Fiannan

What's with all the defensiveness? Anyone who has done any traveling knows that there is an epidemic of obesity in the USA. Small families, computer games/activities, less emphasis on physical activity in schools, TV, etc. are all reasons given for expanding waistlines.

I cannot agree less. Food additives have been around since the 1970s in the same levels they are today. Yet when I was in high school being fat would not only put you out of the social scene, it would also get you barked at by the PE teachers. Fitness was promoted, jogging was taking off as a popular passtime and people made more time for outdoor activities. Now PE teachers are taught to be sensitive to kids and try to grade them for their attitude, not their accomplishments. New Age fluff. People are spending more time in front of the TV, computer screen and X-box. Families are smaller but guts are bigger since instead of buying chips and making your 3 or 4 kids divide them you have one or two kids getting what they want at the store. I will note that you find more fit people in places like Utah, Oregon and Washington because there is still an ethic of health. But the rest of the nation is expanding -- watch soon for the lifespans to start shrinking.

There's a popular picture that circulates on the net which depicts the difference between American women and European women. The European is cute, wearing a thong, shaply and well kept. The American is wearing polyester, gorging on a fastfood burger and looks like a female Michael Moore. Sometimes truth presents itself in strange ways.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2012168,00.html Okay, as I said on another thread Brits aren't really ideal in regards to fitness either. However, this is a danger as kids are getting fat. Americans are turning into porkers and we have a reputation as being a race of Michael Moores. I get this all the time when visiting other countries -- I thought Americans were all fat, your family isn't fat. Well, then I have to explain that there are a few who try to stay fit. Letting yourself get fat is as dangerous as breaking the Word of Wisdom, in fact, it should be covered there in my opinion. How effective is a person speaking about the LDS health code when he is 50% over his ideal weight?

I think that might be wise. Also, the internet is a good way to find people too. I know a guy who'se wife went kookie on him and left him. He was 37 and went on an LDS singles thing. He is into youthful things and looks a lot younger than he is, but was pretty straightforward in his profile too about age, interests and the like. He got hits (women wanting corespondance) from all over the world ranging in age from 21 - 35. Maybe for many this is the most efficient way to find someone.

Speaking of boys being left out: http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/ne...-the-pooh_x.htm

China is extremely harsh; it's one of the best examples of why atheism should not be allowed to rule government.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Announcement/601081013.htm Interesting article and insight into how things operate in the Middle East.

Why not just allow him to have his own screen name. You could even pick it for him. Gee, let him be a free spirit and speak for himself. besides, if he does disagree with you you can read it and punish him later. By the way, the US government attempted to set up shelters for women escaping polygamy. No women from LDS homes came for use. From what I understand (and was explained by another poser here) the shelters were discontinued as women escaping from prostitution (utilized by the non-Mormons in Salt Lake) were the only ones seeking help. Kinda like today -- we in the USA call ourselves so morally superior to the Muslims and will actually point out they allow polygamy. Yes they do, and recently in Morocco the government was discussing banning it but thousands of women took to the streets in protest as they wanted to keep it. Of course I guess we are morally superior -- we just dress our girls like whores, allow pornography, have tens of thousands of our young women making money from working in the porn industry, have tens of thousands working as strippers, yet fine women in some areas for breatfeeding in public.

This article deals with the ORIGINAL history of many American girl's favorite doll: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1997/11/26harlot.html Very interesting, as the German soldier on Laugh In used to say.

I was once in an argument with a feminist at my campus and at one point she yelled "Well, I'm a lesbian -- what do you think of that?" I responded that I understood because I often felt like I'm really a lesbian trapped in a man's body. She got red in the face and all the people surrounding us were roaring in laughter. I guess my point is that I don't have two viewpoints expressed under one screen name -- just how confusing would that be? I mean maybe some people would believe it when I said I was two different people or maybe they would think I had some sort of multiple personality thing. Couldn't you use the name Aristotle1 and Aristotle2? Maybe AristotleXX and AristotleXY? Or maybe Mrs. Aristotle and Mr. Aristotle? I am not trying to dis you here Ari, just making a suggestion.

Didn't the proclaimation merely urge members to stop taking NEW wives? From what I understand of the period it took a while for members to stop taking more wives. So if the Church had the same attitude towards that (kinda analogous to the US government's attitude towards illegal immigration -- aw shucks, stop running across the border) then I really doubt 2nd. and 3rd. wives were suddenly thrust into the singles program.

Why leave and allow someone who has done you wrong to win?

Again, I feel that is is important to note that polygamy is not for everyone. It takes certain types of individuals to sidestep the norm. To illustrate this, I would like to use the homeschool movement as an example of what I am getting at. Most people in the Church are somewhat more individualistic but, like non-Mormons, feel comfortable within the norms of whatever society they live in. Therefore most Mormons send their kids to government schools because that's just what you do. Sure some would like to homeschool, but problems might stand in their way, but on the average LDS people feel they can trust public institutions. These conformists are not good candidates for living out of the norm in the least. Then there are the super individualistic Mormons. These can be highly active members but still go to a rap concert or hippie festival on the weekend -- or even spend the weekend at a nude resort. Maybe they ride Harleys or look like a Billie Bob redneck. Many homeschool their kids for fear that American schools put education second and popularity and consumerism first. But they are LDS and are far into the individualistic scale. Most of these people would probably be open to a polygamist lifestyle. Then there are your homeschool type people. These people can belong to the above group or be far right in attitudes. They could not care less what the average person thinks. Yes, some of these are the people who get swept into polygamist groups through intellectual investigation of the issue anyway. These people teach their own children, see government as nothing more than a necessary evil and could not care less about general norms. These are people who often have a flag in the front yard, but would take junior behind the woodshed if he even dared speculate in joining the army and fighting FOR this government. Many, if not most, would be open to polygamist lifestyles. So if you can imagine the Church as a circle and the perifieral areas representing people who just aren't in the norm the core group would probably not feel comfortable stepping out of a middle-class, Protestant norm. However, a significant number of people would -- and that's the group that WILL welcome it when it comes back.

Back to topic -- does anyone recall the REAL original Barbie doll, or the doll that inspired the creation of Barbie? Really interesting trivia.

That's called projection. That would be explained by this action figure: http://www.mcphee.com/items/10884.html

Here's one doll you can get any female relative who has decided that getting married and having kids is just not important: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-1141846500-0#

Wow, so every religion with roots in Hebrew/Judaism is not part of God's plan? That knocks out Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Sounds similar to a feminist I heard once that said that women should avoid any religion founded by men -- wow, that takes out all but a few Goddess cults. Guess we could make it politically correct and not so restrictive and say any religion founded by white men could be avoided by PC women but that means Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism would not be attractive to such feminists.

Ironically, the Supreme Court in an anti-polygamy/LDS ruling (Reynolds, around 1870) actually ruled that the US was founded as a Christian nation and (due to the justice's interpretation of Christianity) so polygamy could not be allowed. Oh, and sgallan, the Tripoli treaty was in reference to scabbles with people in the Middle East (wow, even back then) in which the intent was to illustrate that the US was not an official Christian nation in reference to foreign policy (i.e. unlike a antion today like Iran that feels their policies are a direct reflection of Shia Islam). The fact that it passed the US Senate unanamously (even with extremely strong Christian members) shows that this distiction makes it unlikely that the intent fits with what modern secularists try to portray it as meaning, namely that the US was to be totally secular or religion free in character.

Get grandma to take the kids for the evening, greet him at the door in something from Victoria's Secret, serve something special and.... Worth a try.

Oh come on, there's no reason to believe the Democrats are going to take over the government any time soon.

No disagreements here really. I will point out, however, that the founders of this nation, while wanting a denomination-free federal government permitted STATE governments to have taxes to support specific denominations. I believe the last to finally do away with that (through a legislative process, not a judicial) was Massachusettes in 1828. Federal money was allocated by the federal government (Jefferson actually supported this) for the purpose of paying missionaries to convert the Indians to Christianity. Probably not something the ACLU or the NEA would like to recognize.

Let's start with George Washington's Thanksgiving Day Proclaimation. I once posted this on a forum and merely said something like Good 'ol President George is at it again. Look at what he wrote!" and then posted the proclaimation. Several liberal participants had a fit and said Bush was abusing his position as president and violating (the alleged I will note) the separation of church and state. By poster # 12 or so someone pointed out it was Washington's words. The text: "WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:" NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us. And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best. GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine. " (signed) George Washington Source: The Massachusetts Centinel, Wednesday, October 14, 1789 The Mayflower Compact -- the first legal document in the American colonies and the beginning of what would become the United States. "In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620." http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/mayflow.html

Now I must disagree on one point. I fel that if you are taking something in popular cultures and making a valid point that is okay. I have heard Church leaders make references to what was popular music in their day -- like in the 30s or 40s. I have never heard these songs (unless in a Tom and Jerry cartton or old WW2 movie) but maybe it helps make the point. I gave a sacrament talk against materialism during the holiday seasons and made reference to Jonny Depp's new movie "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and I feel it drove the point that parents are responsible for creating materialistic children.

Sounds like a Rodney Dangerfield line! I believe he married a young Mormon woman a few years before his death and always liked to make jokes about polygamy. As for women who don't want their husbands in polygamy that would be fine -- less competition for the ones who would.