Maureen

Hi NOWED4ME, I understand how you feel, I am non-LDS and have LDS family. The new trend, which is happening slowly, is for LDS brides and groom to have a ring ceremony for non-member family and friends. This way many can feel very included in the wedding celebrations. My nephew and his new wife had one and it was very nice. The bride and groom can personalize the ring ceremony how ever they wish. My nephew and his wife had a Scotish theme since both have a Scotish heritage. Not sure how soon your niece is getting married but if you can, ask her if she has considered having a ring ceremony. Here's a link for information: Ring Ceremonies For couples with large groups of non-members attending, a ring ceremony is becoming the trend. You can make the exchange as personalized as you like... http://www.ldsweddings.com/articles/sacred/sacred4.html M.

Really - I am quite curious to see these posts of mine that show me slapping your church. Can you provide some examples? :) M.

See now I don't even know what that means - what my game is? Let me remind you of your own words: <!--QuoteBegin-Please @Nov 12 2005, 05:46 PM...Please vote and give me full explanation of your feelings. This post is explaining my feelings - isn't that what you wanted? M.

I voted Don’t care. I can take or leave Please. IMO, Please likes attention, hence this thread she started – the martyr personality. She does contribute in some good ways, but the majority of the time I think she likes to hear herself talk (translate that into message board vernacular). She has that annoying quality of saying ambiguous statements and then when you ask for clarification, she’s shocked that you couldn’t read her mind through the world wide web. Like I said, it doesn’t matter to me. If she wishes to stay, it’s her choice. M.

So Fiannan, do you see in your own LDS communities that the trend to have large families is changing? My husband's 4 siblings that are active in the LDS faith average about 4 children per family (and that includes 4 step-children with one of his siblings not able to have biological children of her own). What do you think should be the norm for LDS family size? M.

If you did like I did and just clicked on the link that Jason provided you would have seen it is amazon.com (sells books on-line) and the title of the book. If you go further, you could read a review. So now my question to you Please is, do you really consider amazon.com an anti mormon site and the one and only review of this book is also giving you the impression that the book is anti-mormon? If so, please explain. Not at all. If Jason recommended the Harry Potter series as great reading would you also say that those books are also anti-mormon? M. That is a whole other thing... What is a whole other thing? M.

If you did like I did and just clicked on the link that Jason provided you would have seen it is amazon.com (sells books on-line) and the title of the book. If you go further, you could read a review. So now my question to you Please is, do you really consider amazon.com an anti mormon site and the one and only review of this book is also giving you the impression that the book is anti-mormon? If so, please explain. Not at all. If Jason recommended the Harry Potter series as great reading would you also say that those books are also anti-mormon? M.

dizzy - Explain to me please how a book titled Early Christian Worship: A Basic Introduction to Ideas and Practice (by Paul F. Bradshaw) is anti mormon stuff. I would think it depended upon the guys bias... not the title of his book... don't you? But without reading the book itself, how would a person know that the contents of the book is anti mormon stuff? That's what I would like dizzy to explain to me. She never said she read the book. M.

dizzy - Explain to me please how a book titled Early Christian Worship: A Basic Introduction to Ideas and Practice (by Paul F. Bradshaw) is anti mormon stuff. M.

I have no idea. I’m not necessarily for or against gay marriage; I’m ambivalent. I believe God loves all mankind. Homosexuality may be a sin, but so is being cruel to your fellowman. No one is perfect. If certain churches wish to accept and conduct gay marriages; that is their choice. Maybe it will all come down to karma – we reap what we sow, and time will tell if that decision works out for mankind in his favor or against. You may have missed this but it is not just Christians you reproduce. It is a human survival instinct to reproduce. Pagans, Heathens, Moslems, Jews and even Atheists have this desire to bring offspring into the world, for many of the same reasons Christians do. So even if all the Christians in the world decided to limit their reproduction abilities, I’m sure there are others out there that can make up the difference. M.

I’m not sure what the Lutheran Church in Sweden-Inactive Members-Gay situation has anything to do with birth control, but whatever turns you on. There are many religious denominations that have member records that do not match member activity, even in the LDS church. That’s what choice is about. People join/are born into a church, get bored or something happens that makes them stop going - it happens. Peoples’ right to choose still matters, whether they are of a religious group or not. Lutherans in Sweden might become extinct, but the people who once called themselves Lutheran still live on. M.

And who is to determine who these selfish Mormons are that postpone having children for such evil reasons, like having the financial means to care for them? <gasp> Do you propose to set up some sort of Church Family Watch Dog Society to interrogate those couples who have not produced within 2 years of married life? What happens if you find out they are not able through natural channels and are seeking medical advice? What happens if they are unable to ever have biological children? It must be because of a punishment from God for something else they did in their life, what else could it be. If all couples were as good as you, Fiannan and your wife they wouldn't hesitate or have any medical issues, they would pop them out and look down on anyone else who isn't doing the same. Oh, but wait, isn't it also church policy to not judge others for not living up to your expectations. Whether a couple takes 9 months after marriage to have their first child or 9 years, it's still between them and the Lord. Hmmm, you make it sound as if there are only 10 Lutherans left in the whole world. This is what I found: Number of Lutherans worldwide Europe – between 49.3 and 51.3 million North America – 14.2 million Africa – 10.5 million Asia & Pacific – 7.5 million Latin America – 1.1 million Total World – 82.6 million http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherans#Num...erans_worldwide M.

I guess these two statements are not in the context of a conference but they exist. We should have a fair definition of birth control - how about having the ability or control to decide how many children and when. Here's what I found from lds.org: Birth Control 36863, True to the Faith, Birth Control, 26 When married couples are physically able, they have the privilege of providing mortal bodies for Heavenly Father’s spirit children. They play a part in the great plan of happiness, which permits God’s children to receive physical bodies and experience mortality. If you are married, you and your spouse should discuss your sacred responsibility to bring children into the world and nurture them in righteousness. As you do so, consider the sanctity and meaning of life. Ponder the joy that comes when children are in the home. Consider the eternal blessings that come from having a good posterity. With a testimony of these principles, you and your spouse will be prepared to prayerfully decide how many children to have and when to have them. Such decisions are between the two of you and the Lord. As you discuss this sacred matter, remember that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved. While one purpose of these relations is to provide physical bodies for God’s children, another purpose is to express love for one another—to bind husband and wife together in loyalty, fidelity, consideration, and common purpose. Birth control “How many children should a couple have? All they can care for! Of course, to care for children means more than simply giving them life. Children must be loved, nurtured, taught, fed, clothed, housed, and well started in their capacities to be good parents themselves. Exercising faith in God’s promises to bless them when they are keeping his commandments, many LDS parents have large families. Others seek but are not blessed with children or with the number of children they desire. In a matter as intimate as this, we should not judge one another” (Dallin H. Oaks, in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 101; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 75). “The Lord has told us to multiply and replenish the earth that we might have joy in our posterity, and there is no greater joy than the joy that comes of happy children in good families. But he did not designate the number, nor has the Church. That is a sacred matter left to the couple and the Lord” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Cornerstones of a Happy Home [pamphlet, 1984], 6). 31114, The Latter-day Saint Woman, Part B, Duties and Responsibilities, 14: Withstanding the Evils of the World, 110 I'd be interested in reading those anti-family-limitation statements - the more recent the better, since the LDS church is a continuing revelation church. M.

Exactly! LDS members believe that their prophet has a pipeline to God, while Lutherans do not view Luther or any of their church leaders in the same regard. M.

Oh now come on, you don't make judgements Maureen? You've made a couple towards Mr. Luther. Now let's see, you would be fine with one of your kids joining a polygamist sect and setting a goal of having 12 kids? Let's say the other one decides to join a free love commune down by Mt. Shasta, that would get your blessings as well? Everyone makes judgements. The scriptures warn us to base those judgements on scripture and not personal preferences. Mankind in general has to make judgements on everyday living. The problem with Please's incorrect assessment with what I was trying to say is that she's leaving out the rest of my statement which gives my context of respecting others' decisions meaning. I'm not saying that everybody makes good decisions, I'm just saying that in the context of this thread, Fiannan seems to be on a mission to convince everyone that because he thinks LDS and other Christian communities should have large families (because he interprets scripture to say "have large families") then they better have large families. I disagree with Fiannan and his interpretation of scripture and 16th century church leaders' opinions. He ignores what others have said, still insisting that he is correct and therefore everyone should listen to him and follow his lead and have a bazillion kids. My opinion is that family size is a personal decision and no matter how Fiannan feels I will respect his right to believe what he wants and do what he wants but I refuse to agree and follow is opinions. I would think that after much discussion he would have the fortitude to also respect others differing opinions and leave it at that. And Fiannan's example of my kids joining a polygamist community is overly dramatic. I'm sure my kids will make decisions that I may not agree with, but so far I can't complain (they are only 17 and 14). M.

Please, your question marks are messing up the screen size - I think. You're a little dramatic. I guess you might understand that making the effort to comprehend the context of what anyone is saying (not just moi) makes a difference in how people respond. M.

You think that's a bad motto to live by: "Respect your fellowman!" That's interesting! You would prefer to be judgmental towards people that don't share your beliefs/philosophies. I doubt you would win over too many friends with that attitude. M.

Coffee is a very mild diuretic and it's easy to overcome dehydration by just drinking enough water each day. The old and leathery look I think comes more from smoking cigarettes than from drinking coffee. Smoking. Cigarette smoking causes biochemical changes in our bodies that accelerate aging. Research shows that a person who smokes 10 or more cigarettes a day for a minimum of 10 years is statistically more likely to develop deeply wrinkled, leathery skin than a nonsmoker. It also has been shown that people who smoke for a number of years tend to develop an unhealthy yellowish hue to their complexion. Additionally, a study conducted in 2002 showed that facial wrinkling, while not yet visible, can be seen under a microscope in smokers as young as 20. These signs can be greatly diminished, and in some cases avoided, by stopping smoking. Even people who have smoked for many years, or smoked heavily at a younger age, show less facial wrinkling and improved skin tone when they quit smoking. http://www.skincarephysicians.com/agingski...basicfacts.html M.

Yes but, how would you agree for your wife to receive this sperm donation. Would you only allow for artificial insemination or would you allow for them to have sex with each other? So Fiannan, I'm curious - why is it important for you to follow something that is set up by an existing precedent? If people didn't try new things for the first time, where would all the inventors be? So you think that because some men in the 16th century decided that they see certain things as rules it should follow today that those rules still exist. But you have doubts that what you believe God commanded to happen in the 19th century would not happen again, because it's not the norm. News flash, culture in the 16th century is not the norm for the 21st century. M.

Laws do change. I'm sure all communities have laws on their books that do not mean anything today. Change is part of society. Society always evolves, it never stays the same for very long. It appears that Luther and Calvin were incorrect in their interpretation of Onan's sin. It was not about birth control it was about the levirate marriage rules. You may believe whatever you wish regarding the biblical morality of having no children - that is your choice - but it doesn't mean you're correct. If you and your spouse wish to have as many children as you want go right ahead, but you are in no position to preach to others about following the same path. It's a personal matter, you're interpretation of scripture means nothing to me. I think the Jewish leaders at the time were more concerned with Jesus equating himself to God. That's the great thing about choice, we all have it. Whether the choices mankind makes are wrong or right, he still has that choice. Choose whatever you see is right for you, but I don't think you're in a position to say "Everyone should do what I do, because it's important to me." Make your own decisions and respect others to let them make their own. M.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about dizzy? I'd be interested in reading one of those health magazines that talk about the damage from coffee and tea. I'd bet they're not magazines from this universe, maybe an alternate universe. I happen to be a coffee drinker and I have beautiful teeth if I do say so. You know we don't live in the dark ages. M.

How rude is that? It's not rude at all. It was a wink to the fact that Jenda is older than me, which is good because there are a lot of people older than me. And also to add that special notice of a milestone birthday. Birthdays are good - as my husband says they are better than the alternative - I agree. So again, Happy Happy Birthday, Jenda and wishing for you many more!! M.

Can you show me how the Comstock Laws were connected to any christian organization. To me it seems they were an act of government. I'm not sure what you mean by illegal - I'm not sure that any church had any authority it what could be made illegal. It appears that Margaret Sanger had christian church opponents. But as you can see, the attitude towards birth control in society and church organizations has changed. Christian churches in the past had their own rationalization why blacks should be discriminated against, doesn't mean they were right. I think I'm at a loss as to why you think the attitude toward birth control in the past with the Christian church has anything to do with what Christians believe is good and right regarding family size now. M.

I disagree, your analogy is wierd. Then they would be wrong. I know of no churches that have supported family limitation. I only know of the Catholics and Mormons who promote large families - but that doesn't mean that those who do not promote a large family dynamic promote a limitation of family. Most Protestant churches I believe feel that family size is a personal issue, the church organization itself does not feel it is necessary to make rules regarding family size. M.

What point are you trying to make about someone like Martin Luther vs someone like a prophet? The LDS members see their leaders as prophets, their words are to be heeded because they speak for God. Therefore if a first presidency member told the LDS people that "such and such is the way it is", there's a good chance that the majority of the members would revere his words and follow his revelation/advice. Lutherans on the other hand do not see their pastors or past church leaders as the kind of person that should be revered as a "voice of God". Pastors are teachers and Lutherans have every ability to know what God wishes for them as any leader of a Lutheran congregation would. Therefore, any opinions and beliefs that Martin Luther may have had that is not necessarily backed up by scripture (or the interpretation thereof) would only be his views and not something the majority of the church organization would have to endorse or follow. Luther may have had insight into the truth of "justification by faith", but his own bigotry only effects him and not the whole body. M.