Jenda

Actually I'm not surprised that all you women are in such denial. I guess it is not a picture you want to face up to. Bottomline: Keep a man happy sexually, and keep yourself up physically and you will have a lot less problems with him. I have to say that that is a bunch of horse doo-doo. I keep my man sexually happy, and his only thoughts are on himself and his daughter. I am treated like a slave in this house. Even down to the stupid stuff. If he does laundry, he will bring up his stuff and our daughter's stuff and put them away, and leave mine in the basement. (I don't care about the putting away part.) If he sets the table, or pours a drink for dinner, he will set two places or pour two drinks (as if I didn't exist.) We often have to fight for even being noticed because men are incapable of thinking beyond themselves.

I hope that you are not looking for a timetable kind of answer. I think that God leaves some of those things up to us.

Where are you looking for the answers?

Maybe you are just not recognizing the answers. What type of prayers are you praying? What are you asking for?

I agree, Amillia. Well said. Cal, you have absolutely no idea how wrong you are on all your assumptions about women. I don't know what kind of household you grew up in, or what your current one is like, or if you are just reading all these wacky studies (done by men who don't have the foggiest idea what motivates and inspires women, either), but you really need to find some real women and talk to them instead of just making assumptions.

SF, your dream seems more like a "you can't go back to the past" kind of dream.The house you remember so pleasantly could represent a time of your life that you reflect back on longingly (even if only in your dreams), and when you revisit that time, you see how idyllic it was, and staying there is representative of wishing to return to it, but you become uncomfortable in the end, which could signify that you need to move on. It could carry a similar spiritual connotation. It is very symbolic to me.

Dawn, Actually, upon further reflection I am thinking that it's a wonderful and good thing that you agree with the article in principle. Maybe I misunderstood the original premise that started the other thread. I thought the idea was put forward that because the BoM speaks of God the Father and Jesus Christ "as if" they were one and the same being but in different forms...that you felt that was scriptural proof that the LDS concept of God and Christ as two separate glorified beings was therefore false. I am glad that you see that those references in the BoM should in no way be interpreted to mean that. LOL..did I put enough words in your mouth?? I have more if you like! LOL! randy First, as I said in the other thread, I lean toward modalism, and the scriptures in the BoM tend to foster that idea. Jesus said to the Brother of Jared, "Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son." And in Mosiah, Abinidi was speaking and said, "I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people; and because he dwelleth in flesh, he shall be called the Son of God; and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son; the Father because he was conceived by the power of God, and the Son because of the flesh, thus becoming the Father and the Son; and they are one God, yea, the very eternal Father of heaven and earth" Those (as well as many others) put together with the original wording in those verses in 1 Nephi that were changed early on just seems to cement that concept. I am not 100% convinced of this, though, so still cling to some traditional Trinitarian beliefs as well. However, with those scriptures that I quoted, as well as the original version of the first vision, it seems that the traditional LDS view comes from somewhere in left field (as it were.) Second, as I said in the post you quoted, the things I don't necessarily agree with are not biggies. Like, I do believe that God created all the "primal elements" that were used to create the heavens and the earth (the article states that He didn't.) What I had (and still do to a certain extent) a problem with is calling Jesus "Father". I have never believed that. To me, the Father was always the Father (and thus the God of the OT), and Jesus was always the Son. This is one of the things that started leading me down the path towards modalism (coupled with those scriptures I listed above.) Since I never viewed Jesus as "Father", when He said "I am the Father and the Son", there was only one way I could accept that. To have to change the meaning of the word from verse to verse is just too confusing, so I don't believe it is of God. However, the article presents a fairly traditional Trinitarian view, on the whole (aside from a few references to LDS theology towards the end).

Frankly, I must ask, can you honestly say, his earning power made no difference to you. I seriously doubt it, even if you say so. I think you are decieving yourself. Secondly, that you consider yourself an exception, hardly disproves the rule. It takes more than a few exceptions to do that. Read the research again. I don't consider myself an exception. You consider me an exception. I think I am the rule. Why do you think that, when all the research shows otherwise? I read the articles at the links you posted, and the second one dealing with women has some very interesting statements scattered throughout it. "Evolutionary psychology offers one view about female psychology. Not all psychologists agree that this theory offers a complete explanation of "what women want", but some find the logic attractive. " I highlighted the areas above that state just how accepted this theory is. This was at the bottom, sort of like a conclusion: Perhaps the most abstract quality a woman looks for in a man regards love and commitment. A man can have all of the resources in the world, but if he does not choose to give his potential mate love and commitment, many women will go in search of another mate. One question I would like to ask a researcher doing a study is, what is the population they are using for a baseline? Are they questioning only college students (who have one set of values), or women who enter the workforce right out of high school on an industrial level (who seem to have a different set of values), high-school drop-outs, etc. My guess from reading this one reference is that they focus on college students and leave all other women out of it. Because like I said, I know lots of women, and this theory just doesn't hold water with most of them, or me, which is why I consider myself the rule and not the exception.

If ID is a theory, then, before it shows up in Biology books, it needs, at minimum, a reliable set of observed facts, that can't be just as easily explained using evolutionary theory, since the rest of the facts point DIRECTLY to evolution. Which "facts" are you talking about? The "fact" that they cannot show that, short of creating a test tube environment, they cannot prove that life created itself out of the muck in the ground? Or because of the "fact" that the Cambrian explosion completely devastates the theory as postulated by Darwin and nobody has come up with a replacement theory? You keep pointing to little intra-species evolutionary changes taking place, but nobody has argued against that. It is the larger evolutionary changes, the ones that change one species into another, that nobody has been able to prove. If you know of some, by all means, bring them on.

For some reason (probably because of the sub-title of the part about divine investature of authority), I thought it was going to talk about priesthood authority. But I realize now why it relates to the thread and why you suggested I read it. Once I got past that first part that I didn't really agree with (and it is not a major disagreement), and a few small areas of LDS theology toward the end that I don't believe, the article was very good. Thanks for suggesting it. So, Randy, what did you want to talk about with this article?

Now THAT is pretty! :) I knew somebody would appreciate it.

Thanks, Amillia. And look, the "of"'s are not red.

You are right, I was stalling. You see, the problem I have is that I am, in many ways, a modalist. And because of that, it is extremely hard for me to understand the article. So I went to another discussion board and discussed the problem there, and was helped along the way. So maybe I can finish this article with a better understanding. Ciao for now!

Just a breath of fresh air....just checking to see if you have "seen the light" yet!! Looks like we need to keep "polishin" you a wee bit more!! rj Oh. And you think hanging out on an LDS board will help me see the light? Have you seen the light yet after hanging out so long on that other board? hhhmmmmmm????

Frankly, I must ask, can you honestly say, his earning power made no difference to you. I seriously doubt it, even if you say so. I think you are decieving yourself. Secondly, that you consider yourself an exception, hardly disproves the rule. It takes more than a few exceptions to do that. Read the research again. I don't consider myself an exception. You consider me an exception. I think I am the rule.

Not at all. I'm glad you finally agree with me! What you fail to realize is that it is family security she is looking for, not self-security. You act (or at least post) that she is doing this for selfish reasons, and I am trying to point out that you are being deceptive when you post because you imply (and you do imply) that she is doing it for self-gain.

I was pointing out in my post that men are shallow and marry women for their looks (and sex, but that is a no-brainer), but women marry men (at least according to that article you linked) for a myriad of reasons, and the one dealing with money was more for security for THEIR children. Sure, all things being equal, if love was not involved, I would choose the guy who made more money because that might mean a roof over my head, his head, and the children's heads. It might mean that we ate well as opposed to not being able to afford good food. It might mean that we have health and dental insurance instead of having to be on Medicaid. Is it a problem for you that women think of these things?

Sorry, I don't feel the need to attract a man with lots of money. I prefer someone who is companionable to money. I was married for quite a few years to a man whose income would put him in what is considered the top tax bracket, and with both of our salaries (and I made almost as much as him), we lived comfortably, but as I was not in it for the money, the money did not keep me there. So much for your hypothesis.

Randy, did you get another time out from that other board? Or did you need a breath of fresh air? Enquiring minds want to know.

Anybody is more fun than SF! ROFL.(*jenda slaps herself silly and bangs her head against the wall and says 5 Hail Mary's for making that remark.) (But now I have offended Jason, so *jenda asks Jason why he never equipped the peace offering she sent.)

Yeah, I figured a couple of others here would, too. B)

I am not arguing with you about what men prefer, that is like a DUH! kind of statement. Then what are you arguing about? What is your disagreement? It is about the way you are portraying women in this argument. Like we are all money-hungry, lazy, socially-conscious witches (with a capital B ). That article you linked, while it does offer a glimpse of what women look for, it in no wise details the why's. And the why's are more important than the what's.

I am not arguing with you about what men prefer, that is like a DUH! kind of statement.

What if the man lets his looks go (in my dh's case, his belly!)? I have to disagree with the rule. Men do marry for looks, but not all women marry for money. I didn't. My dh was as poor as dirt, but handsome as Kurt Russel. I'm not talking about the exceptions. The exceptions don't change the rule. Who says which is the exception and which is the rule? The general rule is that women are more concerned about what the guy does for a living, than guys are interested in what a woman does for a living. Do I have to dig out the surveys for you? Lots of sociological studies show that women as a rule are more concerned with what a potential mate does for a living than are men. Cal, you keep coming up with all these "general rules". Where do you find these "general rules"? Is there a handbook somewhere? We keep asking you for proof of your allegations, and you supply none. And when personal testimony after personall testimony is supplied by many people on this board, we are the exceptions to the "rule". That's a lot of exceptions to the rule. Perhaps I could offer an alternative conclusion. Your "general rules" are all in your mind. Your attitude about this whole subject makes me want to ask if your wife ran off and took you for all you're worth.

Is this better Randy?