-
Posts
15753 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
281
Everything posted by Just_A_Guy
-
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.
- 18 replies
-
- marriage
- marriage problems
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
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.
-
Observations from a quick read of the BoM
Just_A_Guy replied to AnthonyB's topic in Christian Beliefs Board
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.
-
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.
-
For a somewhat persuasive argument that there is a method to Obama's apparent madness, see here.
-
Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Just_A_Guy replied to Debs's topic in General Discussion
Re LDS meeting times: Not sure if this came up earlier, but where multiple wards share a chapel (I've seen this both in Utah and in California) they usually trade off meeting times annually. So your ward might meet at 9 AM in 2009, and at 1 PM in 2010. -
How did selling arms to the Iranians in 1985 get hostages released in 1981?
-
Good point . . . IIRC he's up to his neck in the Fannie/Freddie meltdown. Politician's rule: Whenever you find yourself in deep shizzle . . . play the persecuted minority and hope someone changes the subject.
-
Only when we're in the middle of explaining it to a non-Mormon, and they look at us like we're absolutely nuts. What's that old saying . . . you go to Heaven for the weather, and Hell for the company.
-
Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Just_A_Guy replied to Debs's topic in General Discussion
That's a relative statement, of course. I don't think it will stack up to what you have in the UK--not by a long shot--and the local newspapers are filled with letters to the editor bitterly railing about the lack of bus coverage in certain areas of Salt Lake Valley. Furniture rental is always an option, if you prefer. As for groceries, my wife and I and one kid were able to make it on around $150-$200/month back in the day (this was in south Salt Lake valley). Since we had a 2nd baby and my wife took over budgeting, I have no idea what we're spending nowadays. -
Technically, he believes that as a general rule a state should be free to pass its own laws; and that gay sex is not a sufficiently protected constitutional right to be included as one of the exceptions to that rule.
-
Right--the sealing is contingent on the faithfulness of the parents (who are parties to the covenant). It is not contingent on the faithfulness of the children (who are beneficiaries of, but not parties to, that covenant). I would disagree with Hordak's reading of Lorenzo Snow's teaching--President Snow mentions only errant children, not errant wives or husbands. For the children, the sealing ordinance guarantees two things (assuming the parents keep their covenants): Salvation (but not necessarily exaltation) for each child. In other words, Jesus will admit them to one of the levels of heaven--but not necessarily the highest one.The children will, in some sense, "belong" to the parents. Again, this doesn't necessarily guarantee that they will be perpetually in close physical proximity to each other--though "visitation" is presumably an option. They can enjoy each other's company whenever the spouse in the higher kingdom wishes it to be so. But they will not be married. Also, the entire point of reaching the highest level of heaven ("exaltation") is to be allowed to create new worlds and create new people to live on those worlds. That work takes a male and a female, working together. If, between a married couple, the wife is exalted and the husband is not; the wife cannot enter into that work alone and the husband will not be privileged to participate. So, if she wants the blessing of "eternal increase", she'll have to find another man.
-
Not a young woman; but I'm married to someone who likes to think of herself as a relatively young woman. Bikinis as I understand it are almost universally frowned upon in Mormon culture. I think "tankinis" are kind of a gray area; though my wife personally disapproves of them.
-
I dunno. A couple of gay people I know have no problem in taking formerly derogatory terms ("queer", et al) and wearing them as a badge of honor. Why can't we social conservatives do the same? Anyone want to join me in starting a "homophobes" club?