Leaderboard

This holds no interest for us "Mormons". Nor should it be your objective. Our objective, all of us, should be to alter our ideas so they are compatible with God's. Nothing more, nothing less. We believe that revealed truth (which does not play into politics much) gives us the truth of God's ideas, and therefore, we believe it behooves all mankind to alter their ideas to become compatible with said revealed truth. All we can do is testify that we have the truth and exhort others to pursue the same methods we did in finding that truth. Beyond that, no mortal persuasion or agreement holds any meaning.

There's been some debate and questions on whether men may request sealing cancellations from their ex spouse/s. I have no actual church statement, but when my husband went in and asked our Bishop about requesting a sealing cancellation from his ex wife, the Bishop said "No problem." In fact, the Bishop even asked why it had taken my husband so long to come in and request the cancellation. (He's been divorced for over 34 years.) My husband replied that he didn't think it was an option available to men. It took quite some time to get all the particulars done, i.e.: a letter needed to be written explaining circumstances of divorce, the ex spouse contacted from the bishop to make sure there were no issues, and then an interview with the Stake President. After the interview with the Stake President, it took less than two weeks for the reply from the First Presidency. The Sealing Cancellation has been granted! My husband feels so relieved: "like an albatross around my neck has been removed." Hope this helps anyone with any questions about whether a man may request a sealing cancellation.

2ndRateMind, I think you would be highly interested in the Law of Consecration: (take a look at the linked page!) https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/consecrate-law-of-consecration Section 105 of the Doctrine and Covenants First thing is first, All man kind (Or concentrated pockets of people) learning then living all basic principles, say things like the 10 Commandments. Then working their way up. We all are still working on that :'( This line of thinking goes along with a strong belief that God intends all people have agency to choose good or to choose evil.

This is such hogwash. 1st off the incentives and motives between straight couples and homo. couples is quite different. Only 12% of married couples have issues conceiving, 100% of homosexual. couples cannot conceive. Many married couples will have issues with the idea of having a child not their own blood. Homosexual couples are guaranteed that the only way they can raise a child is through some un-natural method or to adopt. So it is very natural that straight couples are not lining up to adopt. On the other hand, homosexuals will be much more likely to adopt simple because it advances the homosexual agenda of making homosexuality normal acceptable and moral. The premise seems to be that it is better for children to be in a completely abnormal, unnatural, immoral "family" than to be in foster homes. That is absolute pure rubbish. My grandmother had foster kids for 20+ years, she has had probably over 30 foster kids in her home and I guarantee ever single one of those children is better off today than they would be if they had been in adopted into a homosexual couple. And no, homosexual men in a couple cannot show children how to treat a woman. The wife isn't the only woman in a man's life, but she darn will better be the only one that counts. No Fathers do not always provide the best example . . . but this is such a weird thinking: Devalue fatherhood because some aren't that great, yet extol homosexual couples (who cannot provide what a father is like) because obviously every homo. couple is so much better than hetero couples. Which is worse children in foster care or children in homosexual couples? Children in homosexual couples every single time.

His first name is Elder

I completely agree, and before "no fault" divorce came along, "withholding affection" was one of the valid grounds for getting a divorce. Note that's civil law, not the position of the LDS church. It does, however, demonstrate that even outside of the church, regular intimacy in marriage is expected, and withholding it is considered aberrant to the point that it is legal grounds for divorce in states where "no fault" divorce doesn't exist, and has been for generations in the USA. As a general authority said when he was touring my brother's mission, "One of my major reason for getting married was to have intimate relations with an attractive member of the opposite sex." If one partner in marriage doesn't believe that aspect of marriage is important and the other partner does, the marriage will always be in serious trouble. That said, you need to get to the root of your wife's disinterest. Some women simply don't have much of a libido, and some men don't either. That's often related to hormone levels, so it might be worth it to have your wife checked out medically. Others in this thread have outlined possible reasons for her disinterest, which you should explore and see if any of them apply. I've found therapy to be hit or miss - it depends on your therapist, and quite often on the qualifications of your therapist. You may get better results from a clinical psysciatrist than you would from a therapist at LDS Social Services, for example. You need to seek help from someone who is both qualified and experienced in diagnosing the cause of your wife's indifference, and that has nothing to do with being LDS. From your point of view it's necessary to save your marriage, since having intimate relations on a regular basis was one of your basic assumptions when you offered marriage and a comfortable lifestyle to your wife. All too often women busy themselves with their children and forget about their husbands. I've heard warnings of this time and again from the pulpit in General Conference. Keeping marriage alive and vibrant as a couple is a challenge when there are little people running around your feet and demanding your time, but in the hereafter, we are not going to live with our children! "Families are forever" means that the spousal relationship is forever. It's you and her forever, and your kids will be with their spouses forever, or at least that's the goal. I seldom if ever hear that from the pulpit, although it should be quite obvious from church doctrine. So your relationship with your wife - and hers with you, is the most important relationship in your lives - period. As you've noted, the effects of divorce on children are incalculable. Financially it's a disaster, although the earlier you get out, the less it will cost you in the long run, since states take the length of the marriage into account when awarding alimony or spousal support, plus you'll have less of an estate that most states split 50/50. If you don't get custody of your children, divorce largely strips you of your role as a father and denies you any authority over your children's behavior when they aren't with you. If you and your ex can't agree on a common set of rules for your kids, they'll be raised by her set of rules, not yours. So for a multitude of reasons, if you can work things out, remaining married is vastly preferable to divorce. Men seemed to be designed to have a higher libido than women, and more than one of my female friends have explained that women can simply turn that desire off. I'm not sure how truthful that statement is - it might be more a result of being in a dysfunctional marriage that makes the thought of being intimate with your spouse repugnant rather than losing interest. That doesn't appear to be the case in the way you've described your marriage, but the important question is "How does your wife perceive being intimate with you?" If she finds it repugnant, you have a serious problem. If it's just disinterest, getting to the cause of that disinterest is the key to changing it. If she's deliberately withholding it to control you, then you need serious marriage counseling. Speaking from the male perspective and not as a stalwart priesthood holder, shaking up her comfortable world might not be a bad thing. She's comfortable with things the way they are, and she won't change unless she understands that things won't remain the way they are if she doesn't change her behavior. That doesn't mean you give her an ultimatum to provide what you had a reasonable expectation of receiving when you offered to marry her, but she does need to understand how deeply unhappy and disappointed her behavior is making you feel, and that if it continues, you may eventually explore your options. Intimate relations under duress aren't the answer either, since she needs to enjoy them as much as you do and not feel pressured by any ultimatums. If explaining those feelings with her doesn't change anything, bringing them up in a joint therapy session with an expert in dealing with your problem might be more fruitful. Clearly I don't have the answer, but I hope I've given you some food for thought. I wish you the best...

I remember my Sunday School teacher pointing this out to our class when we were in high school. He called it the Jacob 2 Principle: Jacob 2:12-19 12 And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a land of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully. 13 And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they. 14 And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in this thing? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in these things his judgments must speedily come unto you. 15 O that he would show you that he can pierce you, and with one glance of his eye he can smite you to the dust! 16 O that he would rid you from this iniquity and abomination. And, O that ye would listen unto the word of his commands, and let not this pride of your hearts destroy your souls! 17 Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you. 18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. 19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted. Another perspective... I started out pretty poor (compared to many of my friends) when I was first married. We worked hard, lived in a humble little house, drove old cars, shopped at Deseret Industries and clipped coupons. Now 29 1/2 yrs later we live with abundance, have a house that's too big, can afford to help our kids with tuition and housing in college, have way too much stuff that needs maintenance and attention- including an expensive and annoying dog. Really, we want for nothing (except new cars but my husband, bless his heart, refuses to buy new ones when the ones we have- all over 130,000 miles still run...more or less) ( sigh!) But I look back on those days of scrimping , being resourceful, stretching our pennies as happier in many ways than now.** I felt more productive then for sure. I was stimulated by the need to survive and to keep feeding and clothing our little ones. I gained more satisfaction from small things, and I believe I was spiritually richer, too. More dependent on the Lord. NO it's not fair. Being wealthy can rob people of peace, contentment,spirituality and motivation in life. **Even Bill O'Reilly backed me up just now. His Tip of the Day was: "The fewer things you want in life, the happier you'll be."

I'm always baffled about why some rush to conclude that if I prefer people to voluntarily utilize private charity or personal labor to help the poor rather than coerce people to expend their wealth through the government that I am somehow umcaring.

That's very commendable; but what would happen if government said that no one could accrue a net value of more than $9,000? How do you incentivize a first-world worker to stay at his job once he has reached that threshold--and what happens to the economy if you can't do it? How does putting a formerly-wealthy person in involuntary servitude create spiritual health? Is communist China a spiritually healthy place? Cuba? Venezuela? You know, two hundred years ago it was commonly argued that black slavery was actually a spiritual benefit to the individuals so subjugated--by the majority, at least. As an American, I would reply that there are two facets to what you're saying: the domestic and international facets. Internationally: it doesn't matter how much of my income gets sent to, say, China or South Africa or the PLO, because it will wind up in the hands of those nations' corrupt political classes (which is why I said earlier that aid to such countries needs to be determined on a case-by-case scenario). And domestically: the social safety nets in this country are such that no one need starve to death IF they are aware of, and use, the resources that are already out there. Beyond ensuring a subsistence level of food, clothing, and shelter, mere redistribution without regard to spiritual benefit of the parties concerned boils down to little more than state-sanctioned envy. And that isn't very Christian at all.

Well now that wasn't what I said at all. That's presuming a whole heap of stuff about how procreation of spirit children by exalted beings works. Still...as I said, not what I said. You stated that there is no reason to be more than friends without sex, and that without it you may as well not be married, and the context of the discussion clearly relates to this mortal life. As we have no idea how that will all work in the next life it would be pointless to discuss more than this life. D&C 131 clearly lays out the fact that in order to even get to the Celestial Kingdom where we will even have the chance to create spirit children (however that is to be done) then we have to be married for time and all eternity. It says nothing about having sex in that marriage in mortality (other than implied procreation efforts) whatsoever. That doesn't, logically, mean that sexless marriage is good. It simply means that there's more reason to be and stay married in this life than to have sex and/or to have children -- which is what I said. Your application of your limited mortal understanding of the way things work to an eternal, glorified, exalted realm notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is that we have no idea, as I have stated, how spirit children will be created. None whatsoever. Any presumption of celestial sex is pure conjecture and non-doctrinal. Regardless, as I've pointed out, our physical relations or lack thereof in the eternal realm is entirely irrelevant to our obedience in this realm. Marriage is a commandment. Sex is not. Now...to be fair, we are commanded to multiply and replenish the earth, and clearly that means some level of sex. But it certainly doesn't mean that if a marriage gets into a state where the sex is diminished or gone altogether that it justifies walking away from our covenants. And your contention that those who do not so engage may not be worthy of the celestial sphere is incorrect. The qualifications for exaltation are clearly laid before us. Obedience to the commandments and ordinances of God. As stated, that may mean enough sex to make an honest effort to procreate in this life (though in today's world and technology, that isn't even required with In Vitro and the like), but beyond that...your presumptions are unsupportable.

The point is not that there are not horrible things in the foster care system. The point is whether it's better or worse than putting them in a homosexual home. I'm not saying I would support the "wins every time" idea. But I would say that "wins almost every time" is potentially valid. Of course, that's a hard thing to say because each situation is different. But as a general rule, the real damage to how children are raised is the potential damage to their souls. With foster kids that is an unknown. Sure. There's the likelihood that they will be raised in ways that will be damaging to their souls therein. But with homosexual homes, the potential that there will be damage to their souls is significantly higher, to my thinking. So, yes, perhaps said too strongly, but overall, I tend to agree. As a related thought: Is it better for a child to be raised in a third world, but Christian and moral society, or a first world, but corrupt and immoral society?

2ndRateMind, I only have one question for this vision: Why? Why would anyone want to own part of a corporation if they aren't allowed to have more than $9K in assets anyways? Why would anyone work any harder than necessary to keep their net worth over $9,000, thereby producing any significant amount of taxable income? Why would a student spend almost a decade in medical school, knowing that she will never be able to accrue more than $9,000 in wealth regardless of how much she invests in her own education? Why would someone spend hours a day, for days on ending, building a house they will never live in? Why would someone agree to live a $9K lifestyle when they can join with others to create a black market that will provide a far better lifestyle? Why would someone launch a micro-business or invest in their economic ability, knowing that someone who could not/would not work as hard is waiting in the wings to skim off the fruits of those labors above and beyond $9,000? Mormonism provides the why--in the Book of Mormon, 4 Nephi, Chapter 1: When you can get all people--rich and poor--to love God and their fellowman so much that they voluntarily commit to such a regimen, and will continue to work even when that work no longer directly benefits them; you can make the system function. But until then, you've got human nature to deal with. And human nature says that workers will stop working as hard, and non-workers will remain non-workers, if lifestyle and work ethic are completely dissociated. Price ceilings lead to product shortages, 2ndRateMind--that's an empirically verifiable fact. You can fiat policy; but you can't fiat human behavior in response to that policy. That's why collectivist enterprises tend to fail, and any truly lasting, nominally "communist" enterprise tends to wind up as an oligarchy with a small group of "haves", a large group of "have-nots", and a pervasive police state. . . . by, imprisoning/killing the conscientious objectors in the here-and-now? That's been the battle cry of more than a few tyrants over the last two millennia.

Classylady, Thank you for posting. I've wondered about that and in discussions over the years was often told "why does it matter?" But it can matter. I'm glad there is an answer to the question.

Not sure I totally agree that it has little to do with it. Working for an organization that has close ties to the church departments, I think the church has a long way to go for SEO practices etc. I think it's a great way for google searches. The hope is to get things like this in the top 5 of google searches to start wiping out the sites that don't provide accurate information or are anti.

He asked for a citation of the statistic that 1 in 3 women were victims of sexual abuse. Nothing more, he went on to say If one's spouse has that in her (or his) past, it can easily make even the thought a marital relations a nightmare, and some serious therapy is needed.

The problem in this case is that it's not the gays denying they children their mother and father, or a mother and father at all. For adoption there can not be a child to adopt if the child has not been given up for adoption. This requires in most cases a straight man and woman to have a child then give up their rights as mother and father and leave the child to the system. Now being there is no quota for gay adoptions, there are equal chances for straight couples and gay couple to adopt. To the best of my knowledge all adoptive parents must pass a screening ( possibly not so much in private adoptions), so there is no favortisim. So now if the rush of straight parent in Utah to adopt these kids was so great would there been enough to even have many children left now that the stay has been lifted? I believe JAG pointed out the relativly low number of adoptions in Utah which leaves me asking do we leave these kids, who were abandonded by straight people the very mothers and fathers you are so supportive of, in the system until hopefully a straight couple comes along ( with every year making it be more unlikely), or do we try and get them out of the system faster into a home that will at least try to give a family setting vs a system run home or multiple foster homes. The cries of denying children mothers and fathers when it comes to adoption rings hollow to me. It's a great rallying cry if not for the fact that the mothers and fathers have given the child away and if the child is sitting there to be adopted then a straight couple for the most part hasn't already come and swooped them up. Also Gay men can show how to treat women as a wife isn't the only woman in a mans life. Mothers, sisters, ect. Fathers in my experience don't always provide the best examples of how to treat wives, but can be much different to other women in their lives. And yeah it's awkward to have talks about tampons and bra's and such with girl who are growing up, but there are many ways to make it work, I almost enjoyed the bonding it gave when the topics came up with the little girl i raised, and giving advice on boys seemed to go better than what her mom said sometimes lol.

wow it is working. YAY!

It's rather refreshing to see the needs of husbands mentioned in this thread rather than the constant drumbeat of their shortcomings. It certainly is a two way street, and lack of communication is frequently a problem. He has said that he does the romance thing, spends time with her, cuddles, etc., but there's crickets chirping in the bedroom. He asks, and she always says "not now." How much constant rejection from the person who is supposed to be his soulmate for eternity is he expected to endure? This isn't just about physical relations, every "not now" is a rejection of him as a person, a husband, a partner, and a man. There have been quite a lot of comments that paint him as the villain for asking a perfectly valid question. At this point, she married him under false pretenses, since reasonably frequent intimacy is implied as part of marriage. Nor is marriage merely for procreation, it's a gift we've been given to bring us closer together as a couple. Pres. Holland went so far as to call it a "sacrament." I'll leave the implications of that and any comparison to taking the sacrament weekly to the reader, but obviously the church leadership believes that regular intimacy is important in creating and maintaing a healthy marriage. If one spouse isn't interested, then the opportunity to strengthen their marriage through physical intimacy is lost, and if the other spouse is interrested, what should be a bonding opportunity and a sacrament that is available only in marriage degenerates into a source of contention.

Would you please cite the source for your assertion that 1 of 3 women have experienced some sort of sexual abuse? Exactly how that study defined "sexual abuse" is also important. If they count getting whistled at as a woman walks down the street, that's a bit different from instances that included a medical checkup and a police report. I've had hundreds of school girls jumping up and down and screaming at my companion and me as we walked past their school, and I didn't feel the least bit violated - but I think it was a running joke with all the girls in that school whenever the Mormon missionaries walked by, since it had been going on for years. Note that I am not trying to belittle the victims of actual sexual abuse. If one's spouse has that in her (or his) past, it can easily make even the thought a marital relations a nightmare, and some serious therapy is needed. I'm not saying that your statistics are wrong, but throwing numbers out with no reference to where those numbers came from and how the study defined "sexual abuse" doesn't help us evaluate the validity of your argument. I get the impression from how the relationship that started this thread was described that the problem was disinterest, not of the the wife having a history of abuse. I'll go out on a limb and guess that there's a distinct possibility that she only showed interest when she knew she was fertile, as evidenced by the fact that she got pregnant with only three opportunities to do so in an entire year. Women may look at sex very differently than men, but it is a bonding act for both of them. This marriage is lacking in that act of bonding, which is very damaging. The husband had every right to expect regular marital relations when he offered to marry her and give her a comfortable lifestyle. They also should have discussed what they expected from their relationship, including sex. Talking about how many kids you want isn't quite the same thing, since sex isn't merely for procreation, and the church supports that outlook. "In my work as a marriage counselor, I have found that there are some couples who feel that sexuality should be restricted to one dimension—reproduction. Yet President Kimball has said: “We know of no directive from the Lord that proper sexual experiences between husbands and wives need be limited totally to the procreation of children.” (Ensign, Oct. 1975, p. 4.) While creating children is an integral and beautiful aspect of marital intimacy, to use it only for that purpose is to deny its great potential as an expression of love, commitment, and unity." https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/09/they-twain-shall-be-one-thoughts-on-intimacy-in-marriage?lang=eng Quoting from the same Ensign article: "Still others use sexuality as a weapon or a bargaining tool. This is not only a misuse of a God-given privilege, it shows great selfishness on the part of one or both partners and makes sexuality a destructive rather than a unifying element in marriage." Whether this is the case in this marriage isn't clear, but the fact that she turns him down almost all the time hints that it might be. His frustration is perfectly understandable, as what should be a unifying act is becoming very destructive in their marriage.

Perhaps those wives need to learn more about how to please their husbands?..... What women want and expect from sex can be very different than what men want and need. I am talking about physical needs here, not emotional. I believe 1 in 5 boys have also suffered abuse, and that may also be a factor in many of these situations. We would be wrong to assume that there is a simple answer to this issue. Or does the wind only blow in one direction?

It looks like it's working correctly now.

May I interject something into this discussion. If I may be so bold as to suggest it, I would say that almost all of this discussion has been "political philosophy" and/or "economic philosophy". I also observe that most of the LDS posters here seem to prefer a "libertarian" or "conservative" or "capitalistic" point of view. Whether I agree with these people or not, I would like to point out that Mormons are not as one-dimensional as I believe the responses here seem to suggest (in terms of political and/or economic philosophies). I'm sure that some of my colleagues here will be a little bothered, but I would like to suggest that you also find examples of more "liberal" Mormons, because they do exist. One example that comes immediately to mind as an American is US Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. Here's a transcript of a speech he gave at BYU, describing, at least in some way how he is "a Democrat because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it." http://archive.rgj.com/article/20071009/NEWS18/71009014/Text-Sen-Harry-Reid-s-BYU-speech Another article that was published within the "bloggernacle" also talks a little about these issues from a more "liberal" perspective. http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/10/28/on-being-a-liberal-mormon-two-defenses-and-an-attack/ As I said, it isn't so much that I agree with either side of political or economic philosophies, but to demonstrate that Mormons may not be as one dimensional as it sometimes seems.

The issue, as I see it, is that the government itself as set itself as the moral compass for the nation. I know it looks like "leave me alone" right now, but I honestly believe people would eventually start making their own moral choices, and we'd see a lot of the morality that seems lost return.

Your comments about the money numbers shows that you do not truly understand what they mean. Although to be honest I keep expecting one of our numbers guys (like MOE) to come along and tell me there is more wrong with it then just being four years out of date. Anyways that $9,000 is not your yearly wage. It is your total wealth. You don't have a car unless it fits within that number, you don't have a house. Most people can't even rent a place for a year in a neighborhood that they would be comfortable living in for that. Lets go further with this horror. To get everyone their $9,000, all major corporations no longer exist. So they no longer provide services. All governments are gone including all their safety nets. If you got a medical condition you are on your own. You pay full price for treatment out of your $9,000. Oh and in addition to paying for your food, shelter, and medical out of your $9,000 I hope you have a way of defending yourself because the police don't exist anymore. And people are going to get desperate. Nor does the fire department exisit. Think about that during the cold winter when hundreds will be left to their own devices to keep warm. Now lets assume you are not one of the millions that will die because of this wealth re-distribution. You survive the year until the next wealth-redistribution. Well there is a lot less people now so your piece should be bigger, but at the same time you gutted the economic engine. You killed the goose that laid the Golden Egg. There isn't billions to redistribute anymore. Chances are you get even less the second year... and again this is total wealth not a yearly wage. If you manged to prosper during the misery of others that is gone now. Now don't take the above as me being against helping the poor and needy. I am not. Or that I don't think the wealth difference doesn't pose huge issues. It does. I am against being foolish about how we address it. Now in the US I know we have safety nets. By design no one in the US should go hungry. Yet they do. So do we blindly throw more money at the problem in the hope that the problem goes way? Or do we find the holes in the net and patch them? I am a fan of the latter. That is just us in the US, but I can't help but think that other 1st World countries have even better safety nets due to the inherently socialist nature of such. So the 1st World should be able to take care of is own. Then we turn to the 3rd world countries. I know that the US has thrown a ton of money at the problem, more then just about any other country. That didn't seem to help very much. So do we continue to throw money at the problem and hope it goes away? Or do we figure out why it didn't work and correct it? Again I am a fan of the latter. Bottom line I am not convinced that the problem of the hungry exists because we have not applied enough money to fix it yet. (It may be true but I want to know where the billions of dollars worth of aid we already sent went to)

Discussions of this topic can be hard because so few people understand the concept of "zero sum." If I go on a diet and lose 100 pounds, that doesn't force some unlucky woman on the other side of the world to gain 100 pounds. And yet I know many people who would claim that any act of generating wealth, even something as simple as choosing to work overtime or selling lemonade, must necessarily cheat someone else out of money that they rightfully deserve. This whole debate is poorly framed, in my opinion. The question should be whether any act of generating wealth in a modern economy steals from others or makes it harder for others to generate wealth. If not, we're going to have rich and poor people, just like we have fat and skinny people. But I guess I shouldn't say this too loud, or else the liberal progressives will start thinking about new government fat-redistribution programs.

The way this could be fixed (in America at least) is for our country to go back to following The Constitution: Much more corralled Federal Government and States with the power to run things how they want to which are small enough for individuals to have an actual affect on how things are ran. I am pessimistic about the federal government relinquishing that power though.

Do not presume you know my motives. Best wishes, 2RM.

Because drinking tea means to drink something made from the Tea Plant. Just like coffee is made from the Coffee plant. Wikipedia reference to Tea plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camellia_sinensis In common use the name tea has expanded to cover any kind of herbal infusion that is made like Tea is made. But for the Word of Wisdom it is the Tea plant that is not allowed. If your herbal infusion does not have parts of the Tea plant in it then it is not Tea according to the Word of Wisdom even if we give it names like Herbal 'Tea'

Well, there are millions of good Mormons out there. What a better world it might be if each brought one foster child into their home and introduced them into the gospel. It's not at all easy, but it is worth it. :)

I have been and am both a foster and an adoptive parent. There are countless children in dire need of loving, patient, longsuffering parents. Yes, we live in a messed up world but one is either part of the problem or part of the solution.

Random thoughts, now that I've been doing child welfare work for the last five months: 1. We sorta let the cat out of the bag when we started letting single people adopt. I agree that children need a father and a mother--but if we're going to let one father adopt (without a mother), it's hard to argue against letting two fathers adopt (still without a mother). 2. There is a huge need for good foster parents and potential adoptive placements. 3. Let's be honest. Couples--gay, straight, or whatever--don't generally want to adopt children. On the whole they want to adopt healthy, young, and (overwhelmingly) (and I don't support this, but that's just the way it is) white children. I doubt whether gay couples are going to be significantly more immune to these prejudices than straight couples are. So the net result is that it will be even harder to adopt babies, while the glut of older/minority/troubled children in the system is going to remain more or less unchanged. 4. Adopting a kid out of the foster system over the age of five is, frankly, stupid. You don't know what you're getting, and you'll be financially liable for whatever the kid does--and if the kid winds up back in the system because of some sort of ghastly behavioral issues (burning down your house, say; or trying to convince multiple teenaged friends to kill you)--you, dear adoptive parent, will be on the hook for child support. (I'm fighting a case like this right now; but it doesn't look good. Utah's pretty brutal about these kinds of situations.)

The logic is simple. A child is healthier when adopted into a home with a committed married couple (gay or otherwise), than being tossed around the foster system, in 10 different homes over the course of 18 years.

That's interesting. I find that most of the non-Mormons I know are completely unaware of their existence. And the ones that are aware, have never asked me a thing. The only time anyone has ever said anything was a nurse in the ER. She saw my garments (of course) while helping me change into a gown and asked if I was Mormon. She had heard about garments from her sister who married a Mormon and wondered if that was what she was seeing.

What greater righteousness is there than creating living beings, children, capable of eternal righteousness in the image of G-d inside of the covenant of marriage which is ordained by G-d himself? Even with G-d this creation of human life is considered his greatest triumph in righteousness.

New desktop.