Fiannan

God would probably recognize that (as I have stated before) demographic realities would be the determining factor as to polygamy taking place. After a war you would need it more than in times of peace -- or perhaps when a nation is highly secular (women being more drawn to religion than men) it would also benefit to have polygamy. I cannot for a second believe that polygamy was allowed because of the hardness of men's hearts since that means prophets (the ones who should know what is right more than anyone else) were guilty of sinning by taking more than one wife. And the Mosaic laws would actually force men into polygamist unions if: 1) Your brother died before getting his wife pregnant. 2) You messed around, got caught, and then you were commanded to take the woman you cheated with as an additional wife. The Bible states that God blessed David with several wives. So silence of condemnation, coupled with instances of showing it in a totally positive light, would (if the issue were taken up using the US court system of investigation and judgement) lead to an easy verdict -- polygamy is indeed part of God's plan.

What part are you not following? Many people choose to speak for women the same way some Protestant ministers claim to speak for all Christianity. These people say polygamy is exploitive, by its nature abusive (even if there is no abuse taking place in the home) and something no woman would choose. However, the fact that many women did choose it in the 19th. Century (a time when many churches baned parts of the Bible being read aloud due to mentioning of sex) speaks volumes. Now we live in an era that should be even more open to the idea of polygamy for these reasons: 1) People are moe open to unconventional examination of the Bible -- if 50 years ago you would have said Jesus was probably married you would have been depicted as a psychotic heritic (now the idea is catching on). 2) We are no longer shocked by seeing people on our TV sets living all sorts of lifestyles. 3) The justifications for gay marriage can be easily turned around to justify any sort of marriage relationship. 4) Islam is now mainstream -- at least it's not seen as some faceless cultish force (well, by some people but not by most). I used the figure of 5% because that's generally the percentage of families in traditional Islamic areas of the Middle East and India who practice polygamy. Simple demographics would keep the number relatively low. However, I would imagine talking with women I associate with (all highly educated and many with a stuborn feminist streak) many more than 5% of the female population would consider a polygamist household. Now some of these women (some LDS included) might like the idea of not only having a male partner but female partners as well -- it seems to be the trend with young women nowadays -- but nevertheless whatever would motivate women to accept such a lifestyle is not important. The important thing is that there are those who would.

Perhaps, but in psychology a theory deals with generalities. Just like the generality that gets thrown around here that "women would not want to live in a plural marriage situation". Maybe most women would not, but if even 5% did then that would be justification to allow it and it would not interfere with the other 95% of women in the least except maybe to reduce competition for available men. Also, Prend1, I'll bet there are personality traits your husband and your father share.

Bizabra, it's actually one idea Freud through out that I am totally in agreement with. When we are younger there is a connection we find with our opposite sex parent. We idealize them, we want all their attention, and if asked who we want to marry at that age (4 - 6) we generally say "mommy" or "daddy". We eventually realize we cannot have them as a mate so we take that internalized view of our opposite-sexed parent with us as we seek a "substitute". This explains why women from terrible family backgrounds will wind up marrying men just like their abusive fathers. Then if the guy "finds Jesus" and cleans up his act in a year many of these women have left their now-reformed husbands and are living with an abusive partner. I believe that if a woman is to live in a polygamist relationship she has to be highly secure, over the rivalry she experienced with her mother (the electra complex which Freud also said women never mature from, thus the explaination why many women have love-hate relationships with their mothers) and be able to see herself as an individual who has a loving husband even though her husband might have other wives -- in the same way young girls have to realize that their father loves them just as much as their siblings.

If you really want to get mad at Wal Mart go to PBS Frontline specials and you can view online the special they did on Wal Mart.

At least in Portland there's lots of bike trails, recreational opportunities (including nature just an hour away or less) and a generally healthy ethic -- hense, little obesity unless you are in lower class areas. Oregon's ethic is one of health, despite the liberal attitude on marijuana (even with LDS kids). I think the most important factor in young people staying healthy is their parent's example. If the kids see you sit in front of the TV in your spare time then they will too. If they see you running, swiming, biking, they will integrate that. I very rarely see fat kids from families where physical activity is stressed. Alsom Justlooking, the world is not quite as dangerous as you would think watching TV. Of course, I have walked the streets of LA, SF, New Orleans, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Stockholm, Istanbul, etc. after dark and I am still in one piece. However, TV makes local events into national events and magnifies the rate of crime WAY out of proportion to reality -- thereby creating a climate of fear. Are you aware of the fact that stranger abductions of children result in less deaths of children under 6 than drownings in unattended mop buckets? If you are truly scared of potential dangers to your children then bikes and cars are the greatest threat to their lives -- of course, there's all kinds of accidents at home too. But getting abducted by a killer? Far less chance. As for molesters, I heard in rural areas of Georgia from a friend that lived there that if some guy molested a kid they would place hooks in his skin and strap the other end to a tractor -- a modification of the ancient Viking torture. Messy, but it does send a message that our liberal courts seem unwilling to send. Maybe making your ownership of guns known to your neighbors might keep one hiding a secret from touvhing any of your kids.

I don't know about that. Give a porker the recipe for baked dog (you can get it on the net) and the dogs would be in big trouble.

Oh my, a long post from sgallan that I find excellent! A few comments: I really don't think that lack of belief in God is genetic as I know lots of people in my ward who are from non-religious and downright atheistic backgrounds. The only thing I have questions about involving sperm donation is the idea that my sperm could be used by lesbain couples. I don't know how I feel about that -- but if you have no problem with it then hey, you can get some spare cash and do someone a great favor (I would assume the vast majority of people getting sperm are heterosexual however). I would aslo assume the kids you coach are from families that demand that their kids not sit around and develop into a bowl of fat. There are too many out there that are however. Ever see that picture on the net that compares an American woman with an EU woman? It's pretty cool -- wish this site allowed for posting pics. It shows a huge woman in spandex stuffing herself with McDonalds (US woman) with an slender Euro-gal sporting a thong (everything is covered however) as a symbol for an EU woman. I suppose the picture should have a disclaimer warning that women in England make our's look slender.

I wasn't putting you down, but it seems you bring up your daughter so much that you are projecting into her. Just checking -- kids do need to do things on their own too. sgallan, if you have intelligence, health and so much energy it's a pity you only have one child. Kinda robbing the gene pool, don't you think? The least you could do is volunteer services for a sperm bank -- no joking, pass on those traits to the next generation. As for porkers, don't you think we are pampering this generation way too much? Kids spend hours in front of the x-box, MSN chat, etc. and get all the junkfood they want. No wonder they are out of shape. My kids (I might add) are not out of shape. True, I can outrun them (distance) and outswim them but they are far ahead of their peers. I did view "Supersize Me" and one guy featured did bring up the irony that it is okay to question someone's smoking, but it isn't socially acceptable to question their overeating. That has got to change or else we Gen-Xers (born 1960 - the late 1970s) will peak the longevity charts in a few decades and then there will be a sharp decline.

You have already established that you drive your child. I am not chastizing you, but you mention her accomplishments so much I am starting to wonder if her rophies are on her shelf, or your's.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051221/ap_on_...it_unfit_kids_5 Well, houses have gotten bigger, but families smaller, but maybe you need a big house to fit today's youth. Isn't it wonderful, two income families trying to compensate for their 1.8 children by giving them tons of treats sothey will weigh tons. When I was in high school the people I went to school with were born in the early 1960s -- so there were few fat kids. We also had PE teachers who were more concerned with abilities, not self esteme.

Valid point. To a leftist, humanist I suppose one could say that the atomic bomb was a Jewish creation and so the bombings of Japan were Jewish. That's extreme but people who attack Christianity seem to use this sort of reasoning when they say that every war, every act of violence, from a Christian or Christian nation is caused by Christianity. Personally, I would say that if a philosophy promotes conquest or killings of people based on their religion then Islam could easily surpass Christianity in that arena. But without a doubt communism teaches antagonism against those who believe in God or at least oppose the state so all the casualties at least within Russia's own population inflicted by the government IS the result of atheism -- same with all other communist regimes. Hitler was the ultimate Darwinian (with a mix of new age and German nationalism) so his casualties also can be laid at the alter of Godless thought.

Well, no taxes I suppose after all the deductions. Also, as the saying goes "cheaper by the dozen". I also doubt they eat much expensive junk food -- I rarely notice too many porkers from large working class and middle class families.

I suppose he could be, but do you have evidence for that?

Again, proof that Christianity has been responsible for more death than Islam, atheism or whatever the Mongols believed in.

Simple: To wish that my number of wishes would become unlimited, as sgallan has already indicated, but then I'd wish that nobody else got any magic wishes (that would be dangerous).

Glad to see the judge is so unbiased. Wonder where he studied biology -- as we know that is a prerequisite for gaining a law degree.

Now that would imply moral standards. Is that something radical feminists want to deal with?

Again, not one single country in Europe (except Muslim Albania) has a birthrate even close to replacement -- nor does New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea or the United States. Many nations are desperately trying to get their birthrate to climb -- ironic since LDS people are commanded to strive for large families yet some seem to want to ignore that particular commandment (I guess focus on the horrendous sin of getting your navel pierced is a much more pressing issue nowadays). Same with Christian fundamentalists -- the issue of same sex marriage is much more important that commandments in the Bible to raise large families and to oppose divorce.

The term "civilized" is highly subjective, wouldn't you say? The Incans had advanced astronomy, architecture and medicine, yet practiced human sacrifice and canibalism on a horrific scale. We call ourselves civilized yet abort children in the 3rd. trimester of pregnancy.

Funkyfool416 states: What if those two same gendered individuals are both sisters? Is that wrong, and why?

If I did not have a family to spend the day with on Christmas I would find other things to do -- and no, I do not consider doing anything on Christmas to be akin to breaking the sabbath.

Feminists paint themselves in the corner. Why? Because they have no foundation by which to base their standards on except a vague notion of "equality". Of course, this equality gives women choices that many feminists don't like. One could say the ultimate expression of feminism is to be a stripper. Sure some feminists might say the job is exploitive, yet who is exploiting who? A woman can move around (doubt many have professional dance training except for the ones in eastern Europe) on stage and make lots of money from guys who can watch, but have no emotional attachment. She exploits his urges and drives so he will part with his hard-earned money. I suppose this exposes the weakness of humanistic feminism. Without moral standards many women will take their "freedom and equality" to the extremes and one can even question who is exploiting who in many instances. Ever stop to think that when women were burning their bras in the 60s that it was doubtful too many men were crying over this development?

The family I illustrated in the beginning of this thread must have a mother who loves and sacrifices for them.