sarah331

This morning :)

I won't get too into it -- I don't come here for the politics -- but it denied tax benefits and federal legal benefits to legally married couples. Same-sex partners in MA were paying more for health insurance and more in federal taxes (they were filing "married" in MA but had to file "single" on the federal). It discriminated against and targeted a population (LGBTQ). You don't have to agree with the ruling but I honestly can't comprehend how someone can say that this was a mark against freedom. They didn't rule and say all states had to recognize gay marriage, and this didn't even affect (to my knowledge) civil unions. It affected legal marriages in states that allowed them. I'm obviously very pro-equal rights and this is the hardest thing I'm reconciling with the church so excuse me if I just leave you with that.

(Actually it's pretty inarguable that allowing the federal gov't to recognize gay marriage just ENHANCES the freedom we're standing up for. It doesn't hinder anyone's freedom. However DOMA DID hinder an entire population's freedom. So yes -- STAND UP FOR FREEDOM!!! :-D )

The concept of a Father and Mother in heaven make sense to me. I prayed about it and I feel a connection to my Heavenly Parents. It makes sense to me that if there is a God, S/He would check in on us every now and again -- personal revelation. It makes sense to me that there was something before this life. It makes sense to me that there'd be something after. These are the tenants of my tentative faith. The rest mostly falls in there but I'm still burrowing through a lot of stuff for me. And I think I will always phrase it, for me, as the Gospel is true.

I'm so so thrilled :-D

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Oh and I think the BBC did a good job of sort of summarizing the early pre-human information: BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man And this from the Guardian (the Brits kind of have this science stuff down ) Human evolution: the long, winding road to modern man | Science | The Observer

I think therein lies the danger of closely associating scripture with science. Maybe some things from the Bible are not meant to be taken literally OR at least not literally as *sole* source. Oftentimes what can be explained by science is complemented by scripture -- but not always. It usually takes multiple sources to explain complex concepts (just look at the additions of scripture in Mormonism, with the Book of Mormon and D&C -- not until you get all of them do you get the fullness of the Gospel -- science works in the same way, multiple sources). I personally follow the evolutionary line of thinking for these things. And YES can I please reiterate that it's Asian, not oriental. I'm actually surprised more people didn't correct that.

Well I think good for her for trying to empathize, but the fact is it's history and unless you have her journal you'll never truly know the circumstances/feelings around the marriage. FairLDS has helped me a lot as an investigator, as well at MormonThink.com. I think if she is having trouble with this, some additional commentary might help, too -- like Feminist Mormon Housewives or Joanna Brooks. The posts I've found dealing with polygamy tend towards Joseph Smith but I would think the principals are similar.

I didn't read all replies. I think if you look at the doctrine all spinning from Jesus' atonement at its core, you can find traces of Jesus in *every*thing. That's what I'm finding, and I haven't even gotten to the New Testament yet I think if you look at direct references, those people have a point. However, I would argue that it is perhaps more important/significant to have Jesus so embedded that He doesn't always need direct reference, than to go out of our way to rephrase honest/earnest thoughts and teachings to swing back to Jesus directly.

How does being taught online work in conjunction with baptism? I knew you could chat to missionaries but I didn't know you could go through the lessons with them...? I'm sorry, I have no insight to your question. I would think having 2 women to 2 men would be "equal" and thus okay -- each person has 3 other witnesses sort of a thing.

This actually makes the WoW a lot more clear, and is presented in a way similar to how my husband talks of it. I swear, I learn something new every time I come to this site, even if I am not the one asking the questions. I love it.

Which is why I read every night in my quest to finish all 4 before deciding to be baptized! I want to understand the doctrine as much as possible. Finrock this is an interesting premise. From the little I've seen here you are quite faithful and it impresses me that you want to take it those steps further.

I don't know, I think you need to pray on this. If you repent at home and still feel it lingering, then talk to your Bishop. Take it a step at a time (go through your repentance checklist, as it were) and give yourself time to see how you feel. I worry if you rush to "I did a huge wrong!" over something like this, you're going to give yourself more anxiety. Which isn't really something you need right before a mission!!! Good luck :)

Hm to me the reason it affects women differently, in the hypothetical, is because we have more historical/institutional references for it. We've seen what polygamy or polyamory or etc can do to women -- think the FLDS perversion of it, concubines in history (middle east, Asia), etc. It's far more personal if you have a precedent for what can happen. There aren't as many cases of polygamy/etc for 1 woman and multiple men. Plus, polygamy was strictly 1 man - many women, right? That's a huge gender/sexual inequality right there. IMHO it'd be a little easier to accept if it was 1 partner - many partners. Of course God wouldn't intend for ^ that to happen, polygamy in that sense would be different, but it is put into humankind's fallible hands after all.