garryw

It's different things to different people. According to my Judge, it's paying $2000/month alimony to my ex wife and her boyfriend. I don't really agree with that definition. The point I am making is legal. In most cases, when a woman finds a new mate and files divorce, the woman has no marriage responsibilites to the husband. However the man has to keep all his, which the laws indicate are financial. The church agrees with this. Current alimony payments are part of the temple recommend questions. They are called family obligations. Women have none, in most cases. So in conclusion, it depends on your gender whether or not you have family responsibilities as defined by the church.

My cousin had 3 children then became single. He only dated lds women with multiple children, that was his choice. I took a different route and dated (mostly) women without children. The damaged goods theory is nonsense. What is logical however, is to accept that some men have already made their minds up regarding children. My cousin and I are clear examples. Just look past men like myself and find ones like my cousin. Problem solved.

Been there done that. When my wife filed for divorce in my mind I figured we were still sealed so in the long run we'd end up together. That mentality didn't last long. Now I thank heaven every day that she left me and look forward to the time if she ever wants a cancellation. My letter would say "I totally agree with this." So how you feel today may not be how you feel in a year or two.

This is from the Institute manual for Celestial Marriage

This language is not unique to the D&C. For example Proverbs 6:32 talks about adulterers being destroyed. Verse 52 instructs Emma to receive his wives but does not threaten destruction. That comes in verse 54 which is conditioned upon her not cleaving to Joseph. The historical context is that Joseph has been and continues to actively marry more women. Emma protests. Hyrum sees the tension between the two and asks Joseph to record a revelation on the topic of celestial marriage so he can use it to persuade Emma. Joseph says he had the revelation years ago, and finally dictates it. 132 is born. It's important to note that Joseph received the revelation years before dictating it. Because Joseph had been marrying women years before it was dictated.

That's not true. the word "if" does not appear in verse 53. Look at the text "he hath been faithful". The verb hath is past tense. You are replacing the word hath with the word if to suit yourself, and you remaking of the verse to better fit what you would prefer it to say. Also verse 53 is clearly directed at Emma. Starting with verse 51 and ending with verse 56, the revelation is directed at Emma by name. In verse 57 the revelation is directed back at Joseph by name.

holy cow. you're playing the victim card here, and attempting to put words in my mouth, is childish. are there any other sins you would like to accuse me of while you are at it? it's pretty easy on the internet to toss out allegations.

if you ignore the entire context of section 132 and also verse 52 you can make that argument. but the context of 132 is very specific. the historical background is very specific. Hyrum was concerned with Emma's anti-Joseph's-polygamy position and persueded Joseph to record the revelation he has previously received and show it to Emma. Joseph didn't need a revelation to institute or defend monogamy. That was standard practice. Although 132 is also about monogamy, verse 52 is about polygamy, and it specifically leads into 53. You can't separate 52 and 53. In fact you really cant isolate any verse in section 132 and ignore the rest if the intent is to understand the revelation.

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God. 53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him. What are the "many things" referred to? Churches? Men? Cities? Revelations? Those are all possible answers. But section 132 is about marriage. So in the context of marriage (and the preceding verse) the many things can only be children and/or wives. Also Joseph was about to die, so it would be silly to make him a ruler over things he would have no use for in the next life. So the implication is that Joseph had many wives given to him because he was faithful over a few things and therefore worthy to be a ruler over many things. Clearly however worthy he is, Heavenly Father is more worthy than him. Again, just opinion.

That would be one terribly dull knife.

Polygamy was not instituted by Joseph Smith for convenience. Stories you hear about pioneers needing polygamy for practical reasons are bogus. It was not practical. It was extremely impractical. My opinion is that if Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy, he would have not been martyred. Look at the series of events that led to his death. He died more a martyr for polygamy than for the BOM. I just don't think Heavenly Father would expect Joseph to die for a practice that He himself does not live. I don't know, but these are my opinions.

An opinion on the internet is not worth a hill of beans. That being said, I would be quite surprised to discover only one heavenly mother. Joseph Smith and others sacrificed an amazing amount to live the principal. It's of God or the devil. Take your pick.

It's fortunate that she has found an old flame on facebook. this will save you hundreds of thousands of dollars in alimony payments, assuming she gets married. When my ex got married it was for sure the best day of my life. I was not terribly happy about keeping her maintained in the lifestyle to which she had grown accustomed, especially since she was 3 months pregnant with the groom. I figured since he was living with her, and the father of the unborn child, the whole concept of alimony was disgusting me.

you will never read your ex's letter. it doesn't go to you.

If you are remarried your parents are not your family. Your husband is. It boggles my mind that someone in her 40's would care what her parents think. As far as the kids go, again, they are secondary to your marriage relationship.

Yes. My point was that to deny hypergamy is analogous to thinking that single women intentionally seek out poor, uneducaated, ugly, social outcasts. I don't think women do that. They look for an upgrade. They want the best guy they can get. In fact hypergamy, economically, is reflected in the Proclamation on the Family. Women expect men to be the primary provider in a marriage. Often this leads to women picking a man a few years older then themselves. It also explains why American Elders on foreign missions to third world countries, are considered desirable by the local women. Economic hypergamy. I have some humorous anecdotes about hypergamy, one case was Ezra T. Benson's grandson on my mission, but if you look around, you can find your own.

There are plenty of published articles on the topic. If you want to read University studies take a look at the references on the wikipedia article for hypergamy. I think it's hard to argue against the existence of hypergamy. That is saying that single women seek for men that are financially, socially, and physically worse than themselves. Why would a single woman do that? Every rule has exceptions. But the rule is hypergamy. In this post the young man received continual rejection, until he was seen as a "step up" to some young lady from her current economic and social position.

google hypergamy. This is how women select marriage partners. Even LDS women.

Because you are sealed to him your agency is now removed and you will be one of his many wives in the eternities. OK just kidding. The fact is that your sealing was a conditional sealing. Thank goodness eh?

Men don't aspire to hold leadership positions in the church. I know I don't aspire to. Working 50 hours/week plus commuting to work plus having multiple callings leaves me with no time. I don't aspire to have any more work than I got. In fact, truth be told, I would not shed a tear if I got released from a calling or two. I guess the grass is always greener on the other side. If I was female, I would just rejoice about it. Who knows, maybe have time to read a book or get some exercise.

didnt read the whole thing, but skimmed it. Single at 27? FANTASTIC!!! I got married at 35. (and at 22 ). But i've done the single thing in my 30's and I can say the cards are in your favor. For example I went to the single's temple night for 31+. There were 5 guys and 40 women attending she session. So in the LDS church the older you are, the more women compete over you. My advice is to forget dating (as you have done). Live a good life. Step one in finding a wife is realizing you don't need one. Serious.

This makes no sense. If your wife doesnt look good without makeup you simply have an ugly wife. If it's really that bad just have her wear a paper bag on her head. I don't see the difference between that and hiding behind makeup.

2/3 of women (and men) are overweight in the US. I think that's what he's talking about. That wasn't the case for our parent's generation.

Heber J. Grant died in 1945. The last polygamist church Pres.

Not a lawyer, but been there myself. All 50 state are no-fault. Maybe you are in Utah, in that case alimony can be influenced but infidelity will not in itself preclude alimony. In my state infidelity means absolutely nothing and has zero bearing on alimony or anything. In my state I gave some photos of my ex with her boyfriend to my lawyer and she explained they cannot be used the the courtroom. They mean nothing. Good news life is 10x better without my so called eternal companion. :)