Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

496 Excellent


About sjdawg

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,242 profile views
  1. I personally think adherence to polygamy in violation of the law is much bigger that "civil disobedience". If you are protesting an unjust law you wouldn't lie about it or hide your actions. If it can't be seen in public civil disobedience would usually require you to announce your actions publicly in order to demonstrate protest vs. simple lawbreaking. Part of civil disobedience is accepting the punishment for breaking the law as part of the protest process. I don't think about Warren Jeff's or Winston Blackmore as practicing civil disobedience. I consider them as blatant law breakers and criminals. I understand that there are different views on what is or isn't civil disobedience but I don't like the idea of brushing aside polygamy as just a simple form of simple civil protest.
  2. You believe a non-member parent (whether married or not)believes that they are sinning? I respectfully disagree. I do, however, agree that we are setting children up for failure if we are baptizing people without the full support and cooperation of the parents. That is the reason I suggest waiting for until they are adults for all types of non-conforming families not just homosexual parents. I've lived through the stigma, shame, and worry that comes with having a non-believing parent. Each lesson on the word of wisdom, law of chastity, eternal families, priesthood was just a reminder that my family didn't fit the mold. My father was supportive of my mother taking us to church but he certainly didn't believe he was sinning. The lessons being taught in church were dividing our family every bit as much as anything being taught was bringing us together. Personally I don't understand why any homosexual parents would want their kids to have anything to do with Mormonism. It is a recipe for disaster. I just don't believe that only families of gay people should be singled out. If it is based on the law of chastity then don't let the children of anyone whose parents aren't living the law of chastity join until the issue is resolved. Treat all sexual sin (speaking from the perspective of mormonsim, not my own belief) the same way.
  3. I have zero expectation that the mormon church will accept homosexuality or change the Law of Chastity. I fully support religious freedom and fully support the mormon churches ability to keep weddings performed in temples as heterosexual only. With regards to this specific policy my only objection is that it specifically targets the children of homosexual couples. If the leaders of the church believed their own rhetoric then they would stipulate that children from all types of homes that don't conform to the LDS standard can't join the church until they are adults (un-married parents, part member families, etc). The same arguments/issues occur in these families that the church is suggesting they are trying to prevent with these families of homosexual couples Again, I don't have an issue with the policy in general. I take issue with targeting children of homosexual couples only.
  4. Is this kind of like all the people at the last conference who were saying they would be told the location of their mission during general conference and then absolutely nothing was announced?
  5. I kinda feel like the mormon church believes there will be plenty of polygamist families together in the eternities.
  6. I disagree. Their family structures could just as easily cause the children to suffer. If one parent is a non-member the children could be going to church continually and being taught that their family can't/won't be together. They could be taught that their family is missing out on something by not having a priesthood holder. They could be taught that a parent is a sinner because they drink coffee or an occasional glass of wine. I've seen this pain and judgement in friends and family and it is real and caused by what the children hear in church
  7. I"m most people. I agree with California Boy😉
  8. If what the church was saying were true why wouldn't it also apply to all non-lds or split faith families with parents in heterosexual relationships and not just polygamists? Those families are just as likely to have religious or moral differences
  9. This is why I believe it needs to remain private. You consented to nothing however the impacts of one member of the family going to ancestry.com can impact you all. It isn't just criminal issues either. This has huge implications in terms of adoption privacy, medical issues, extra marital affairs, etc.
  10. I love me some olive garden but it doesn't compare to the real stuff.
  11. 93-95 for sure my memory could be off on this. I hadn’t thought about it in a lot of years
  12. we were encouraged to bring Mormon Doctrine, Jesus the Christ, and I believe "The Miracle of forgiveness" on our missions
  13. The mormon church has plenty of money but I don't think it is on the scope of the Catholic church.
  14. We can disagree on this one. Even within Canada and USA membership is mostly regional. Alberta is Canada. Utah, California, Idaho, Arizona, Nevada, and maybe Hawaii in the USA. I'm not referring to total number of members necessarily but outside of these regions the scope of influence of the LDS church is significantly diminished. It goes from being a major force in the regional centers to becoming an after thought in most other areas.
  15. I think it is great that the leader of the largest Christian denomination in the world had time to greet the leader of a small, predominantly regional religion.
  • Create New...