SpiritDragon

I personally am opposed to the idea of "designer babies." I think it is against the way God intends children to come into the world. I also realize that for most people this would set me apart as a religious whacko and my argument would be shot down. I also think it is unethical because overtime it could likely increase the stigma against certain individuals with undesirable features, because they would be "preventable conditions." For instance disproportionately large heads or shortness that add diversity to the world may be looked at as preventable and therefore "inexcusable" attributes. It makes appearance even more like brand name clothes than it already is.

In my observation it is another attack on the family that occurs in society and has unfortunately invaded some aspects of the church as well. Men have been made out to be kind of useless stooges by the media (think Homer Simpson, Archie Bunker, Dan from Roseanne and any other number of tools given as representative of the male gender). These misconstrued notions that men are only sexually driven morons does also unfortunately surface in the church as well. The worst part is that as men we attack ourselves with ridicule. This last conference my stake had pizza before the priesthood session, which is fine, except that it was announced as though we required a bribe to come listen. When I was single I recall hearing countless stories of the need to man up and ask girls out... and I did ask lots of girls out, but more often than not it was the girls that only wanted to hang out and avoid any kind of committed relationship. Not that I am attempting to belittle girls or women in any way either, because the media and society have successfully helped women to belittle themselves into thinking that their greatest contribution to society, which is motherhood, is of little importance compared to career and power and looks and other frivolous pursuits when viewed with an eternal perspective. Anyways my point is that YES I think men can tend to get a bum wrap in the church. However, I know that God operates by helping us to see what we can be and helping make our weaknesses strengths. Thus it is our own weaknesses as humans that lend themselves to us attacking each-other to feel better about ourselves, and it is our own vulnerabilities that blow these attacks out of proportion and leave us feeling victimized. I don't know who the quote belongs to, but I've always enjoyed this saying, "He who takes offense when none is intended is a fool. He who takes offense when offense is intended is a bigger fool." I think there is a lot of truth in this saying, which means I have spent much of my life being a fool by taking offense. Try to remember whose opinion matters (Gods) and work to live in such a way that you are valuable to Him, and try to disregard the extra noise from the world, even the worldly noise that exists within the church.

Marlin1 this is likely the best way of looking at this anyone has ever shared with me, thankyou.

Hi, I am interested in following doctrinal discussions from time to time and asking some questions of my own. I am an active church member who served a mission in the united states a decade ago.

I appreciate the thoughts so far. However, when I read Moses 3:16 and 17 it seems to me that this is very much a commandment. In all things we are free to choose our actions, but the consequences are set forth. Agency is a fundamental part of God's plan. I would tend to agree that Adam would not likely have partaken of the fruit without the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, but this only serves to reinforce the contradictory nature of the commands. He saw that to keep one he must breech the other. Now it does seem apparent that disobedience was required for man to fall, and the fall was required for the plan of happiness to unfold, but under the conditions of two opposing instructions. My wife just threw an interesting thought at me however, that may be something to ponder upon. She mentioned how sometimes the Lord commands people to kill, even though we are commanded not to kill. This can be seen by the children of israel being commanded to stone certain sinners, such as to kill a killer for killing, so they exact upon the perpetrator a similar act to which s/he committed but it is counted as good to them and not evil. Along the same line of thought that it is better a man should die than a nation should dwindle in unbelief, perhaps it is better for God to create the conditions of the fall so that His plan would unfold... even if it meant giving contradictory commandments. I am still not fully satisfied with this answer at the moment either, but it is a thought provoker.

Hi everyone, I have never successfully answered the following question to my own satisfaction. In the garden of Eden Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth, but also not to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If man could not have seed until after the fall, did God give contradicting commandments? Now some may say that they could have seed before the fall, but the scriptures are clear that all are fallen (no unfallen posterity of Adam and Eve) and further through modern revelation we know that no seed existed before the fall. Is there any way that this can be explained so that God did not give Adam a commandment that could not be kept?

Hi everyone, This is my first post ever, but I couldn't resist the feeling to say something in this forum. I find the scriptures and teaching of the church are really quite plain and simple on this doctrine, which is the Lord's way. Let me start in the Bible: Ecclesiastes 3:14 "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." Matthew 16:19 (See also Matthew 18:18) "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." These scriptures make it plain that God intends His works to last forever, including marriage. This discusses the Priesthood sealing power being given first to Peter to perform ordinances that are to be valid in the hereafter. Any talk about it being questionable whether eternal marriages sealed by the holy spirit of promise are of effect (monogomaous or polygymous) is to deny what the Lord has spoken. Mark 10:2-9 "And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." These verses teach us that God did not intend for divorces to exist. Why then would He supposedly condone the mass divorce of His people in heaven who have multiple ETERNAL sealings, does God contradict himself? Now that being said there is also doctrine to support that we won't be attaining additional marriages in the Celestial Kingdom either. We will keep the covenant relationships we enter into in mortality, but by the time of final judgment it is finished. We will not be stealing other people's spouses because they are eternally bound... and those that are single will be ministering angels and not getting married either. Matt 22: 23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, 24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. 27 And last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. 31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. 33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine. Some may see this passage of scripture as contradictory to my other points, or even disproving the doctrine of eternal marriage altogether. However, I see it in perfect keeping with the other teachings. Jesus does not say that marriage will not be of effect in heaven, but that it won't be taking place in heaven. Furthermore only those marriages authorized to be binding have a continuance in the next life, so all those who are not sealed for time and all eternity will be as the angels of heaven and will not enjoy the higher blessings of exaltation as promised to Abraham. Therefore it seems clear to me that eternal companionships will exist in heaven. Some will be polygamous and some monogamous, but the state they are in after final judgment will be final and binding.