I don’t recall the LDS church being quite so forceful in defending the traditional definition of marriage in Canada, but they sure are pushing it in California.

Does this say something about how much they pay attention to Canada, or is it just the the ‘States are more important?

What are the chances this man would ever be a bishop in your ward?

This raises the question of to what extent converts are required to conform to the expected opinions of their fellow members. Is this person obliged to get his/her tattoos removed before passing the sacrament, for example?

My wife and I were common law before we were married, and so were he and his wife.

Later on the conversation drifted to the FLDS families who have been in the news lately and we wondered, in the event that a single person resides, shares bills with and pools resources with several members of the opposite sex, does a common-law relationship exist?

There would be if only a single member of each sex were to live in the same arrangement.?Ǭ† It seems that some rights are being lost to some of the parties in the arrangement and since the whole point of the common law was to make sure all parties were to retain their rights, it seems that something may be amiss if it is not the case.

If, on the other hand, a common law marraige does exist – is it with all adult members of the household? What if they’re just dorm-mates while attending college etc.?

I see this as a sticky wicket. Any thoughts?

Let us assume that a large family could be classified as a family with five or more kids. These children, if all births are not multiples, can be born in a period not less than five 40 week intervals plus four 4 week periods to become impregnated again. This works out to 216 weeks or 4 years, 2 months. That’s a pretty tight schedule to keep, but possible I guess if one were motivated enough. The time from the birth of the first child until the exit from the home of the last child would be a period not less than approximately 22 and one half years (assuming a good synchronization with a school schedule or a home schooled family).

The world we live in now changes at an ever-increasing rate. There is evidence of exponential rates of change in industries and technologies used by employees and researchers the world over. The education you receive today may, depending on the field of study, not be useful or meaningful in 5 years time. Especially if you plan to work in a technical industry or in a research position. How much out of touch would you be if you were to cease your studies for 5 years? 10 years? Just imagine how hard it would be to initiate a job search in your field after leaving it for more than 20 years.

The description of a women’s role in the ‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World’ is that “women are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children” while men “are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.” This is familiar territory for many families with Dad being the breadwinner and Mom working in the home with the children. Most devout LDS women who work in the home go so far as to be available through the day for their children even when they are in secondary school or choose to home school their children themselves. Both of these behaviours offer little to no availability (or motivation) for additional work outside the home.

Given that raising a large family can span over two decades and that education now has an ever-decreasing shelf life, does it make sense for a young LDS women to attend a post secondary institution at all?

Let us, for a moment, consider other reasons one might wish one’s LDS daughters to attend a college, trade school or university if their education is not of a primary concern.

One argument is that being out on one’s own is a character building experience. True enough but one does not necessarily need to pay tuition to live outside one’s parent’s home.

Perhaps the argument is that all their friends are going off to school and they don’t want to be left behind or miss out on the shared experiences of their peers. Arguments that ‘everyone else is doing’ lead invariably in my mind to an exercise in bridge-jumping and at their core hold very little weight in regard to the best activities for youth in life experience and development of coping skills. In fact, leaving the pack can often be the child’s first experience of making their own decisions and developing coping strategies of their own.

Another argument is that attendance at one of the private LDS post secondary institutions is the best way for a young LDS lady to meet and be courted by a returned missionary and in time evaluate to what extent he takes his career studies seriously; not to mention the safety of being surrounded by members of one’s own faith during that courtship. This does have some sense to it, but the question remains; would it not be more cost efficient and time saving for the young lady to simply live in Provo or Rexburg until they’ve met the man they feel is ‘the one’? Many a parent may want to keep their daughters busy while they are in search of a life partner and simply enroll them so they have something to do during the search. But is this really an efficient and effective way of facilitating such a search? And what happens when she is wed and wishes to immediately start a family? Does the education she’s started simply be thrown away? Would this not lead to issues with her self esteem and self worth?

Would it not be more fair and effective if LDS parents were to instruct their daughters who have expressed interest in leading life as an observant LDS Mother of a large family, to not bother with post secondary education altogether?

Does the option of ignoring the instruction exist (assuming you’re a faithful member)?

Is it any different if the letter is read over the pulpit in Sacrament Meeting?

If you had personal opinions which run against what the Prophet instructed, how would you deal with the situation?

Vatican vs Salt Lake

In an effort to block posthumous rebaptisms by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Catholic dioceses throughout the world have been directed by the Vatican not to give information in parish registers to the Mormons’ Genealogical Society of Utah.

Also:

Mormons have been criticized by several other faiths — perhaps most passionately by the Jews — for the church’s practice of posthumous baptism.

Any thoughts on this?

Do you immediately trust a politician of your faith more than one of another faith?

Would you vote for a person who claims no faith, or will not speak about their faith?

Is there a particular faith, whose adherents you would not want to see elected?

To what extent would a good platform or policies change the emphasis you put on the faith of the candidates?

Now suppose the ordinances and decisions this person makes in their calling has a direct impact on other members of the congregation?¢‚Ǩ‚Äù they are in a position of oversight.

It’s already been stated that if there are personal or spiritual problems with the person conducting the ordinance, that the recipient of the ordinance will still receive the full effects of the ordinance ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äù God will know and make things right. For example, being baptised by a child molester would not mean your baptism is null and void.

This implies that it is not the letter of the law that must be followed but merely the spirit of the law; an exacting procedure is not required but instead just recommended because God can pull up the slack.

If it is the case that strict adherence is not required, then why is it that such an emphasis is put on perfect obedience of rules both written and un-written in the LDS faith?

There is a perception by non-members that there are many rules to be followed by members and the faith is fairly ‘rule-ladened’ when compared to other faiths which are less rigid when it comes to adherence to their respective rules ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äù lapsed Catholics, unobservant Jews, etc.

The other side of the argument being that the strict observance of ritual is an absolute requirement – i.e. temple work. If it *is* a requirement, it flies in the face of the ‘God will make it all correct’ argument and calls into question the concept of appointment to callings being for the called person’s personal and spiritual growth.

Any thoughts, on Our Thoughts, about this?

The odd thing was, it was from a missionary who had served in the Magrath area and who had spent a fair amount of time in our house. We also got a wedding reception invite from the young man and he came back after completing his mission to visit us.

This RM seems to spend a lot of time keeping in touch with us. I’d like to think it was because we made an impact for the better in his life.

How many of you RMs keep in contact with people from your area(s) and how many of you are contacted by missionaries who’ve served in your towns and cities?

Much discussion did then ensue.

Assumption: God exists and has the ability to control any of the happenings in our Universe.

Question: Is God responsible for every death ever?

I’m sure the topic of free will will enter into this debate, so let me add something to think about before we begin.

If I am capable of stopping someone from dying, am I guilty by my inaction if I allow the death to proceed?

Thoughts?