estradling75

Sadly social media reinforces this behavior.

Speaking of being ahead of its time... I heard a story one that when Utah was being considered for state-hood it was also going to include a woman's right to vote. (Which would have made Utah the first state to do so). The powers that be figured that the LDS women with the power of the vote would then throw off the oppression of polygamy. After all what could possibly be more oppressive to women then polygamy.. right? Well it turned out as they studied the issue, that LDS women would not, they had Faith and Believed. Learning that Utah got delayed and another state became the first to allow women to vote. My take away from that is the dangers of assuming that someone doing or living a life style that we might think is oppressive is oppressed... Because the person living it might not agree with you and if that is the case well it is there call or make not ours.

When I hear talk of oppression of women I remember a conversation I had will my wife's aunt. She is a non member that married into a largish LDS family. She is opinionated, headstong, and a bit of a control freak which meant she fit right in. At one of the many family gathering we had she was going off on how the LDS faith oppresses it women. And we were largely just rolling with it because that was the kind of thing she did. But after awhile I got kind of tired of it. So I addressed her had asked her if she would say that she thought she knew a lot of LDS women? Thinking of the family she had gotten to know since being married she said yes. Then I asked of all the In-laws and nieces (and I named a few) and others that she knew how many would she say are afraid to speak their mind? How many if they feel they are being wronged are afraid to speak up? After some thought she came up with one person, a friend, she knew that was in a bad marriage. I was like ok so from you personal experience with a lot LDS women you can only think of one. How can you from your personal experience call it a culture of oppression, of you see that oppression is the exception not the rule? How is that not instead more of a result of bad individual choices? She thought about that and then moved on to different topics. The simple fact is the past was neither universally bad nor universally good... it was mixed just like every other time. And like all other it was different, but different does not mean better or worse. Better or worst is a judgment call based on whatever personal standards one wishes to apply

Indeed... The House has the solo authority to impeach the president. However the Senate has solo authority to try the case and act on the impeachment. The fact that the House is trying to dictate how the Senate does its job needs to be smacked down hard.

That entirely depends on how personal she was being. If she meant that she personally (or her husband) could not have been happy... Well can't really argue with that because she would know that better then anyone else. However that would also clearly be a personal issue not a social one. If however she was speaking in more general terms (like you took it) then I would have to add my list of grandparents and other relations to yours in the proof against category.

Pretty much the rule is once you can do it yourself (for the living) then you can also do it for the dead.

I think D&C 121:39 Applies to this conversation If the Lord is pointing out this tendency in people then we should not be surprise that it shows up. We should expect to see it in almost all men and almost all women as soon as they get a little authority as they suppose. If the cultural has given the authority to the men then we can and should expect them to demonstrate it. If the cultural shifts and gives authority to the women then we should expect it from the women. This we see in the various cultures that have arisen including our current one. The answer is not to shift who has the power and authority. The answer is the one the Lord gives... to teach those in authority what is expected of them in the exercise of it, and if offenses keep happening anyways to remove said authority.

All of which are better examples of unrighteous domination then they are of patriachal

Because God's patriarchy.. aka the true definition of patriarchy is constrained by the limits given in D&C 121 about unrighteous dominion. Done correctly it blesses everyone and is the way God does things. It however is really hard to do correctly... making most who claim to be following patriarchy incorrect and imposters to the name and title. Such imposters need to be corrected/shutdown. Sadly most of the world only really knows of the imposters

Or it could be a simple grass is greener kind of issue. Reality will always be more disappointing then fantasy and 'what if.' But it has the advantage being real and existing

Agreed.... However for the spouse trying to help it might be easier to convince the Husband that he needs to wait and basically stand down... then to convince him that he is wrong.

Because your husband is in one of two classic blunders when it comes to personal revelations. The first blunder is mistaking the source. Joseph Smith stated there are revelations of God, of Man, and of Devil. Learning to tell the different is something we all must do... and there not much someone else can do to help with that. The second blunder is mistaking the timing. Sometimes the Lord reveals things for now and sometimes he reveals things that are years or decades away. Trying to rush the Lord's timing is clearly a mistake. Assuming your husband's revelation is of God then he is clearly rushing the timing. Anyone that understands the gospel knows that God has to put things into place before polygamy can return. Therefore this type of revelation falls not into the take action category but the wait on the Lord category

Here are the cold hard revealed facts. Polygamy is currently not practiced by command of the Lord If that were to change that would come from the Prophet of God.. Not to your husband because he does not have the keys to the Sealing Power. Your Husband is currently married (Sealed too I am assuming) and the Lord expects him to honor those covenants with complete faithfulness. Thus by the Revealed Word of God he has no grounds to act in anyway on his "personal revelation" that does not bring him into imminent conflict with other Revealed Words of God. He is taking action... thus violating the commands of God in one way or another. As for holding things sacred.. One holds the revelation sacred and he has already told you that, his actions are not sacred and have no cover.

His personal revelation is not binding on you... If the Lord wanted you to follow it he would tell you. His actions after the 'revealtion' are sinful because they are damaging and hurting his covenant wife (aka you) You are not judging his revelation you are judging the fruits of his actions and that can be justified as a righteous (though limited) judgement.

This scripture and others like it are why I have issues with the Progression Between Kingdoms. Either this is a factual statement, or part of the Eternal as God explains here https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/19?lang=eng. Either way God has very good reasons using that kind of terminology... And we should not think we are wiser them him.

The simple fact is the future actions and possibilities to not excuse.. The neglecting, abandonment, or violation of his current covenants. That is not of the Lord, not Godly. Seems to me that this is a good time for Family/Couple Scripture reading time. Read Jacob 2 and the Spirit will hopefully start kicking his butt beginning at verse 22

God clearly disagrees with your assessment. If giving commandment, laws, and encouragement has no impact as you declare.... then God has been wasting his time and the time of all his prophets since Adam. I invite you to come back from your prideful ways as rejoin God's path. The Apostle Paul taught that there was nothing wrong with eating meat offered to idols. He knew what he was talking about... In spite of this he would not partake if it might cause someone else to stumble. Because he knew his actions and words and behavior could affect others. We have already pointed out and accepted that the idea of progression between kingdoms might encourage other to procrastinate. You are declaring as did Cain that you are not your brothers keeper so you can do what you want. That is not a good role model to follow. Paul example is better... exercising forbearance (even when you know it is perfectly fine for you personally) when it might harm someone else.

When it comes to personal revelations it can be hard to judge... but the Lord has given us a standard... "By their fruits you shall know them." The Fruits this revelation are bearing are questionable... Either the revelation is bad or his response to it is wrong. (Learning how to respond properly to revelation is also a test of ours) While you can't challenge the revelation you can and should challenge every action that he takes that moves him away from honoring the covenants he made to you with complete fidelity. Lusting after another woman is a sin... and if he is not there yet he is clearly headed that way.

Studies have showed that people in general tend to be poor judges of risk. The more we see it the more we hear about it the greater risk we think it is. However as a general rule something is not news worthy unless it is unusual or abnormal in some way. Thus we hear about the unusual or abnormal more... leading us to think it is more usual or normal then it really is

By the reasoning you have presented we have the following. Because people murder... it is OK to encourage them to murder (all our resident law-enforcement personal would like to have words with you if you truly believe this) Because people fornicate and commit adultery.. it is OK to encourage them to have sex out of marriage. Because people lie... it is OK to encourage them to lie. The Book of Mormon is very clear that this kind of reasoning and logic is of the devil. Therefore when you say... Because people procrastinate... it is therefore OK to encourage them to procrastinate... you are scripturally and doctrinal wrong. You are teaching the doctrine of devils and you need to repent.

And if it was... so what? The whole purpose of the creation of the earth was to test each and every one of us to see if we will do all things. If some people want to use others as a excuse to not follow the Lord.. well test complete then. God is the perfect judge and he will absolutely will hold those accountable who chose to be offensive to others... However he will not accept "others offended me" as an acceptable reason for turning their back on him.

Yes and it requires you as an individual personally looking in the mirror not liking what you see and vowing to be better. (which is really a summary of how the gospel works) It is not changed by shrilly demanding everyone else change to fit whatever notion you think is right and true.

Knives Out.. A mystery along the lines of Murder She Wrote and Murder on the Orient Express. Basically the standard the Detective asks a question... the audience sees what really happens, then we hear the lies the suspect tells. With the tension being how does the suspect screw up so that the Detective figures it out. (Because the Detective always does) It has a twist that you may or may not see coming. (I misjudged it) It is rated PG-13 primarily for language (Swearing and crude sexual references). Which in my opinion it could have done just fine without. And since it is about death and murder there is a bit of violence directly related to that which I think was more necessary to the story.

Which would be a reason not to hold it. Since different people have legit differences on what it takes to be "Impeached." If the Senate ignores the actions of the House until it formally gets the articles it reinforces the idea that submission it what it takes.. In many ways the Senate can effectively (if not legally or Constitutionally) define what it takes by how they respond.

Hehe... From a personal perspective I would love for the Senate to set a date for the trial. With it being very clear that if the Articles are not delivered in a timely fashion then the trial will proceed without them.