Fiannan

Funny as always: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...party&hl=en

.I would NEVER give my consent. My husband and I have talked about this and he hates the idea even more than I do. We would never live it, celestial law or not. Hopefully, we would not be considered righteous enough to do it lol. JCDean78, I have the same opinion as you. We've discussed what to do if the other dies at a young age. I want my organs donated, he doesnt, but neither of us will ever get married to anyone else. Even if he died tomorrow I would never ever marry again. I could never love anyone like I love him. I would live so I could see him again one day. I really have a hard time with polygamy and hate it when people bring it up who aren't church members. Its an embarrassment as far as Im concerned. I understand why we had it, but that doesnt mean I have to like it! I doubt that the English government would ever legalise it anyway. Anything remotely religious (unless its Islam of course) is viewed suspiciously and mocked. Tony Blair once made a comment that he prayed. It was all over the papers, the news, interviews-he had to retract the statement, he said, well of course I dont mean literally, just in my heart or something like that. And the nation breathed a sigh of relief. Thats the way it is over here. Gay marriages, or 'civil partnerships' were made legal here last December. Gays can adopt. Its all ok. Anything religious, isnt. I dont have a problem with gay people as such, obviously it is wrong, but we need to show love to all as the Saviour would. I have a few gay friends. I do not believe in gay adoption or marriage though. It makes a mockery of the sanctity and unity of marriage and ruins kids who need a male and female role model. Yes, England has truly evolved into an infidel nation -- too bad too, but oh well...maybe England would not go for polygamy. A friend of mine from Britain said the natural way of pairing off there is to get drunk at the pup and get to know the person you wake up with the next morning (certainly not a strong climate for a religious-based marriage relationship like polygamy should be). Also, again, most people would not want to live in a polygamist relationship as it totally goes against the selfishness western society is based on. Another foundation for infidel culture is lack of commitment and pokygamy actually magnifies the level of commitment one must live. I read recently that many women in Britain are rejecting marriage and instead going to sperm banks. Yet with the severe shortage of men in Britain who have adequate sperm levels, and then the further lack of men willing to donate, many British women are forced to go to Denmark to get what they need (some have called this the second Viking invasion). Sad what is happening to a once proud nation. The thing I am getting at though is that the kind of people who would adopt polygamy would come from the personality types associated with going against the norms of conventional society. Also associated with these types is generally higher intelligence. Therefore you could get more religious children in the next generation and they would be smarter as well. Of course, nobody should be forced to live in such a household, but people whould have the choice.

I agree with your position! Some women would enjoy built-in company. Also, according to Jewish folklore (not scripture) Adam had lots of wives. In fact if you are into vampirism look up Lillith -- one of Adam's wives that refused to submit to him in total.

This imam makes an excellent case for polygamy today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X65F9w0Neo

I agree; same-sex marriage is the first step, as it has been in Europe. As for the Church, I have no reason to believe that they will reinstate polygamy. Why not? The document suspending polygamy reads like a teenager writing a contract blaming his parents for making him do something he would rather not. So I'd say it might take a few years after polygamy was recognized by the state but it would be re-instated. And why the heck not? Is polygamy immoral if our moral compass is the Bible and not ancient Roman/Greek society? Absolutely not. Would it benefit women? Yeah, if those women wanted good men to marry.

One wonders though, what would be the result of polygamy on eugenic quality of the country, spiritual values or the problem of illigit births? Personally, I believe polygamy would only be practiced by people of strong faith -- and that would be LDS, fundamentalists and even those of a more spiritualistic nature. These people probably possess genetic qualities higher than the average person and that would improve the overall quality of the gene pool.

You know, in 1970 most states had laws against homosexuality and the majority of the US population supported these laws. Since then things have certainly changed -- you can see homosexual characters in movies and on TV, many cities have domestic partnership laws, the topic of gay marriage is widely discussed, and bi-sexuality is the newest popular trend for young women. That's quite a change in less than 4 decades. Now consider that the Reynold's case that stated that polygamy was not something that could be protected under the 1st. Amendment since America was founded as a Christian nation (ignoring the Bible's not ever condemning polygamy). If that Christian nation thing is no longer considered politically correct (and polygamy is starting to become a subject of debate) and people don't seem to be so prudish about these kinds of issues then when (if ever) do you believe polygamy might be at least recognized as a legitimate form of arrangement? 1) Never. 2) Oh, I think we'll have to wait until the Mellenium. 3) In about 50 years, 40, 30, 20, 10. Which? My personal view is that people will be safely be able to live in polygamist arrangments (without coersive government attacks on personal liberty) in about 20 years.

In Sweden there is an assumption that when a divorce takes place there will be shared custody -- unless someone was abusive. While I may at times come down against the Godless country there are things they get right. We should adopt their ideas on custody when a divorce does take place.

This information should be in everyone's minds. Bump.

Lock up alcohol if you don't want college kids dying so much. As for gun safety, Utah has the lowest rate of accidental deaths for children in the country.

You know, let's put this in perspective. About 90 college students per year are murdered in the USA. That's pretty scary -- I mean 70 toddlers die from drowning in mop buckets per year. Then again, 3,200 students died last year from alcohol poisoning.

This is an interesting topic. Related to this is when we keep up with people on-line. Have others found that when you talk with people you know that discussions often get way more personal than you would get if you were in the same room with them?

A friend of mine mailed this to me recently and asked what I thought. She is sorta Christian and interested in the LDS Church and in college. So please give some imput. I personally love dealing with archetypes but feel free to interpret any way you wish.

I'm not judging in the least. What I am saying is that the rewards of the Gospel often cost us. However, those rewards ultimately have the greatest payoffs. I have broken off relationships with beautiful women due to the woman not being enthusiastic about kids -- and then I found a beautiful and wonderful wife who was enthusiastic. If living in a big city means having to choose not to raise a family then maybe one should remember what Lot gave up in order to live the commandments -- I am sure Sodom (maybe like San Francisco or Amsterdam) was a beautiful place with all kinds of economic opportunities but... What ultimately is career or status worth? Nothing -- everyone could be replaced with an outsourced Pakistani overnight if it came right down to it. That is the point I am trying to make.

I do think there is an irony facing many of the members of the church today -- at least those of us of childbearing years. During the 1960s (I was just a little kid, but I remember) there was a huge, unrelenting push to stigmatize all people with, or wanting, large families. At that time, at least according to books and articles I have looked up written in that era, LDS leaders and members overall took a leading role in stating that the Lord had not changed his mind and Gen. 1:28 was in full force. They didn't tell people to reproduce at their biological limit, but to strive to provide bodies and homes for our Heavenly Father's children (our brothers and sisters). Birth control has been critisized by church leaders if it is used to limit a family for any reason other than health or if the person has a genetic problem. So when we took hit after hit for saying large families were great, we did it. Now the world, well many leaders and experts in the developed world, are now saying the birthrate is TOO LOW! There are many incentives being implemented in Europe and Japan to get people to have children, and in the US the tax code is very favorable to those with large families. And what are many LDS people doing? Trying to find any and all excuses to justify small families as being okay. Gosh, to get LDS people to have large families the world has to make it something to be critical of, but when the world suddenly wakes up and says, "There's a baby shortage!" that's the most effective means to get LDS people to say no to kids???? Psychological pioneer Carl Jung once said that the sure fire way to make a Christian mad is to point out the proofs that exist (outside of faith) for God's existence. Something to think about. Oh and here are two really interesting sites to visit -- not LDS, but LDS in philosophy. One is what to say if someone is critical of you having a large family. The other deals with the Biblical support for having a large family. Check out and comment: http://home.att.net/~nathan.wilson/brthcntl.htm http://www.plomp.com/largefam/comebacks.htm

I'm sure God would understand -- just like not paying tithing because it might force one to live in a less fancy house. I had a grandfather who was a widower. He wound up marrying a young woman when he was in his mid 60s and they had 3 shildren together. Point is, I think the reason sterilization is absolutely wrong (unless a health reason is involved) is because one never knows the future. No marriage is stable enough to predict if it will last, absolutely no marriage (one can only trust in the Lord ultimately), and then there is the possibility of premature death. That could force one back into the singles pool and if one goes in without all the necessary equipment it can put you at a significant disadvantage.

Oh come on now, Brigham Young was totally awesome! Closest thing we have in modern history of Moses. As for the bath thing I have never read of such a thing. But from what I have read (and I think it was repeated in some threads here a while back) in the early days of the church in the Old World baptisms were done in the nude -- so that would afford a lot less privacy that a room in a temple. As for Wikipedia, I would not suggest turning in a term paper in a university citing Wikipedia as one of your primary sources of information either.

Do they have violent movies and video games (more than we do) in South Korea?

Again I am going to post this interesting article: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/SR9.cfm On the Canadian issue, correct me if I am wrong but most Canadians have skills. Again, correct me if I am wrong but most illegals from south of the border don't even have a high school education. If a large population of people who can't speak English and have little training even in Spanish make for a good economy then maybe we should encourage our youth to all drop out of high school, or even middle school, becaue even if they do speak our language at least the economy of the USA will boom!

Immigration is great! Well, for big business. And guess how much the taxpayers pick up in additional costs for the "give us your tired and poor..." line that never was taken literally until the 1960s? Read and weep: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/SR9.cfm

Ironic, men in the Church used to face jail and were perfectly into violating unrightious federal laws in the USA to perhaps take 5 or 6 wives and have families with each. Quite a burden, I tell 'ya -- jail being a real possibility just for following God's commandments (and think of the hardships of being the mother of 6 children when the U.S. gestapo came by and arrested your husband, and you having to pull the farm together in semi-arid Utah or Idaho. Things have certainly changed when it comes to sacrifice with many. There is more I would say but maybe I will try to keep myself nice:) since most people I know say that I am perhaps a bit provocative but really nice -- and a young woman I know recently said that while she finds most Mormons old fashioned she stated I was the opposite of that. Hey, maybe I am SO old-fashioned that I have reached the other side of the spectrum and now my views are radical and revolutionary. Or maybe the philosophies of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young might actually be cool to younger people in an otherwise discontented dying culture.

Obviously many decisions as they relate to the Gospel are between the individual and God. There is no "requirement" that we go to church every Sunday, or do any missionary work or even not work on Sunday. But I think we all truly know what is right.

Could you give me the name of that book? Maybe the author has written other things as well.

Aphrodite, if I did not have a 6 week old who will wake soon I would fully respond to your article now. However, I'll just start here. I recently spent some time with a young work collegue (Finnish woman but grew up in Sweden) in Utah. We were chatting one evening and I sent her an article where the Pope was blaming individualism for Europe's suicidal birthrate. I asked her opinion and she offered me this: I'll note this young woman is an agnostic but has an attitude towards family that I wish more young LDS people would have. OH, and if you believe that small families are wonderful and parents need to be total slaves to their children's egos then maybe you should read up on the teachings of psychological pioneer Alfred Adler's warnings to parents or read the article below: http://www.nationofwimps.com/nationofwimps.php://

One of the reasons my wife and I never make a baby anouncement until about 4 months -- been through the situation of announcing early, losing a baby, and then people asking later (who didn't know) if the baby was born yet. Not a fun experience.