Just_A_Guy

Hi Bert-- I can agree with a lot of what you're saying. But not this. Rachel's not "giving orders" to Leah in Genesis 30; she's simply making a trade. And in point of fact, it was Leah and not Rachel who was the first wife. I've no problem with the idea of the first wife approving other marriages of her husband. But to say every other wife needs permission of the first wife each and every time she wants to share a night with her husband strikes me as just . . . creepy; and I don't see any scriptural support for that kind of practice.

Well, and there's the rub. She's a reform Jew; but she did note that ultra-Orthodox Jews take a different approach and frown on all abortions. Of course, she believed that hers was the ancient and "scriptural" view (don't we all? )

Foreverafter: Precisely. Tls70, forgive my doctrinal nit-picking with Foreverafter. I don't think anyone can make a straight-faced argument that you'll be "stuck" with your husband in the eternities if he is not living up to his covenants in the here-and-now. The question you face is whether to wait for him in hopes that he'll come around, or move on with your life. To be blunt, the only one who can answer that for you is the Lord. My opinion is that it's generally better to build your life on a foundation of what you can control, not around what you can't. Frankly, were I in your position, I'd probably leave unless I got a revelation that I should stay. But you have to do what's right for you.

My recollection, Dravin, is that she explained that verse in terms of property and not in life. In ancient Israel, children were economic assets to the family either through the income the boys would eventually earn (and the "retirement security" they provided the parents), or the prices the girls would collect when they were married off.

I think this is what Foreverafter is referring to: President Young seems to be talking about temple marriages here, not civil marriages. And, to some degree, this counsel may have been superseded by the Church's practice of issuing cancellations of sealings. (It would seem to be somewhat disingenuous for the First Presidency to declare a sealing "cancelled" if it wasn't really "cancelled".) The First Presidency has the power to loose as well as to bind (see Matt 16:19).

Very well. Let me alter that to "different theological backgrounds." :)

Interestingly, a co-worker of mine is a Reform Jew. She stated (and I may be badly misinterpreting this) that there's an old Jewish belief that a baby isn't actually "alive" until the eighth day after it's born--which is why they didn't circumcise until the eighth day. Under Jewish theology (as my co-worker explained it), an abortion at any phase is (forgive the pun) kosher. (I didn't dare ask her what the implications were for infanticide under that teaching. One day I'll work up the nerve.)

Does not compute . . . . . . . Now I know how Ceebooboo feels! Seriously, though--what an interesting thought! It seems to me that part of Adam-God (also not Church doctrine, Ceebooboo--just something Brigham Young and a few others said) was the idea that before reaching your exaltation you have to serve as an Adam on one world, and a savior on one world. The idea of Mary as surrogate mother troubles me. LDS literature is full of allusions to Christ's being half-mortal, half-immortal (which was ostensibly why He could die, and also why He could choose the hour and manner of His death). I'm not sure how that would all work out if Jesus weren't actually the biological seed of Mary.

Hordak, if memory serves God told Enoch that "Man of Holiness is my name" [EDIT: Just had a thought, though: Is that Elohim or Jehovah speaking? And if Jehovah, is He speaking of Himself or by divine investiture?], or something to that effect. I'm not sure the King Follett discourse is dispositive as to whether God may or may not now properly be called a man. Ceeboo(boo), I think it just boils down to different cultural backgrounds. As I understand it, Catholicism is very preoccupied by the mechanics of Jesus' conception, even to the point of providing an explanation for the process of Mary's Immaculate Conception. We Mormons find the mechanics an intellectual curiosity, but I don't think we attach much spiritual significance to it. For us, what's important is that Jesus came to earth and that He came with certain attributes that were rightfully His by virtue of His divine parentage; which attributes enabled Him to perform His ministry and His atoning sacrifice.

I think the key question is, "with what attitude are you doing it?" If you're just trying to "twist the lion's tail", so to speak, then I'd say that yes; it's a sin. If it was just a matter of having to use the last clean shirt in the closet, or the only bathing suit you could find at the store that fit you (but you wear a shirt over it, or whatever, as I've seen some girls do), or you live in a culture where multiple piercings is the norm, I'd say no big deal.

Hey Ceeboo(boo) Well, "us" in the sense of "we, here, in this discussion, regardless of religion". :) It's not technically a Church teaching; it's just something that Brigham Young said and that some Church members (including some rather influential ones) have believed over the years; and that the rest of us enjoy debating periodically. I don't recall the King Follett sermon saying that, either. I'll have to read through the thread again and think about the post you mention. EDIT: Just did a search. The only other reference to "King" I can find in this thread is Alana's quote from Ezra Taft Benson, which in passing cites King Benjamin (in the Book of Mormon) as referring generically to the condescension of God.

Well . . . the thing is, every once in a blue moon, one of them does thrive. So it does all seem to come back to the question of how much we're willing to inconvenience the many in order to save the few.

Loudmouth is dead-on. See a lawyer. Most states will let you get a "separate maintenance" order that, while not technically a divorce, will protect your interests and make sure your husband fulfills his financial obligations to you until you guys figure out whether you want to go through with a full-fledged divorce.

Wait . . . what?

I think you need another option: Implantation. As I understand it, several methods of birth control don't block fertilization; they just keep the fertilized egg from implanting into the lining of the uterus and beginning to receive the needed nutrients. Personally, I voted "other" based solely on anecdotal experience of my wife and mother-in-law, both of whom claimed to have been able to feel approximately when the spirit of the child they were carrying entered the body a couple of months into the pregnancy. Of course, I don't expect my own experience to convince anyone else. My general feeling is that "life" begins later than most ardent pro-lifers think; but earlier than the abortionists would like to believe. Since we don't know for sure, I think abortion at any phase of pregnancy is a dangerous game.

True. On the other hand--as the recent threads on polyandry should make clear--there's a lot about divine marital practices that we just don't know with any degree of certainty. Also, a lot of our cultural ideas about sex arise from the old sectarian idea that sex is inherently sinful--an idea which our doctrine (if not our culture) repudiates. What is it about the idea of an actual physical conception of Jesus that really bothers us? Is it the idea of Mary having sex with someone other than her earthly fiancee? Or is it the idea of God having sex at all? (Or is it the idea of a "power imbalance" between the immortal God and the mortal Mary--the same kind of power imbalance that leads us pass laws banning statutory rape and incest, and that leads us to frown on employer/employee relationships at the office?) Regarding Jesus' parentage: personally, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Jesus was conceived by a physical act; and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that He wasn't.

I agree 100%. But I don't think we do either ourselves or honest investigators (like X_Girl appears to be) any good when we pretend that this stuff isn't out there. It is. We need to acknowledge it and, where appropriate, explain why it does not represent our belief as a people. For the most part, I would say that yes--they're probably extrapolated from statements of Brigham Young. To my knowledge, though, Young didn't go into any more detail than to say that Jesus was conceived the same way any other mortal is conceived. The Church, to my knowledge, hasn't explicitly addressed Young's comments of late. Several notable recent church leaders have individually disavowed it, but I think the Church's official line is "we aren't sure".

LDS authorities split as to the nature of Jesus' conception. Modern authorities (to the extent that they weigh in on the question at all) lean towards the "Mary was a virgin" view, but Brigham Young (president of the Church from 1846-1877) and some of his contemporaries did express their beliefs that there was actual intercourse between Mary and God the Father.

My experience is very much like Hordak's. When the opportunity presents itself I'll try to learn what I can from people of other faiths; and I've examined the arguments for and against Mormonism in some detail. But I've never engaged in some kind of systematic quest to deeply examine other religions the way Newcomer seems to have done. To be frank, I've never personally felt the need.

I think the Communities of Christ (an offshoot of our church) (of course, they'd tell you that we are an offshoot of them, so take that as you will!) puts out a version of the Book of Mormon with updated language. Alma was formerly a priest of the king Noah. Noah's priests were successors to the (presumably) righteous priests under Noah's predecessor, Limhi; so there may have been some kind of priesthood line of authority there that the Lord recognized as valid.

I don't want to downplay the problems with pornography, but you need to give yourself more credit. Some degree of relapse is virtually inevitable in the early stages. This is quite possibly the hardest thing you will ever do in your life. Hang on. You'll make it.

From what I can find online, D&C 107 was a series of four or five revelations that were compiled in March of 1835. Elsewhere in this thread someone has mentioned the date of 1838 in association with this section. So, yeah. I guess what I'm looking for is a complete edit-history of D&C 107, as well as an explanation of the nature of those edits. And yes; I'm particularly interested in the changes you mention.

That is fetchin' awesome.

What is the answer to that? :)

Via Google I see that the Church has a rather large stake in Bahrain. Is that what you were thinking of? Wikipedia says that Iran funded a group that engineered a failed coup against the Khalifah family back in 1981. As for American connections, all I can find is that Bahrain's current king attended military schools in the UK and the US.