Fiannan

Okay you guys -- the thread is being hijacked. Remember the topic!!!! If you can't, then check below:

There are two verses I can think of (but since I have to go give my 1 year old a bath I don't have time to look them up). Both are in the Old Testament. The first deals with if a man marries and dies before getting his wife pregnant. His brother, married or not, had to marry her and raise up posterity in his brother's name. The second deals with if a man is caught with a woman who is not married (having sex). To avoid stoning he had to marry her, didn't matter if he was already with a wife, and he could not divorce her for any reason. It was in the Law of Moses. I believe there are several other scriptures that dealt with regulating polygamy -- such as being prohibited from marrying two sisters.

On looking up the poster on the net I noticed it isn'r really that revealing. If someone disagrees I am sorry -- guess it can be deleted. However, if a picture is worth a thousand words this certainly ilustrates it: http://voorgevorderden.com/images/difference_eu_and_us.jpg Thing is, this image doesn't apply for England.

Has anyone ever seen that poster showing the difference between women of the EU v. those of the USA? I'd post it but I'm not sure if it might offend a couple of people here -- a bit of the women's behind shows as they sit down to eat.

Again, I think it depends on the persons. I remember that a few years after graduating from high school a clerk at a local department store was behind the counter and when I asked him a question the guy asked if I remembered him from school. Embarassing. The guy looked as if he was maybe 35 rather than 25 and he wasn't even fat. On the other hand I ran into a friend from HS just a few years ago who looked as if he dadn't aged a day -- still had the same haircut. Some people look younger, age slower and are quite active -- others aren't blessed with good genes or good health habits. Throw them all into the same mix with the younger singles and I rather doubt the later will be getting hitched to any 20 year olds. If the former do then all the better for the LDS gene pool I say.

Ha, with the value of the dollar so low many Europeans find that it's cheaper to do major shopping in the USA. Last October an article ran in a Swedish newspaper that said that if you were planning on buying a moderate-priced digital camera and two pairs of Levis Jeans you could skip buying them in Sweden and fly to the USA and get them -- the savings would pay for your plane fare and you could get a trip included.

It is ironic -- God condemned male homosexual acts in no uncertain terms. Yet God mandated polygamy in some circumstances as well as allowed polygamy the rest of the time.

Ah, but if the western world adopts a liberal stand on polygamy, and of course the Islamic world has a liberal stand on polygamy, then more than half the world would tolerate it. At that point, where the Church will not be in any standoff with the governments of countries we are in, the Manifesto pretty much expires, doesn't it? And haven't Church leaders predicted that before the Second Coming that polygamy will be re-instituted? Seems all things may actually work towards God's intended purposes after all.

Stanley Kurtz on Big Love & Polygamy on National Review Online I know a guy who teaches 18 - 20 year olds (primarily) in a university in Sweden. He often uses fringe issues to get discussions going and told me something interesting about the issue of polygamy. He said that he decided to throw this issue out for the examination of social taboos to a large class. To his surprise the discussion flopped because everybody in the class was either in favor of recognizing polygamy along with monogamist marriages or else they were fairly enthusiastic about the idea -- he said about one in five. I asked what the demographics of the class was and he said this particular class had only a few people from the Middle East and most members were ethnic Swedes. He mentioned that when he started the use of this topic around the year 1999 you'd see a split down the middle -- half thought it was terrible and half thought it's up to the people involved. Over the course of almost a decade fewer and fewer people oppose it. Now let's say the left takes control of Sweden in a couple of years -- a very likely thing since the current "conservative" government is totally inept. For a perspective on attitudes if Bill Clinton were to run for office in Sweden he'd be considered a far,far, far right wing extremist. So you can guess the attitudes of Sweden's current crop of left wingers in government. So imagine Sweden legalizes group marriage. It takes hold and other Nordic countries follow suit. Then someone living in Germany decides to press for being allowed in a group marriage and the government says no. The ticked off German and his male and or female lovers sue in the European Union's court saying that their rights are being violated. Not having a valid excuse to say no to these folk, and maybe considering a lot of Muslims are already living in polygamist arrangements all over Europe, the court rules in their favor -- thus pretty much most of western civilization stretching from Ireland to Greece liberalizes their laws to accomodate non-monogamist marriages. Canada and Australia are already pretty tolerant of polygamy and California's high court decision on gay marriage make it pretty clear that man plus woman and nothing else is on the way out as the only social norm. Legalized polygamy may not be far off.

What about those people in Denmark who go to animal resorts? Does their lifestyle demand acceptance and equality as well?

That is what I am saying -- except I have a different conclusion to the question. First, age does not determine one's interests in life or even their physiological age. What if you have a 30-something or 40-something guy who is a triathalete and maybe plays in a band on the weekend? Yeah, he's really gonna relate to women he's going to meet in the over 30 singles program. As for age differences at 10 years, what about 11 or 12 years? How about males who prefer older women? Let the 28 year old male be able to meet active women who are maybe 30 or 40 something. As for the longevity question let's say you have a guy who is in his med 40s marrya a woman who is maybe 21. Yes, the charts will indicate she will live long past his time of departure -- but not necessarily. He may live to 100 while she only lives into her early 70s. And so what if maybe he dies 30 years later in his mid 70s -- how many marriages in the USA today last 30 years? And if they are married in the temple then that means they will be together for eternity anyway. As I have said earlier, unless the guy is one of those people who doesn't want to have kids, thus denying his younger wife a family, then there's nothing wrong with age differences.

Would be interesting to examine any bones left behind since most older skulls indicate that the earliest inhabitants of at least North America were more in line with European/Middle Eastern peoples in bone structure.

Not sure he has no influence but oh well. I still love his "love your enemies" talk that suggested that even white people deserved to be treated well. Gee, that's mighty nice of him. The part about Jesus being a black man persecuted by whitie Romans was really strange though.

Guess what Checkerboy, I am going to totally support you on this one! Bet that surprises you considering some of our past debates. For a female in the Church 26 years of age is limbo, except you can continue to go to a college ward/young singles ward until your 31st. birthday. For a male who is single in the Church 30-something is limbo (you cannot hold a calling in a YSA ward and unless you have connections you are not going to be encourged to go to social events for that ward) so you are left with the "Let's talk about our trip to Florida" -- complete with a slide show taken from a tourist bus events at a special interest SA group. I like your suggestion about the "cusp" age group -- the in-between ages. mid-20s to mid-40s would be a good idea -- but it would be far easier to arrange a totally non-age-based singles program. If our goal is to get active LDS people together then age is by far the least important factor yet we create artificial categories and then expect to arrange people accordingly. Doesn't work in the real world that way. You think in the old days when there was a barn dance in a rural community they segregated people according to age? How about those fancy balls with the upscale folk in Europe? The divorced guy friend of mine who I spoke of earlier was about your age but was still asked for ID whenever he went to clubs that served alcohol. He was also quite fit. So why should he have attended the old folks group activities when he had cute 20-somethings who were not members approaching him? He did desire a temple marriage so he did find someone online and is still married with children from his new marriage. Opps, almost forgot, I was with him when my bishop actually suggested to him he take a summer off and attend BYU summer classes to date and find some young woman to marry and his bishop told him he should find a younger woman and start a new family. Studies in attraction generally find that males around 40 are the most attractive to females. Ever wonder why Hollywood usually matches leading men in their 40s with leading women in their 20s? It's a formula that works in people's minds. So Checkerboy, if you are in an area that has a lot of Mormons then go out for activities that attract females and see if you can hook up with a like-minded LDS gal. If you look younger then take a few institute classes and meet some young women there, take some BYU classes or try the on-line thing. I remember a story about a guy who was single who met President Kimball and asked for his advice on meeting his eternal companion. President Kimball opened his door and said she's out there -- get busy and find her. That's what I would tell my sons, any single friends or even one of my debate friends as well!

OKay, Teddy Roosevelt was not a leftist and he supported good environmental policies. He was not some earth firster who hates using resources or some zero population activist who sees a baby announcement in the paper as a terrible thing. Roosevelt thought strong, moral healthy couples should aim to have six kids and that they should teach morality, patriotism and care for the land. Tell that to some activist at a rally and they would think Roosevelt was some sort of freak. He wasn't though, he just wanted a strong America and one with a good environment. I think the best environmentalist is one who tries to cut back on the use of non-recyclable and non-biodegradable products, doesn't waste, tries to minimize pollution and goes out and plants a tree here and there.

Again, nobody catches the point? Our history is told in such a way that it distorts reality. Let's just look at the points made in the Wikipedia article. When you think of segregation you think of the south yet Owens had to get to his own reception in a fancy hotel in New York through the service elevator. As another poster made clear, FDR was no big fan of blacks yet the Democratic Party makes a big deal of it's symbolic master FDR. To be sure, Roosevelt was a master at coalition building and propaganda since he could get blacks to leave the Republican fold but also get whites who disliked blacks to also join that fold. Roosevelt imprisoned thousands of people based on their race or ethnicity. Does he get critisized for this or is it generally just stated that the government in WW2 did it?

Perhaps true but he did free the slaves. The reason he did not do this sooner was due to the fact that it could have pushed border states into the Confederate alliance. A side note, Grant did not free his slaves until he absolutely had to. Correct. Funny. I believe he was a member of the KKK prior to working for Pendergast. That is true. However, on the original point, why did Owens have to wait until Eisenhower was elected to get the recognition he deserved? Probably true. By the way, yes, you are correct that the games featuring Owens were in Berlin. However, the article indicates that Hitler decided not to shake hands with athletes prior to Owens' victory. And Moksha, nobody said that Hitler was all nice to blacks. However, there is great irony when Owens was ignored by FDR yet history generally ignores this. Kinda like when history books chastize the US government for putting Japanese in concentration camps (they put a lot of German and Italians away too but that gets little mention) but fail to give the credit to FDR. One can see where hero worship can taint the way history is presented.

A) With China's hosting of the Olympics there have been many news broadcastes featuring the 1936 Munich games. B) There is a misconception that Hitler had a great deal of anamosity towards Owens beating German runners (it could be true after all) but he did not snub Owens as many reports innacurately indicate. C) There is a misconception that the Democratic Party is the party of black people and if a black runs as a Republican then they are some sort of "Uncle Toms". Yet it was Lincoln, a Republican, who freed the slaves and from what I have read elsewhere FDR did not want to be featured with Owens for fear of losing white support. Woodrow Wilson premiered "Birth of a Nation" in the White House and commented how historically accurate it was. I have no idea about Truman (who got his start in the KKK) but isn't it ironic that Eisenhower was the one who honored Owens?

Jesse Owens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A bit of Olympic history seeing that the history of the Olympics is so much in the public eye today. Strange though, one wonders if more blacks would have a more favorable view towards the Republican Party if history were told the way it really happened in school textbooks.

Many LDS females are really afraid to stand out -- and it is standing out if you date a guy who has been divorced or if he is considerably older than you. You can solve this by using LDS online dating services. A friend of mine who got divorced in his 30s (with kids I might add) tried the internet route and was getting hits from LDS females as young as 18 who wanted to get to know him better. Don't be as stubborn as a friend of mine who is in his early 30s. He is into hunting, fishing, skinnydipping in hot springs, is a stereotypical red neck in fashion but is super devout. I keep telling him that if he'd put his rather unique profile out there he'd definently get interested females.

Go ask her for a date before your SECOND HS reunion!

My former boss was about 30 years older than his wife. That means she was conceived when he was around your age. Keep this in mind if you feel old. Maybe your future wife is one of those 18 yer olds you feel old talking to.

No problem, before the link was removed I added it to my favorites. Actually, this illustrates why people should not take materials in the General Handbook as Gospel because they aren't. If they were then they would not be kept from the general membership.

Thanks for the link. I have wanted my own copy of the CHI for a long time but couldn't find it in its entire version on the net. Removed link ~ Canuck Mormon

burns, if you are healthy and fit the criteria for egg donation perhaps you should check out donating eggs. You'd be helping people have families to an even greater degree than being a surrogate.