Carol Lynn Pearson's book

[jewels8]

Just now, wenglund said:

It was also quite effective. It got me (us) really thinking.  Healthy and productive conversations are wonderful ways to build relationships, even with strangers online.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

Sorry, some of it got out of hand, I really didn't intend for that.  Thank you for your comments.

[jewels8]

Just now, wenglund said:

It was also quite effective. It got me (us) really thinking.  Healthy and productive conversations are wonderful ways to build relationships, even with strangers online.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

Sorry, some of it got out of hand, I really didn't intend for that.  Thank you for your comments.

 

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

I believe it was John Taylor and his wife Leonora; and the ending was that Smith declined to marry Leonora and sealed the Taylors to each other in the spot.

oh, ok,  I'm sure there are many similiar interesting accounts.  T

[wenglund]

1 minute ago, jewels8 said:

Sorry, some of it got out of hand, I really didn't intend for that.  Thank you for your comments.

It happens to the best of us. The trick is to find a way out of the counterproductive exchanges and continue to let our better selves shine. Your apology and stated intent was an excellent way of doing just that.  Nicely done!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[lostinwater]

33 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I really appreciated the gentle and respectful way you began the discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

@wenglund

Thank-you for this kindness and civility.

[wenglund]

7 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

@wenglund

Thank-you for this kindness and civility.

That is kind of you to say. But, I can't really take credit. It was someone else's idea.  I was just trying to be practical and effective, if not also honest in my recognition of @jewels8. positive contributions.

It is just that there is so much that can be learned from each perspective, and yet we tend to inadvertently get in our own way in learning from and sharing with others by staking out positions and fighting tooth and nail (or with razor sharp tongues), unrelentingly for our own position.  

I didn't really understand this until I watched several interviews of Dr. Jordan Peterson after his appearance on the Cathy Newman TV4 show.  Peterson indicated that his  only intend was to learn and share,  while Cathy's intent was clearly to promote her feminist agenda and destroy anyone who disagrees with her position, The stunning results of the exchange heavily in Peterson's favor  convinced me that it was a strategy well worth considering. (See HERE)

Where better to try it out than on a thread that touches not so lightly on feminist perspectives?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JohnsonJones]

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

How come a 2nd wife is diminished somehow but a second child is not? Was my older sister somehow damaged by my having been born? When the third, forth, fifth, and so on child came along did we all lose something? What about my mother and father. Weren't the hurt by the fact that their time now needed to be shared between a bunch of snot-nosed little twerps? (I can say that about us because I am, really, speaking of myself, and I was a snot-nosed little twerp)? Of course not. Of course not. Of course not. And of course not.

This is an interesting perspective to think about. 

Adding:  A Little humor.  So I had several children, and they would argue and fight at times.  There are certain points I think my oldest would absolutely have stated they were damaged by the second one being born (I don't understand why, but the oldest and the second oldest seemed to have the most vile conflicts.  They were constantly at each other's throats, but when the other was not there, they were the most pleasant to be about).  My second oldest would have stated they were absolutely diminished because their older sibling took the limelight. 

As for the Father's side of it...I tried my best to tell each one that they were both loved.  Each felt that they were my favorite (and they all were my favorite, each one was my favorite for a different reason though), and I tried to help them to know that they WERE loved. 

Today as they have children of their own, and tell me of similar instances where they face the same things we faced, I sometimes inwardly laugh.  It seems to me at times that the challenges we give our parents as children, are things that we may end up facing later as parents when our children inherit the same tendencies and give us the same problems right back.

I was BLESSED as a child.  I was the oldest, but I was several years older than my next brother.  It may be this age gap, but we got along fabulously.  The only time we truly had a vengeance was a growing experience for me.  I left the house after High School and had packed a box of things.  Within hours, I got a call from my mother telling me that my brothers had opened that box and separated out all I had left between themselves.  I was ready to go back and murder them all.  Luckily, my parents talked sense in to me.  At that time I had to learn whether I valued my brothers more than my stuff.  So, I made the choice that if I left it at home, what was mine was theirs.  It was a decision to share with them.  I credit that this decision made it so me and my brothers got closer.  They took the stuff I left behind and thus we had common interests between us.  These interests helped to grow our common bond through the years.

Edited March 2, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, jewels8 said:

I hope we can feel the peace that the temple brings, for those that have gone there and have a good night

This is a good point.  I hope that we can all feel peace and remember the great love the Lord has for us.  I appreciate that you brought this up.

[jewels8]

41 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

This is a good point.  I hope that we can all feel peace and remember the great love the Lord has for us.  I appreciate that you brought this up.

Thank you

[Vort]

8 hours ago, jewels8 said:

In ancient times, if a woman had to marry her husband's brother, she didn't have a choice.

Widows were not forced into Levirate marriages. Rather, it was their right, given them for their benefit, so that they could be taken care of in the event of their husband's death.

@jewels8, you would be doing yourself a huge favor if you talked less and listened more, and stopped proclaiming ideas that you know nothing about.

[Vort]

7 hours ago, jewels8 said:

I am no where near a socio path and narcissist, but maybe you are for thinking it.

"I know you are, but what am I?"

[jewels8]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

"I know you are, but what am I?"

 

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

"I know you are, but what am I?"

Just kidding.  Like I mentioned before, I did not intend to go off like that.

[jewels8]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

Widows were not forced into Levirate marriages. Rather, it was their right, given them for their benefit, so that they could be taken care of in the event of their husband's death.

@jewels8, you would be doing yourself a huge favor if you talked less and listened more, and stopped proclaiming ideas that you know nothing about.

Sorry, but I have always been taught that they had no choice in the matter.  And I really have no source that says otherwise.  There is a long known history of women being oppressed and it still happens that women have freedoms restricted today, like some women cannot drive, cannot go out of their house in other coutries without their husband, so anyways,  yes, I do not know everything about it, but I do know that a woman often has no choice in what she is expected to do and that there are negative consequences or punishments if she chooses to not choose certain things.  Perhaps I should look more into Levirate marriage, but I doubt they had many rights back then.  It seems women didn't have the kinds of freedoms they have today.

[jewels8]

Just now, jewels8 said:

Sorry, but I have always been taught that they had no choice in the matter.  And I really have no source that says otherwise.  There is a long known history of women being oppressed and it still happens that women have freedoms restricted today, like some women cannot drive, cannot go out of their house in other coutries without their husband, so anyways,  yes, I do not know everything about it, but I do know that a woman often has no choice in what she is expected to do and that there are negative consequences or punishments if she chooses to not choose certain things.  Perhaps I should look more into Levirate marriage, but I doubt they had many rights back then.  It seems women didn't have the kinds of freedoms they have today.

I doubt Christ would give the example He did if they had such rights

[jewels8]

6 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

 

Just kidding.  Like I mentioned before, I did not intend to go off like that.

but I definitely am not that kind of a person and that kind of name calling does not need to be tolerated.  That is way out of line

[jewels8]

Just now, jewels8 said:

but I definitely am not that kind of a person and that kind of name calling does not need to be tolerated.  That is way out of line

at least I have apologized

[jewels8]

I really don't think you , Vort need to say I have no idea about what I say,  Obviously I know something, alot more than you realize about what I say. And to everyone, I apologize if I have written anything that may have been or appeared offensive, that was not what I was trying to do.  I hope you are also not trying to come across that way, as well.  We should all strive to be kinder to each other.

[jewels8]

14 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

Sorry, but I have always been taught that they had no choice in the matter.  And I really have no source that says otherwise.  There is a long known history of women being oppressed and it still happens that women have freedoms restricted today, like some women cannot drive, cannot go out of their house in other coutries without their husband, so anyways,  yes, I do not know everything about it, but I do know that a woman often has no choice in what she is expected to do and that there are negative consequences or punishments if she chooses to not choose certain things.  Perhaps I should look more into Levirate marriage, but I doubt they had many rights back then.  It seems women didn't have the kinds of freedoms they have today.

Can you back up with a valid source that women didn't have to suffer a consequence for not going through with a marriage, can you back up that they didn't have to be given to their dead husband's brother, as Christ taught?

[jewels8]

2 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

Can you back up with a valid source that women didn't have to suffer a consequence for not going through with a marriage, can you back up that they didn't have to be given to their dead husband's brother, as Christ taught?

 

2 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

Can you back up with a valid source that women didn't have to suffer a consequence for not going through with a marriage, can you back up that they didn't have to be given to their dead husband's brother, as Christ taught?

to raise up seed to the dead husband?

[anatess2]

38 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

Can you back up with a valid source that women didn't have to suffer a consequence for not going through with a marriage, can you back up that they didn't have to be given to their dead husband's brother, as Christ taught?

In the ancient days (and not so ancient days in places like the Philippines), women were under the protection of men.  Without that protection, you have certain death or slavery.  A virgin woman is under the protection of her father until she is married to which she goes under the protection of her husband.  A woman whose husband dies is in a very precarious position of having no protector.  That is why the law was made such that the brother is compelled BY LAW to take on the protection of his dead brother's wife.  It is not the woman that has no choice - after all, she has a choice of rejecting the brother by taking on another protector.  It is the brother that has no choice - he has to protect his brother's widow (which also includes her children) even when he already has his own family to protect.

Edited March 2, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

8 hours ago, wenglund said:

It was also quite effective. It got me (us) really thinking.  Healthy and productive conversations are wonderful ways to build relationships, even with strangers online.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

 I think all of us (especially me, no doubt) need to remember this. We're all strangers, and it's easy to get angry with someone who we don't know. I know I've done it, I shouldn't have. We need to focus on the "healthy and productive" part, no doubt. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Hmm. What's the productive, healthy way to respond to someone implying that God is potentially a disgusting pervert?

[jewels8]

Ok, but protection, is one thing.  What about forcing her to have sex with him?  Protection and marriage are 2 seperate things.   And raise up seed to the dead husband if she doesn't want to have sex with him?  What about that?   Why would Christ say she has to raise up seed to her dead husband through his brother.  For instance, I have a brother in law who is a disgusting human being.  I would never live such a law, ok?  I mean I can understand they had this dumb rule back then that woman just couldn't walk around on there own and not be raped or whatever, stupid, which I think is totally wrong, but the idea that if her 1st husband had no kid that she had to have sex with his brother to keep the family name going is just wrong.  Who cares if the family name doesn't continue, if she isn't comfortable with having sex with her husband;s brother.  For heaven's sake, can't a man control himself where she can be "protected" without having to be married to him?  I mean, fathers and brothers live in houses with daughers and sisters without doing anything inappropriate, don't they?  Of course, sometimes their are disgusting examples where men do go against God's laws and think , say and do things they shouldn't, but for heaven's sake,  I'm sure some women , at least in their hearts, weren't comfortable with the idea.  I'm sure not all the men, though some of course were stellar examples of doing their duty, were not all the cream of the crop, and do you know if any of these women were allowed protection without having to do anything they weren't uncomfortable with, because back in the day, I doubt anyone cared what they thought and made a law to take that into consideration

[jewels8]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. What's the productive, healthy way to respond to someone implying that God is potentially a disgusting pervert?

You are saying things about me that are not true, how will you answer to God in the last day to that?  You really don't know where I am coming from.  Sharing my thoughts doesn't mean you need to jump to conclusions about it.  I am sorry if you jump to assumptions, but that is you, not me.  Perhaps I should have been more careful with my words, but I do have a right to my feelings.  

[jewels8]

Just now, jewels8 said:

You are saying things about me that are not true, how will you answer to God in the last day to that?  You really don't know where I am coming from.  Sharing my thoughts doesn't mean you need to jump to conclusions about it.  I am sorry if you jump to assumptions, but that is you, not me.  Perhaps I should have been more careful with my words, but I do have a right to my feelings.  

Quote

I have never called God that.  You are twisting my words to your own advantage.  But for me, it mattereth not.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, jewels8 said:

You are saying things about me that are not true, how will you answer to God in the last day to that?  You really don't know where I am coming from.  Sharing my thoughts doesn't mean you need to jump to conclusions about it.  I am sorry if you jump to assumptions, but that is you, not me.  Perhaps I should have been more careful with my words, but I do have a right to my feelings.  

So you deny that you said if God is a polygamist that you really have lost respect for Him, and "yuck", and you would consider even God a legalized adulterer?

On 2/28/2018 at 10:50 PM, jewels8 said:

If that is  true, I really have lost respect for Him, and if He is polygamous, yuck, I have no respect for unfaithful men who practice "legalized adultery"