Jane_Doe

Are talking real life friends, or Facebook? There's a big difference.

May I ask how you came into the Catholic faith? (if you don't mind)

This probably needs it's own thread... I'm not the pretty sibling- I'll freely admit it. That title belongs to my third sister, and she puts a lot of work into her appearance, whereas I just don't care about that stuff. Now, if you want to talk puzzles that's a different story... You can't treat kids identical-- it's just not possible. And even if you could, that'll be robbing them of their individuality. What's more important is that each kid is recognized and loved equally.

I would love to eat strawberry yogurt, but my daughter insists we have peach and then eats it all. Do you watch TV?

Heck no! Whoever said that has NO idea how much "modern" wedding receptions are. Don't put yourself through that LP.

There’s only been one incident in my life where I’ve church gender issues thrown in my face, and it was this issue. My Grandpa’s a big scout supporter- any time a grandkid has a Court of Honor he rearranges his schedule and flies to be there. When I earned my Young Women’s Award, it was going to recognized at our YW New Beginnings. I was “in charge” of planning that New Beginnings, so I carefully arranged things to be the week of my Grandpa’s annual visit. Excitedly I asked him if he could extend his stay one night so he could see me get my award. And he said “no”. I was crushed! Thankfully he saw the error in his ways and did stay (my mom ‘enlightened’ him). But that was a tough experience for me. *Disclaimer: I make no comment on the YW vs Eagle Scout work load. I’ve no brothers so I’ve never seen the work they put into it. I know that the work put in the YW award varied greatly between me and each of my sisters. I also know that people liked to be recognized different ways (I would have been mortified at a Court of Honor for me).

Sounds maddening!

How about day-to-day purposes? (not cannon law).

I once read a book that was #2 of 3. The main characters had all split up and had nothing to do with each other (like LOTR Two Towers). I got so annoyed with the jumping between unrelated plot lines that I only read the parts that had to do with character A, skipping the rest. And the end of the book, I re-read it, this time only the parts that involved character B. By the time I finished with character D there were no more pages left :).

How about let's define "intent". Use in sentence: your intent to do something. Possible definitions: 1) Intent the desire to something, i.e. your goal. Definition of "intent" has nothing to consequences, just the goal. 2) Intent is the desire to do something, and considers the goals, but also the known consequences. Ie, if you do A and you know B & C will happen. Do you consider known results B&C into your "intent". Which definition do you go by? (I'm excluding "intent" having any relationship to unforeseen consequences)

As a more general question (specific leaving abortion morality behind). It seems when reaching sticky situation, LDS tend to lean towards "pray about it" and steer away from specific guidelines. Catholics, on the other hand, do seem to have specific guidelines? Is that a correct observation?

But there's a baby in it! And by removing the tube you are insuring the baby dies. Yes, killing the baby is not your goal, but you know it's going to happen.

So, Catholic position: Sucks, you can't kill a baby. So mom is going to die too. Sucks. Correct? (not meaning to be antagonist, just trying to get concrete position)

So is a "dispensation" marriage "natural", "sacramental", or something else?

(Still trying to understand Catholic thought) I admit my thoughts were drifting from the is-abortion-sinful topic, to more the fate of the babies themselves. In my very limited understanding of Catholic thought, a person must be baptized sacramentally. "Person" includes everyone, even babies. Now I'm being told that "baby" includes even those unborn, or even those which miscarry (>20% of pregnancies). What is a good-intending-Catholic to do? And then you add in a large number of pregnancies miscarry <2 weeks in and Mom never knows she's pregnant... just what are you supposed to do? My head is slightly spinning.

And what would you do if only one of the adults (the wife, for example) wanted to convert to Catholicism?

Now back in my LDS shoes-- I think the issue a lot of people are having issue reconciling is that it's ok to remove a fertilized egg in the fallopian tube (via removing the tube) but not ok to remove a uterus with a fertilized egg in it-- even if both said eggs have severe defects and won't make it to term (either because they're in the fallopian tube or some other valid can't-save-it medical reason). In the LDS perspective, terminating a fallopian ectopic pregnancy is morally the same as terminating any other case when the fertilized egg won't make it to term and will threaten the mother's life. Side note, comparing things to bombs or guys on bridges is just adding to my confusion

When I study other faiths (or other people in general), I've learned to put myself in their shoes and think as they would think (which is different than how I would think). So, putting on my CatholicLady shoes, I can see follow you thoughts and understand your perspective. PS- you're good at explaining things. My Jane "shoes" and thought processes are different, and lead to a different conclusion. But that's a whole different story (and we've beaten it to death).

Then what of all naturally accruing abortions, including the very large number which happen before the girl even knows she's pregnant?

(The following is Jane ungracefully trying to grasp Catholic thought) 1) In Catholic view, God does not make mistakes. 2) In an etopic pregancy, the fetus has no chance of being born and growing into an adult. Therefore, in Catholic view, God never really meant for the etopic pregnancy fetus to become a baby (cause it won't). Therefore, if you abort a etopic pregnancy, you're not really killing a baby because that fertilized egg will never become a baby. Am I following right?

CatholicLady, I've a question for you. In several posts you've referred to Christ as the founder of the Christian Faith, in such a way that it sounds like you're saying "He created this whole new religion", and I'm inferring that you view the Old Testament as a different religion. Is that how you view it? (I'm just asking your perspective). To me it seems that shifting from the Old Testament to New Testament was undoubtedly a major metamorphoses of theology and practice. But to me it was a metamorphoses: the old changes to the new, as opposed to old ends and this brand new thing comes along.

Now can we actually talk about the OP?

Comparing humans are not like cattle ranching. Limitations of your analogy: 1) Cattle ranchers have a higher female to male ratio (of cows). This is the ranchers get rid of the bulls. I don't think you're suggesting we get rid of male humans . 2) The breeding cycle of cows is different vs humans. A lady cow makes it very obvious when she's fertile. Human ladies not so much. 3) Having excess bulls makes the bulls fight each other for mating privileges (another reason ranchers don't keep them around). I'd like to think human males are bit more civil

The logic is that monogous marriages produce more kids because the women gets exclusive access to a man's seed (more opportunity to make babies).

Mormons believe in modern day revelation. The Lord to Joseph to practice polygamy in the 1800, along with some other church members. In 1890, the Lord told the then-prophet that it was time to end the practice. So it ended. The links estrandling75 gave will give more detailed info.