to prove me wrong. Or let pride get in the way, and prove me right.
If anyone’s got pride on the line here, it’s you. Since there was a discussion on this topic going on, and it was pretty civil until you starting throwing around the bigotry word again, I feel no guilt for responding to your posts on the matter. You’re clearly not intending to change people’s minds, or even to coherently explain your position. Apparently you just like to have temper tantrums in public forums.
quote:I tell you what: I'll let you know when I'm not saying something completely at face value. I feel no need to be anything but straight-forward with what I say. I'd appreciate the consideration of being taken that way.
I've taken everything you've said at face value. The point is, you are placing equality on some plane to be protected, even at the expense of someone's free choice in the matter. You have yet to show why this attempt to save a potential polygamous bride from herself is any different or less condescending than trying to protect homosexuals from themselves.
Let's try a little thought experiment:
"Heterosexual marriage = marriage between a man and a woman. | Homosexual marriage = marriage between two men or two women." See, they're different?
Not a very satisfying argument, is it? You (or I) could refute it in a paragraph. I understand the legal, practical differences between monogamy and polygamy. But you’ve spent time in this thread trying to establish normative, not practical, differences that aren’t supported by the words you say. Should I seek to justify them by be justified by reading between the lines of what you are saying? Or should I just take you at face value?
quote:No, aimed at me, right?
Yes.
quote:Can you get over your grudge?
It’s not about a grudge. It’s about the fact that you are making statements that are either over-simplified, near-abusive, or both.
quote:So get the hell off my back.
I have responded in this thread to things you have said in this thread. How am I on your back? If I wanted to just pick on you, I’d be spending a lot of time on your silly statements about inequality being unconstitutional.
quote: Out of interest, who here does NOT base their moral decisions on their conscience?
At the risk of being flamed to a crisp, if someone says that they themselves don't care, but base their decision on whether or not something is right or wrong on *cough* some other source, then aren't they then not basing their moral decisions on their conscience? Not,I'm sure, that anyone does that.
quote:It was an analogy, somewhat like your constant comparisons to racism.
Except I already pointed out that I wasn't comparing it to racism, but to bigoted legislation. That's why I constantly referred to the legislation and not the racism!
Are my posts not being read? Why do I have to keep saying the same thing over and over in the same thread, when I already answered this false accusation? Are you people even reading what I'm saying, or just scanning for hot-words to reply to with the same-old remarks?
[edit] And I'm outta here for a few hours, so don't get hot if I don't reply with the cat-like speed of the last hour or so.
Yes, Leto, and we are talking about BIGOTED LEGISLATION against polygamy. Your point is totatlly lost on me. The comparisons are the same.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just for my own Bob Edification, how that work in with the whole idea of commandments?
Jesus answered this already. When he was asked what the most important commandment was, he said to love god...Then love your neighbor as yourself.
Right? But what did he say AFTER that...
"from these, all the others flow."
Now, throughout the time since we've all heard a lot about how this was his way of validating all of the commandments.
I've also heard and believe to be true that this was Jesus way of saying "you've been given the capacity to understand and reason-out what things are right and which things are wrong." He wasn't telling us that JUST the 10 commandments flow from those two, but EVERYTHING flows from those two.
IMHO.
So, it fits, but in a way that requires us to think.
posted
"At the risk of being flamed to a crisp, if someone says that they themselves don't care, but base their decision on whether or not something is right or wrong on *cough* some other source, then aren't they then not basing their moral decisions on their conscience?"
Except that, to my knowledge, no one actually does this. I haven't seen anyone say "I disagree with God about this, but what He says goes, and I respect and love Him for it."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably no one says that because it sounds like an opening for an accusation of not using your reason, which is something that no one on Hatrack wants to be accused of.
There are some things I don't understand but accept because I trust the source.
Bob: I agree that the not every thing is spelled out and we are expectd to use our reason, but I don't think having larger things to be concerned with doesn't mean the commandments that do exist are obviated.
I mean, if there are no prescriptives, obedience to what? *still looking for Bob Edification*
quote:Except that, to my knowledge, no one actually does this. I haven't seen anyone say "I disagree with God about this, but what He says goes, and I respect and love Him for it."
But Tom...that is exactly what some people are saying. That their opinion derives from what they believe God is saying...not from an understanding of the issue.
Well, okay, they aren't saying they disagree. But it's the same thing as far as I can see. "My opinion doesn't matter, it's whatever God said."
Am I missing something?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, while they might say something like "my opinion doesn't matter," I haven't seen ANYONE say something like "I don't personally think this, and it breaks my heart, but I have to believe this because God says so."
People find a way to reconcile their faith with their conscience because, without a reconciliation between the two, faith will always lose. I think that's why OSC spends so much time coming up with secular reasons against gay marriage, in fact.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, may I return this to an analogy of parents and children? I have authority over my children (ages 4, nearly 3, and 9 mo.). It is important that they obey me because I understand far more than they do. When they ask "why" and I think they can handle the answer, I delight in explaining to them. But there are times where the answer is, "because I said so", or "because I'm your MOM." I still expect them to obey me.
So when God says to me, "Because I am GOD," I say, "OK, I don't really like it, but I will trust you."
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I don't personally think this, and it breaks my heart, but I have to believe this because God says so."
Tom, I spent a year agonizing over a question where I didn't understand or agree with what I truly believed God was saying. As in, sleepless nights, lots of crying, the whole works. It was terrible. I still don't understand completely, but the...storm ended not with an answer or a justification, but just assurance that there was one, even though I couldn't see it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't think people can shut their consciences down by using some authority? I know they can. To paraphrase a couple instances that I've heard repeatedly, in cases of the death penalty, the person who throws the switch rationalizes that he is just an instrument of the state. Soldiers rationalize killing someone else because the other person is a soldier, they are in a war, etc. In both cases, the person doing the deed knows that what he is doing is wrong, but he doesn't take personal responsibility for the wrong?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I have heard people say, exactly, “I don’t personally like this, and it breaks my heart, but God says so so I have to believe it.” One was a professor at Baptist seminary where I took a class and one worked for Campus Crusade for Christ. I don't think either of them have lost their faith over it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ironically, kat, that's the exact same issue my mom -- who is devoutly religious -- has struggled with, herself. In the Baha'i Faith, for no apparent reason, women cannot serve at the highest levels of administration. Baha'is, like Mormons, also believe in a form of progressive and living revelation, and it drove my mom NUTS thinking that the all-male assembly had "conveniently" not yet had a revelation opening it up to women.
And, like you, she concluded that this was just something that God had a good reason for.
Whereas, to me, it would be a sign that my values are clearly too far removed from the values of the church, and suggest that I find another church.
------
Edit: I guess my problem is that the attitude described -- "I don't understand this, don't agree with it, and don't expect to understand it, but will go ahead with it anyway" -- comes pretty close to my definition of irrational behavior.
quote:Bob, may I return this to an analogy of parents and children? I have authority over my children (ages 4, nearly 3, and 9 mo.). It is important that they obey me because I understand far more than they do. When they ask "why" and I think they can handle the answer, I delight in explaining to them. But there are times where the answer is, "because I said so", or "because I'm your MOM." I still expect them to obey me.
So when God says to me, "Because I am GOD," I say, "OK, I don't really like it, but I will trust you."
beverly, to take the analogy further...as your children age and become more aware of their surroundings and demonstrate their ability to comprehend things, a good parent changes the lessons & the type of control exerted from:
"Do it because I said so." To: "here's why you should do it this way."
or even
"Well, what do YOU think you should do?"
Maybe what you're saying is that some humans prefer to remain perpetually toddlers whereas Jesus is calling upon us to grow up.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
See, but I believed in it. Specifically, I believe in the Book of Mormon and modern revelation. I believe in the Book of Mormon just as much as I believe in my own inherent non-second-class-FIRST-class worth. And I couldn't see how to reconcile the two. Either the Book of Mormon wasn't true, and the church wasn't true, or else the Lord did think I was second-class.
This is not a good dillemma. I couldn't see how to reconcile them. It was awful, and I sincerely cried, fretted, and prayed about it for over a year before I got anything. Not that it hadn't bothered me longer, but before that year, it hadn't seemed important to figure out the answer.
As for my answer...there were a few things that all happened within a month or so. The first is that I got a blessing from my priesthood leader. He wasn't being terribly righteous at the time (okay, being flat-out disobedient), but I felt the spirit when I got it and everything he said - without knowing anything of my inner struggle - was exactly what I needed to hear. It was a confirmation to me that priesthood was set up as a principle of service, and that when the Lord wants to bless you, he'll use the system he's set up. After that, I discovered and read D&C 121, which, if nothing else, shows that the Lord knows that the priesthood holds the possibility of being abused, and it isn't okay. It's never okay. That helped, too. The third was the example of the general authorities and the way they treat the females in their personal lives and in the church. That was very reassuring. The fourth was mostly an assurance that came (FINALLY!) in prayers one night that when everything works as the Lord intended, there is no injustice.
It didn't explain it - I still don't quite understand. But I do believe there's a plan there that we don't currently know.
-----
I know lots of women never had the slightest problem with this. It's funny what some people get stuck on. I can point to specific things in my life that made me extra-sensitive to the Lord joining the list of idiots who use your trust to aggrandize themselves. Everyone has their own concern. This was mine. Prayer and study eventually worked - it just took a very, very long time.
posted
On that analogy, I think we are far more like toddlers compared to God and will be for a very long time.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
But pointing out why does show why it is not so. I have already pointed out why—polygamy is a multiple marriage arrangement, where homosexuality is a sexual preference. You want to see Yet Another Discussion on why they are not the same? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
