pushka

Huma17, you are right, I don't know you and yes, I have no place stating whether or not you are ready for marriage yet. I did assume you were 'young', as in early/mid twenties from some of the things that you said, but you have established that I was wrong about that too...I apologise. I thought, from the way you posted about your mother and father, stepmother and siblings, and what happens when you die, that you sounded confused about it, and that perhaps it was making you unduly worried...I am glad to see that it isn't...you have raised some very interesting questions...thanks! Amillia, you believe in the whole JS, BY thing, so you will obviously believe that it was correct for them to reestablish polygamy when they did...because you believe that god commanded it of them...that's all right...I choose not to believe it...so I won't cause you to go searching any further for this. 'If the word Kolob was new with JS, it wasn't made up. '(Amillia)....what do you mean by this? I meant that JS must have made up the word...as nobody had ever referred to it before him...and nobody except mormons have ever made reference to it anywhere else either...surely some of the greatest scientific minds in the world's existence would have acknowledged the existence of this planet too, if the mormons believed in it and it really did exist?

Thank you Curvette...I have been reading more about the different types of polygamy and polygyny on forums from www.beliefnet.com in the Mormon debate forum, the Islam Marriage and Relationships forum and in the Judaism Marriage and Relationships forum... How do you think this stands in these 'latter-days'? Do you think that JS was right to state that it was commanded that men practise polygamy (in spite of having to stop the practise when the US laws outlawed it), on the beliefnet.com Mormon Debate forum there is an argument where one person has quoted scripture from Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (maybe you wont call it scripture, but it is transcripts of conversations), in which they state that God commanded them to practise polygamy...and others argue that God didn't command them to do it then, but it was commanded in the Bible, OT, and others, like yourself, say it was just a cultural thing that God didn't object to. So, what do you think? Were JS and BY right to re-establish the practise amongst the early Lds or not? Sorry I haven't had chance to investigate the other areas of debate, Knights Tempar and such...thanks for the history Curvette...I will continue to delve into that subject, Eternal Marriage and the missing books from the bible asap...and hopefullly find out a little more about Kolob, as someone also mentioned on beliefnet.com that if you google the word Kolob you cannot find any references to it other than from LDS sources, which seems a little strange...as if the planet was 'made up' by the prophets of this church???

Thank you for posting that Faerie...I agree that other post was rather rude...

Thank you too Jenda, for sharing your story and your wisdom with us all...good luck with your marriage!!

Thanks again Amillia...I'm sorry I DID completely overlook your reference to the Knights Templar...actually I am currently very interested in researching them at the mo. as a friend of mine was talking about 'Breaking the Da Vinci Code' in which references to the Knights Templar are made... Thanks also for your willingness to search the scriptures more regarding whether or not God wanted men to have polygamous marriages, and if so, what no. of wives was permitted. Thanks for your links to the missing books of the Bible...I will investigate those more closely...:)

Thank you for the Scriptural references Amillia...I do see in them that the men were taking more than 1 wife..many wives in fact..and that they were going against God's wishes...but the reference does not say that God wanted men to practise polygamy, nor does it state how many wives each man was allowed...please can you find THESE references to me, so that I know it is what God (in the Bible) wanted men to do. Thanks for the explanation re the KJV version of the Bible being used...I think I remember being told the same reasons when I was attending the Lds church. Once again, re marriage for time and all eternity, you have only been able to make reference to the 'revelations' that JS apparently received...that is no good to a non-believer who has read enough to believe little if any of what JS ever stated was from God and not just his own brain. Have you referred to my question re Kolob at all being mentioned in the Bible..can you or anyone else help me here? Thanks in advance :)

Thank you Amillia :)

OK...Amillia, as you know, I'm sure, I was referring to the LDS scriptures that have been additional to the bible, eg. BofM, D&C, BofA, PoGP...and more? probably...yes, you're right we do have to question the validity of the content of the bible too... As you say King James chose to have parts of the Bible omitted from his version, why do the LDS use this as THEIR chosen version? why not one of the others? As to polygamy...okay, you say it was practised in the Bible, but many took more wives than God said they should? So you can supply me with Bible scriptures where God sanctions polygamy and states what number of wives each man is allowed? Also, can you answer my other questions regarding the origins of the doctrine of Marriage for Time and All Eternity, and whilst we're at it, any reference to the planet Kolob being made in the Bible, and its being the closest planet to God? Sorry to have gone off the subject here a little Huma17...also, I am very sorry that you had to lose your mother at an early age (I'm assuming you are quite young too...sorry if I'm wrong) and that your father remarrying and all that stuff about being sealed to both women, and both sets of children is so confusing and possibly upsetting to you...this is why I question the validity of the Doctrine...it causes so much heartache and confusion for so many!!! Why was it made???

Shoe, I feel very sorry for you and your sad loss...My thoughts echo all of the above statements, and I wish you peace and comfort as time helps a little, to ease the pain you are going through.

My, my! the fur's really flying now!!! LOL. Well, I am sorry that this thread has become so bitter!! It is a sad reflection on men and women that even debating relationships anonymously online they cannot seem to do it without being insulting or chauvinistic in some way. I'm afraid I have found very little to agree with in Cal's posts, although I agree with lots of his other opinions on other threads... Yaanufs, when I read your first post, I though, hey up! a man who's seeing both sides...at last...but unfortunately I was deceived, and you have just turned this whole conversation into a debate over whether or not Jenda is 'really' pleasing her hubby in the sack, and blaming everything on her...did you even bother to read the reasons why she spent so much time on the internet? Because she gets lonely when her husband is away from home? Did you bother to read about the times she and her husband discussed his ever becoming like his father? The type of behaviour towards his mother which he claimed to be ashamed of, insomuch as he didn't want to treat his wife the same way? And then he turned around and started treating his wife that way and refused to discuss the matter? Jenda does admit that there are faults on both sides, no she doesn't go into full details, as you said, it wouldn't be appropriate...that doesn't mean that she is trying to be one-sided and deceive us all. I feel very sorry for you Jenda, I do hope that there is a way that you and your husband can discuss your current relationship...I didn't feel the questions Amillia suggested asking were inappropriate...Okay Yaanufs? If those questions were going to ring alarm bells and send her husband running in the other direction, what questions would you suggest Jenda asks him? I read lots of books about relationships too...usually written in a comical yet very truthful style, and yes they can be helpful at taking a tongue in cheek look at yourself, as well as each other...it would be great to imagine Jenda and her husband sitting together with these books and having a laugh at them, though it doesn't sound as if they are that close at the moment to allow them to do so...if that is so, it is very sad... Anyway, I'm sure you guys are gonna be very offended that I didn't think too much of your responses on this thread...I do agree with some of your points, however, just not the majority of them... Ladies...without any bias!! LOL...I am proud of your posts, and of the advice you have given to the various people over their relationship problems...Let's hope that this thread has at least opened all of our eyes a little to ourselves and our partners and made us think about being considerate to each other...but not at the expense of our own self-esteem. :)

Gosh...Huma17 has really opened up a can of worms about being married for Time and Eternity...where the concept originated from? Was it mentioned in the Bible, or was it revelation received by JS or another of the prophets of the LDS church...also the concept of eternity lasting 5-6 billion years...then recurring!! sounds a bit like a sci-fi fiction to me...again, was this scripture in the Bible or received revelation...remember, I don't believe in the LDS scriptures, so am asking from the point of view of somebody who may believe in the Bible at least. If this was all received revelation, then I think that JS or whoever had it 'revealed' to them was making it all up to confuse the Saints, or to justify something or other that they wished to do within their own marriage, such as the polygamy issue, by stating that God ordered it...by the way, was polygamy allowed in the Bible? or was that JS revelation? I agree that Huma17 is not ready for marriage for either time or eternity yet...he should concentrate on building his life and then finding a woman who appeals to him completely, on all levels...and leave the Time and Eternity issues till later.

Huma17, I feel I owe an apology to you and the others who have posted in this thread...I thought you were saying that the post was a joke, obviously upon looking more closely I can see that you are saying that prayer is a joke, and are giving your reasons for feeling that way. I cannot help you in this matter as I don't pray...But I wish you all the best in resolving whatever problems you are having...in whatever way you find most helpful... :)

Well said Amillia!!

Huma17...am I the only one who is reading this properly? Didn't you say it was A JOKE???? therefore I read it as such, and didn't think you were going thru any traumas (unless you've mentioned them elsewhere)...I thought it was quite a witty joke, so Please correct me if I have misinterpreted the post...and if so, I hope you feel better soon too :)

I've seen that movie and yes, it is a little depressing...I didn't quite know what to make of it, was it just a cheap thriller? I was a little disappointed with it really. SF...When I was married I often dreamt my husband was seeing other women...unfortunately he was!!! I often have very vivid and memorable dreams...some are very good, others are definitely nightmarish and I wonder whether it is the cocktail of drugs that I take for my health problems that inspire them...wish I could remember to write them all down, and have them interpreted, I could write a book!!!

I think it is possible that you saw something, nothing to prove you didn't anyway...although when we are in a situation where we expect to see something, our minds can often fool us into thinking that we had seen something. Either that or that bloke just enjoyed a quiet jog at night, might have been shy...lol, and was it dark? Don't we just seem to fade into the trees when the darkness surrounds us...he might have thought you two were spirits!!! As for walking around cemetries, I love them...I enjoy walking around the tombstones, reading the epitaphs and seeing at what age people died from different centuries...but then I have a morbid interest in Social History, mortality rates and such :)

LOL Cal...well said...I agree with every word!

LOL Cal...Yes I am a bit of a nite owl...a bit of an insomniac...slightly manic-depressive too!! insufferably silly sometimes, and just witter on and on!! I live in Lancashire...Nelson is the name of the town I live in...quite a small town, one of the 'mill towns' which suffered from the downfall of the cotton industry and the coal mining industry...I believe there are equivalent towns/states in the USA which have suffered from the loss of mining industry jobs and such, and are not 'wealthy' states.

Cal, I apologise for putting words into your mouth...yes, I was stating what I believed you meant by the words you said...when you said it was of 'lesser economic value' than 'what most men do' I felt a little insulted, because I feel that the care of the family is worth much more than any highly paid job, and so alimony shouldn't be set purely on a like for like measure according to how much the family would have had to pay for a nanny, cook, cleaner etc. to do the work that the wife did whilst her husband was out working. I hope that clarifies my position a little better... Please note the words ' I WAS NOT SAYING'...I was not saying that I considered myself more fortunate to be with someone with a job than someone without a job, and that I would probably have not married someone without a job... I was saying that I would marry someone whether or not he was employed...then I mentioned that this would be because I would marry for love, and love makes people do things which may be considered foolish by others. I agree that most men probably don't consider the value of their future wife's career, expecting that she would be the one to care for the children at home if they could afford for her to stay at home...I find that a sexist attitude, however. Unfortunately, as I said before, where I live it is often the case that both partners have to work to raise the family... I don't wish to put words in your mouth again, but did you insinuate somewhere, in one of your earlier posts regarding alimony, that it was the woman's choice alone to have the children, so she should be the one to stay at home and look after them? How do you know it was the woman's choice alone? Sorry, I probably am putting words into your mouth again...you were probably just referring to the fact that the woman could refuse to have a child even if her husband wanted one and she didn't...but if she agreed to have a child because he wanted one, or if they both chose to have the child, then it should still be the woman's responsibility to care for the child and suffer the loss of her career/financial independence? Because she chose to have the child???? I'm sorry if I sound like I'm just being argumentative for the sake of it...I'm tired, its 2.40am here and time I went to bed!! LOL

And, you probaby want to know what he doesn't for a live as a very close second. Right? Well no, actually... I live in the Northern part of the UK which is a very poor area...career prospects are not very high generally, although we do have some highly paid people too...they are not the majority here...we struggle for labouring jobs, and shopwork, nursing etc. mainly...lots of families in this area have both partners working, we cannot afford to be stay-at-home mums... As I have said previously, I do not doubt that there are people out there judging people on looks/career prospects alone when considering them as 'marriage fodder'...but it has certainly not been MY experience around here...we are lucky to have a husband with any job at all, never mind looking around for the more highly paid men! I would like to agree with some of the other female posters on here regarding stay-at-home mums, who may have not chosen that path, but been encouraged to do so by their husband...if this is the case then I think the payment of some sort of alimony, initially would be acceptable. Pushka--again, who told them to marry before they had any marketable skills, so as to be vulnerable to the consequences of divorce? Bad choice on their part, wouldn't you say? Second, you said..... I rest may case. You would feel "lucky" to have a husband with a job would you? That would be a lucky break? I wonder if there are any girls there in UK looking for husband with a job? I'm willing to bet that a girl there finding a guy with a job feels luckier than a guy who finds a girl with a job. Which one do you think feels luckier? Okay, as far as the alimony question goes...yes I agree that anybody, male or female, would be well advised to get themselves educated and in a financially stable position before entering into marriage. What happens afterwards is not always so simple an equation...When I was married and had my 1st child, I worked part time afterwards, this was beneficial to both me and my husband and our child, as it meant that I got to spend time at home during the day, looking after our daughter, whilst my husband worked, then I went to work in the evenings when he looked after her. It also meant that whenever she was ill I was automatically on-call, she was ill lots during her first year, spent lots of time in hospital...there was no question of who would take any time off work to stay in the hospital with her...it had to be me, because I was the female and I was only working part-time, even tho my rate of pay was higher than my husband's and I did enough overtime to make me a full time worker...I just spread my hours out over the full 7 days instead of 5. Maybe I've lost the point of the argument over alimony now...it isn't something that I felt I needed when I was divorced, even though I did have to rely on state benefits following the divorce (I was already not working due to ill health though). I still feel uncomfortable with some of your assumptions regarding women who stay at home after children are born, and the way that you dismiss her responsibilities towards the family...cooking, cleaning, care of children etc. as less important than the high-flying job that her husband does, thus making her less eligible for alimony if the marriage ends. On the other point you made...about my being 'lucky to have a husband with a job at all..' I knew that you would read that differently to how it was intended to sound. Would anybody not consider themselves lucky to have a partner who was employed rather than unemployed? be that a male partner or female? Or even luckier to both be employed? I was not saying that I considered myself more fortunate to be with someone with a job than someone without a job, and that I would probably have not married someone without a job...I think love enters into the equation somewhere along the line too doesn't it? and if you love somebody then you don't always consider whether they are employed or unemployed...people lose jobs too you know, do you think that I would have walked out on my husband if that happened to him? No I wouldn't...It might be unwise to marry someone for love alone, and disregard the financial state of things...but that's life...some people do this, not every woman only searches for a husband who has a job.

Yes...I think it's terribly sad that the church thought it must employ such methods to 'cure' people of their homosexuality...

Thanks for your replies...I'm sorry if my question seemed to be a 'nonsense' question...it's just something that was bugging me...a feeling I got that some people were maintaining their membership in the Church for other reasons (perhaps to keep the family happy/guilt or whatever...take your pick) when not actually believing all of its teachings... I know that it wouldn't make sense to stay a member of the church if you didn't believe in the JS story and current revelation etc. that is why I decided not to return to the church 20 years after leaving it...I wasn't baptised I just attended in my mid-late teens as a potential member. Maybe the reason I really had to bring up this question was because a few years ago I was tempted to start attending the LDS church again...to be a part of it as an adult rather than as a child, because of the closeness of the congregation, social activities, attitudes towards families which all appealed to me...however I decided that if I was going to return, I would have to return with a real belief in the church again...and in order to do so I started reading about it more, and started questioning things...as I've said above, I found that things didn't make so much sense to me as they had when I was younger, I didn't believe unquestioningly anymore, and so didn't return...but I could've so easily done so, and pretended to believe everything, go along with everything, if the people there were kind to me and I enjoyed the social aspects of the church again.... Does that make any sense to anyone? That somebody might choose to do that? I'm not challenging anyone, I'm just clearing things off my chest I suppose...

And, you probaby want to know what he doesn't for a live as a very close second. Right? Well no, actually... I live in the Northern part of the UK which is a very poor area...career prospects are not very high generally, although we do have some highly paid people too...they are not the majority here...we struggle for labouring jobs, and shopwork, nursing etc. mainly...lots of families in this area have both partners working, we cannot afford to be stay-at-home mums... As I have said previously, I do not doubt that there are people out there judging people on looks/career prospects alone when considering them as 'marriage fodder'...but it has certainly not been MY experience around here...we are lucky to have a husband with any job at all, never mind looking around for the more highly paid men! I would like to agree with some of the other female posters on here regarding stay-at-home mums, who may have not chosen that path, but been encouraged to do so by their husband...if this is the case then I think the payment of some sort of alimony, initially would be acceptable.

Just discovered this link on another website...a shocking article regarding what used to happen to homosexuals at BYU... http://www.affirmation.org/learning/legacies.asp

Happy Birthday everybody!!!