Jump to content

Interfaith marriages.


Bsix

Recommended Posts

uhummhumm ( clears throat).... ** raising hand*** I am one of those older LDS women (52) who has never married or had children. Now the children part, I have hit menopause already so having kids of my own is out of the question...but...I'd still like to be married. :P

I have been a faithful LDS convert since I was 21. Sometimes I look back and think..had I never joined the church, I would have most likely gotten married and had kids by now. The reason I think that, is being LDS does limit the playing field. I have to find that faithful, decent Temple-going, RM, LDS man. If I hadn't had those restrictions in finding a mate, I honestly believe I would have married in my 20's like everyone else. Cause all I would have had to look for was a good kind, decent, man with morals and values same as mine. I'm sure that would not have taken the 31 years I've been still single to do that!

I also find LDS men way more picky than non-LDS men. ;) LDS men are flippin' scared to death of that 'C' word! Whereas when I step out into the 'real' world...non-LDS men flirt with me without even thinking about it. No qualms, no thinking 'that-girl-is-smiling-at-me-she-must-want-to-marry-me- e-gads!!' It's funny and sad at the same time.

But because of my faith and desire to marry in the Temple, I do understand that means I got less than a 50-50 chance of finding someone of the LDS faith. So yes that would mean I must remain chaste and undesired til the next life. It can be a very lonely life, but at least I have a full life of friends ,family and career and the gospel.

Just for fun, I have been browsing non-LDS dating sites recently. Sure is different the responses I get, which are a lot more than on the LDS sites I was on. It's good for my ego if nothing else! LOL I'm getting noticed, wow!

But it IS more and more tempting to try dating non-LDS men, I gotta say that! Not something I ever wanted to do! But as time goes on, you want to love and be loved! I'm wondering now...should I give it a go? I don't know if I could handle a mixed faith relationship. I did try that once before many years ago with a co-worker I was crazy about....! BUT, when i got to thinking where this could possibly lead, this man could never take me to the Temple, I began to back off and let myself distance him. I know it confused him, cause I never explained why. When he began to date other gals and finally married, it did hurt... I SO wanted him!! But my head ruled my heart.

It's hard to know which way to go now.....should I or shouldn't I?

Red

Hi GingerRed,

Your story really resonates with me I know many wonderful beautiful LDS women in just your shoes. I myself am male so can't sympathize completely but I do know the desire for a loving relationship is universal and is not a bad thing. Your story reminds me of a conversation I recently had with a mid 30's single sister. She had just decided to start dating nonmembers the way she put it was it was either date nonmembers or don't date at all. And she decided dating nonmembers for her was the best option. Now the problems with dating and marrying outside your faith are real. There are large hurdles with making such a relationship work but as Mudcat and others will point out these are hurdles that can be overcome and a loving relationship can be formed. For those who decide to date outside their faith I think it important to do so with a clear understanding of some of the problems that can arise. And only you can make the decision of whether or not the potential rewards out weight the risks. Now as I have argued I do believe dating nonmembers should at least be an option that should be considered whether or not a person takes that option really depends on the circumstances involved I don't think there is necessarily a one size fits all answer. In any case I wish you well as you navigate these difficult decisions.

All the Best,

Uncertain

Link to comment

GingerRed:

There is no one answer that can possibly meet your needs. It is possible to marry outside of the Church and live a long and happy life. The Lord will reward you for whatever level of righteousness you maintain. It is just more difficult to succeed at it. It is also possible that you may find a worthy nonmember who is genuinely searching for the Gospel in his life, and who wants to marry you. Unfortunately it is most likely that you will be single in this life. Them's just the odds. My advice, as if you need any, is to stay strong in the Gospel, be the best person you can be. The Lord will bless you with the righteous desire of your heart, be it in this life or the next.

Link to comment

Uncertain:

It certainly "possible" within the LDS paradigm to marry outside of the Church and still receive all of the blessings from God. But that is incumbent upon what the nonmember knows and their willingness to accept the Gospel in the next. That may not happen. The same spirit we possess in this life will rise with us in the Resurrection.

It is not an either/or situation. In the LDS paradigm it is seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these thing things shall be added unto you. When we put our hearts too much on the things of this world are we not practicing a form of idolatry?

In the LDS paradigm those that do not abide the covenant they are given will not be given the opportunity in the next. Those that die without a knowledge of the covenant will be given that knowledge, and the opportunity to abide it.

We are to seek after the best gifts, to increase our talents, to become.

Popularity ceased to mean much to me a long time ago. I'm trying to clear up some misconceptions about the LDS.

There is a wealth of knowledge behind the Church backing it up. I believe the Lord through his Church has given us a road map to follow. That once we get on that road and stay on it. It will lead us to God. That it is an interesting and sometimes even fun road to be one. Having a spouse to help us along that road is a joy. I have a hard time visualizing being on that road without that support.

Link to comment

Just to clarify...I lived a 24-7 Catholic lifestyle and supported my wife's LDS faith. I believe she was tired of being married with that and wanted someone to go to the Temple with.

I didn't see any issues. IMO, I'm more of the zealot than her. Good values and principles for both sides, but..... :P

My wife's 1st husband wasn't too religious so she wanted someone who was and she found it. For some reason, she's still not content... ;)

I'm so sorry for you. Divorce is hell. I can't speak for your wife, but I lived with two consecutive non-LDS stepmothers after my mom died. I learned from the frequent tension in our home that I wanted an LDS home. Totally. I wanted to be on the same page, with the same goals as my husband.

If one marries out of our faith, one will lose out on some significant blessings. Which of course is hard to understand to a non-member. Being able to attend the temple together is huge. Setting the example for your children of choosing temple marriage is even more huge. Certain callings (that demand sacrifice of much family time) will not come your way if your spouse is not LDS otherwise the strain would be too much for the marriage, and the Church DOES believe in keeping marriages intact. And those callings are the source of a lot of personal growth.

It's so much better to realize this BEFORE marriage, rather than after. Please do not think that the Church is trying to break up mixed-marriages. Not at all. Once the marriage happens, we are taught that your spouse is your one-and-only! Divorce (except in severe cases of abuse, adultery, etc.) is NOT the answer.

This is WHY the Church discourages mixed religion marriages -- to AVOID the extra and inevitable stress that too easily leads to a broken home.

Link to comment

Hmmmm... this data on the high divorce rates of mixed-religion marriages is disturbing, indeed, and surely constitutes a rational basis for a constitutional ammendment to ban marriages from spouses of different religious backgrounds--especially in consideration of protecting children.

Come to think of it, historically and traditionally, mixed-religion marriages have always been something that both society and God have prohibited in consideration of the well-fare of our society--so making it illegal really should be a priority.

This really isn't about enforcing our morality on anyone else... It's about what's in the best interest of society, and which relationships our government has a vested interest in promoting and incentivizing.

If we're going to preserve society, and strengthen families and children, we need to enshrine the ideal into law, and ensure that our government isn't endorsing religiously-deviant marital choices.

In instances where either of the spouses' religious views don't reflect an expectation of absolute monogomy within the marital bond, mixed-religion marriages would obviousy be more inclined to tolerate promiscuity and promote a lack of sexual exclusivity, thus diluting and weakening the general standards and expectations of marriage for everyone else, not to mention risking increased STDs and probably raising health care costs for every other married couple.

Not to mention that if we continue to allow these types of mixed-religious marriages, all those liberals controlling both media and the educational system will be shoving approval of them down our throats, forcing schools and teachers to mention to or teach our children that people's religious backgrounds don't matter and that it's OK for people from divergent religions to marry one another, prohibiting parents from objecting to or pulling their kids out from any mention of 'pro-mixed-religion-marriage' school curriculum.

Pretty soon, poor people will be marrying rich ones, black people will be marrying white people, straight people will be marrying gays, gays will be marrying each other, adults will be marrying children, polygamists will be marrying mulitple wives, and men will try to marry their horses, dogs, and toasters...

Does anyone know if someone's started a petition I can sign somewhere to vote on banning such mixed-religious marriages...?

Darin

Link to comment

Darin:

Firstly such a law would be unenforceable.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..

Constitution-schmonstitution. The answer to your question is simple--we'll just need to re-write that part of the constitution.

Situations like this is exactly why our Founding Father's wisely created the ability to ammend the constitution to properly reflect what's in the best interest of preserving society. Freedom of religion is really secondary to the right of our children to be raised by their father and mother, not to mention creating families that are optimal for the survival and continuation of our species.

Darin

Link to comment

Darin:

This country's founders were just trying to create a more perfect union. :)

I think that there was good reasons behind the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. That while we can change it to suit our needs. There really needs to be very good reason to do so. They were English through and through. They were not interested in changing society. Their interest was in forming a country apart from Great Brittan.

An interesting aside. When I was in college back in the Dark Ages. Groups of young college young men and women would go around their communities and ask people to sign a petition. On the petition was the Bill of Rights, without calling it that. VERY FEW if any signed it, and more wanted exceptions/exclusions of one or more of the Amendments. ;)

That is why it is the first sentence of the first amendment. :crazy::fool:

Though I would like it to be a bit more rational about doing it. I have no problem with the continuation of my species. Sorry if you do. :P:crazy:

Link to comment

As the person who was interviewed for the LDS interfaith marriage in the Washington Post article, let me clear some things up: I don't have a problem with the LDS church (or any other religion) encouraging its members to marry exclusively within the faith. The reasons for doing so are statistically sound. Same-faith marriages are more likely to not end in divorce and more likely to produce children who are committed to the parent religion, and a religion would be silly not to consider those factors when making recommendations for marriage. Plus Mormons have a very good theological initiative to marry within the faith that isn't present in most other religions.

I do have a problem with people making judgmental calls questioning the religious commitment of those who enter into interfaith marriages. Case in point:

If your parents don't think it is important enough to back one religion then obviously neither one really matters.

That's ridiculous, Juliann.

For my own household, I've found great strength in Paul's discourse in 1 Corinthians 7. Paul wasn't doom-and-gloom about the outlook for children raised in interfaith households. Instead he tells us, "[T]he unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." (NRSV, emphasis mine) The point seems to be that even the presence of one believing parent in a household is a very powerful thing. I feel like both Mormons and evangelicals spend way too much time focusing on the "don't be unequally yoked" passage and practically ignore the uplifting message here for interfaith parents.

And for the record, religion is a 24-7 affair in our home as well. We hold weekly Family Home Evening, we celebrate Protestant liturgical holidays with readings from the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and we say family prayers and have scripture reading time with our daughter every night. My husband attends the weekly men's Bible study at my church every Friday morning while I meet with the visiting teachers every month, and we continue to visit each other's congregation once a month.

You'll never catch me arguing that interfaith marriages are ideal, but if both people are committed to fostering spirituality in the home and willing to make sacrifices, they can work.

Link to comment

Constitution-schmonstitution. Freedom of religion is really secondary to the right of our children to be raised by their father and mother, not to mention creating families that are optimal for the survival and continuation of our species.

Darin

How so?

Link to comment

For my own household, I've found great strength in Paul's discourse in 1 Corinthians 7. Paul wasn't doom-and-gloom about the outlook for children raised in interfaith households. Instead he tells us, "[T]he unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." (NRSV, emphasis mine) The point seems to be that even the presence of one believing parent in a household is a very powerful thing. I feel like both Mormons and evangelicals spend way too much time focusing on the "don't be unequally yoked" passage and practically ignore the uplifting message here for interfaith parents.

You are entitled to your own interpretation of this passage, but you need to know that it (your interpretation) is inconsistent with LDS doctrine.

There's a commentary on that passage in the Doctrine and Covenants, namely Section 74:

Now in the days of the apostles the law of circumcision was had among all the Jews who believed not the gospel of Jesus Christ.

And it came to pass that there arose a great contention among the people concerning the law of circumcision, for the unbelieving husband was desirous that his children should be circumcised and become subject to the law of Moses, which law was fulfilled.

And it came to pass that the children, being brought up in subjection to the law of Moses, gave heed to the traditions of their fathers and believed not the gospel of Christ, wehrein they became unholy.

Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them,

That their children might remain without circumcision; and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews;

But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and that is what the scripture means.

One can see from the foregoing that this passage from Paul was not intended as an endorsement for interfaith marriage. Rather, it has very specific application to a controversy that was going on in the church of his day regarding the erroneous belief that the rite of circumcision should be continued.

Link to comment

Hi Scott Lloyd,

You'll be pleased to know that I've already noted D&C 74's nearly useless take on 1 Corinthians 7, as well as the even more useless New Testament Student Manual commentary on the passage.

That is great. I mean really that is great. One mans useless is another mans usefulness.

Link to comment

Hi Scott Lloyd,

You'll be pleased to know that I've already noted D&C 74's nearly useless take on 1 Corinthians 7, as well as the even more useless New Testament Student Manual commentary on the passage.

Since presumably you reject the prophethood of Joseph Smith, it's hardly surprising to me that you would reject scripture revealed through him. I only meant to point out that you can hardly expect your take on the 1 Corinthians passage to hold any weight with knowledgeable Latter-day Saints who have the benefit of that scriptural enlightenment.

I do wonder, though, why you didn't acknowledge the Doctrine and Covenants commentary on it until after I brought it up. That strikes me as disingenuous.

Link to comment

I do have a problem with people making judgmental calls questioning the religious commitment of those who enter into interfaith marriages. Case in point:

And for the record, religion is a 24-7 affair in our home as well. We hold weekly Family Home Evening, we celebrate Protestant liturgical holidays with readings from the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and we say family prayers and have scripture reading time with our daughter every night. My husband attends the weekly men's Bible study at my church every Friday morning while I meet with the visiting teachers every month, and we continue to visit each other's congregation once a month.

You'll never catch me arguing that interfaith marriages are ideal, but if both people are committed to fostering spirituality in the home and willing to make sacrifices, they can work.

How will/would you feel if/when one or more of your children choose to follow your husband's religion and not your own?

Link to comment

Since presumably you reject the prophethood of Joseph Smith, it's hardly surprising to me that you would reject scripture revealed through him.

Correct, but in this case I'm going further than that. D&C 74 isn't even a particularly useful exposition of 1 Corinthians 7:14 (at least, not for the purposes of this discussion) because it does not engage the portions of the text that I build my case on. It does not illuminate what it means for the believing spouse to make the unbelieving spouse holy--or, assuming the context provided by D&C 74 is correct, it says nothing about how believing Christians were making their unbelieving Jewish spouses holy. Nor does it explain what Paul means when he says the presence of the believer in the household makes the children holy. He can't be limiting himself to children being made holy through the atonement in the Moroni 8 sense because the presence of a believing parent isn't required for that.

If D&C 74 contradicts anything, it's text of 1 Cor. 7:14 itself--though I don't believe that conclusion is necessary.

And for the record, I don't see 1 Cor. 7:14 as an endorsement of interfaith marriage. I see it as an endorsement of the power of the believer in an interfaith marriage that already exists. Paul stresses in other verses that he isn't encouraging anyone to marry outside of the faith.

I only meant to point out that you can hardly expect your take on the 1 Corinthians passage to hold any weight with knowledgeable Latter-day Saints who have the benefit of that scriptural enlightenment.

The knowledgeable Latter-day Saints who read my blog didn't seem to take issue with my exposition of the passage, nor does the knowledgeable Latter-day Saint whom I'm married to.

I do wonder, though, why you didn't acknowledge the Doctrine and Covenants commentary on it until after I brought it up. That strikes me as disingenuous.

That's because you're being uncharitable and cynical. I didn't bring it up because I don't believe D&C 74 contradicts my take on the passage. It's more like a tangential footnote on the matter.

How will/would you feel if/when one or more of your children choose to follow your husband's religion and not your own?

I would be sad and a little disappointed, though I would be careful not to direct my sadness and disappointment at them as a form of pressure or manipulation, and then I would accept it and support them in their religious activities (missions, temple marriage, etc.). I already love one Latter-day Saint. Plenty of room for me to love more.

Link to comment

I would be sad and a little disappointed, though I would be careful not to direct my sadness and disappointment at them as a form of pressure or manipulation, and then I would accept it and support them in their religious activities (missions, temple marriage, etc.). I already love one Latter-day Saint. Plenty of room for me to love more.

And how would your husband feel if any of your children went with your religion, and didn't serve a mission, marry in the temple, etc.?

I believe that there are cases where the Lord directs someone to marry out of their faith. Think of Ruth's first husband. But w/o His very clear confirmation in this matter, the risk is great IF you really care about the religion that your children choose.

Link to comment

Correct, but in this case I'm going further than that. D&C 74 isn't even a particularly useful exposition of 1 Corinthians 7:14 (at least, not for the purposes of this discussion) because it does not engage the portions of the text that I build my case on.

In other words, you don't find it useful, because it shows that 1 Cor. 7:14 doesn't say what you want it to say.

It does not illuminate what it means for the believing spouse to make the unbelieving spouse holy--or, assuming the context provided by D&C 74 is correct, it says nothing about how believing Christians were making their unbelieving Jewish spouses holy. Nor does it explain what Paul means when he says the presence of the believer in the household makes the children holy. He can't be limiting himself to children being made holy through the atonement in the Moroni 8 sense because the presence of a believing parent isn't required for that.

I like Sidney Sperry's commentary on D&C 74 as quoted in the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual. (I know you've already rejected it, but I'll quote it here for the benefit of other readers):

When the unbelieving husband had his way, which in that day would be usual, it would too often have the effect of causing the children to give heed to the Jewish tradition which their father followed (vs 4), the result being that they, too, would not believe the Gospel of Christ. Hence the children became "unholy" -- that is to say, they became unholy according to the false Jewish tradition which prevailed at the time, for the tradition of the Jews was that little children were unholy (vs. 6). It was for this cause, the Lord continues (vs. 5), that Paul wrote to the Corinthians giving them his own opinion, not the Lord's, that a member of the Church ("believer") should not be united in marriage to an unbeliever, unless the law of Moses was renounced or done away by them. Then the children of a give couple would not have to be circumcised as the Law of Moses required, and the false tradition of the Jews taht little children are unholy could be gradually eliminated.
If D&C 74 contradicts anything, it's text of 1 Cor. 7:14 itself--though I don't believe that conclusion is necessary.

As shown above, it does not contradict the Bible text, it adds essential context.

The knowledgeable Latter-day Saints who read my blog didn't seem to take issue with my exposition of the passage, nor does the knowledgeable Latter-day Saint whom I'm married to.

Perhaps I should be more specific and say Latter-day Saints who are aware of the content in D&C 74, understand it, and accept the divinity of the revelations given through Joseph Smith and canonized as scripture.

That's because you're being uncharitable and cynical. I didn't bring it up because I don't believe D&C 74 contradicts my take on the passage. It's more like a tangential footnote on the matter.

I guess we have a fundamental disagreement on the significance and meaning of D&C 74. See above.

Link to comment

Hmmmm... this data on the high divorce rates of mixed-religion marriages is disturbing, indeed, and surely constitutes a rational basis for a constitutional ammendment to ban marriages from spouses of different religious backgrounds--especially in consideration of protecting children.

Come to think of it, historically and traditionally, mixed-religion marriages have always been something that both society and God have prohibited in consideration of the well-fare of our society--so making it illegal really should be a priority.

This really isn't about enforcing our morality on anyone else... It's about what's in the best interest of society, and which relationships our government has a vested interest in promoting and incentivizing.

If we're going to preserve society, and strengthen families and children, we need to enshrine the ideal into law, and ensure that our government isn't endorsing religiously-deviant marital choices.

In instances where either of the spouses' religious views don't reflect an expectation of absolute monogomy within the marital bond, mixed-religion marriages would obviousy be more inclined to tolerate promiscuity and promote a lack of sexual exclusivity, thus diluting and weakening the general standards and expectations of marriage for everyone else, not to mention risking increased STDs and probably raising health care costs for every other married couple.

Not to mention that if we continue to allow these types of mixed-religious marriages, all those liberals controlling both media and the educational system will be shoving approval of them down our throats, forcing schools and teachers to mention to or teach our children that people's religious backgrounds don't matter and that it's OK for people from divergent religions to marry one another, prohibiting parents from objecting to or pulling their kids out from any mention of 'pro-mixed-religion-marriage' school curriculum.

Pretty soon, poor people will be marrying rich ones, black people will be marrying white people, straight people will be marrying gays, gays will be marrying each other, adults will be marrying children, polygamists will be marrying mulitple wives, and men will try to marry their horses, dogs, and toasters...

Does anyone know if someone's started a petition I can sign somewhere to vote on banning such mixed-religious marriages...?

Darin

I hope you were being cynical!?

Link to comment

And how would your husband feel if any of your children went with your religion, and didn't serve a mission, marry in the temple, etc.?

His feelings are largely identical to mine. He'll be disappointed, but he already loves one evangelical and he's prepared to love more.

In other words, you don't find it useful, because it shows that 1 Cor. 7:14 doesn't say what you want it to say.

Incorrect. I don't find D&C 74 useful because it does not engage the portion of 1 Cor. 7:14 that concerns me.

As shown above, it does not contradict the Bible text, it adds essential context.

If you really believe that, then by all means, feel free to perform your own exegetical reading of 1 Cor. 7:14. I would particularly like to know how you understand ?? ?? ??????? and ?? ?? ??????, which appear to be functioning as datives of cause or datives of means. Neither D&C 74 nor your citation from the D&C Institute manual address the function of those clauses.

(BTW, I welcome correction from any other Greek readers here if I've erred in my identification of those datives.)

Perhaps I should be more specific and say Latter-day Saints who are aware of the content in D&C 74, understand it, and accept the divinity of the revelations given through Joseph Smith and canonized as scripture.

This accurately describes the bulk of my LDS blog readers as well as my LDS husband. What you really mean is, "Latter-day Saints who hold to Scott Lloyd's narrow eisegetical takes on these texts." Sorry. My LDS friends tend to be more rigorous and discerning in their explorations of scripture than what you've shown here. When the Institute manual speaks, the thinking is not done.

Link to comment

I'm in both an interfaith and interracial marriage. Go me!

To be honest, though, the interfaith part is easier, since my wife is an agnostic. (She occasionally claims to be an atheist.) And she does encourage me to go to church when I can - work schedule permitting.

The interracial part is more difficult, because we come from very different backgrounds and cultures. My wife has said it would have been easier on her in a lot of ways to have married a Chinese guy. It also doesn't help that she was an only child, while I have lots and lots of siblings, so our perspectives on 'getting along' are different.

No kids. Yet.

If someone were to ask me my opinion about either one, I would tell them to think it through very carefully, because there's going to be more stress than one might ordinarily expect. There'll always be stress in a marriage, but it seems to be higher if you're both from different backgrounds, culturally or religiously speaking, and it may be too much for the relationship.

That's my .00000000000000000002 cents, adjusted for inflation.

Link to comment
Hmmmm... this data on the high divorce rates of mixed-religion marriages is disturbing, indeed, and surely constitutes a rational basis for a constitutional ammendment to ban marriages from spouses of different religious backgrounds--especially in consideration of protecting children.

Come to think of it, historically and traditionally, mixed-religion marriages have always been something that both society and God have prohibited in consideration of the well-fare of our society--so making it illegal really should be a priority.

This really isn't about enforcing our morality on anyone else... It's about what's in the best interest of society, and which relationships our government has a vested interest in promoting and incentivizing.

If we're going to preserve society, and strengthen families and children, we need to enshrine the ideal into law, and ensure that our government isn't endorsing religiously-deviant marital choices.

In instances where either of the spouses' religious views don't reflect an expectation of absolute monogomy within the marital bond, mixed-religion marriages would obviousy be more inclined to tolerate promiscuity and promote a lack of sexual exclusivity, thus diluting and weakening the general standards and expectations of marriage for everyone else, not to mention risking increased STDs and probably raising health care costs for every other married couple.

Not to mention that if we continue to allow these types of mixed-religious marriages, all those liberals controlling both media and the educational system will be shoving approval of them down our throats, forcing schools and teachers to mention to or teach our children that people's religious backgrounds don't matter and that it's OK for people from divergent religions to marry one another, prohibiting parents from objecting to or pulling their kids out from any mention of 'pro-mixed-religion-marriage' school curriculum.

Pretty soon, poor people will be marrying rich ones, black people will be marrying white people, straight people will be marrying gays, gays will be marrying each other, adults will be marrying children, polygamists will be marrying mulitple wives, and men will try to marry their horses, dogs, and toasters...

Does anyone know if someone's started a petition I can sign somewhere to vote on banning such mixed-religious marriages...?

Hmmmm. What's this remind me of?

Could it be . . . JUDY?

Johnny could only sing one note

And the note he sings was this

Ah!

Poor Johnny one-note

sang out with "gusto"

And just overlorded the place

Poor Johnny one-note

yelled willy nilly

Until he was blue in the face

For holding one note was his ace

Couldn't hear the brass

Couldn't hear the drum

He was in a class

By himself, by gum!

Poor Johnny one-note

Got in Aida

Indeed a great chance to be brave

He took his one note

Howled like the North Wind

Brought forth wind that made critics rave,

While Verdi turned round in his grave!

Couldn't hear the flute

Or the big trombone

Ev'ry one was mute

Johnny stood alone.

Cats and dogs stopped yapping

Lions in the zoo

All were jealous of Johnny's big trill

Thunder claps stopped clapping,

Traffic ceased its roar,

And they tell us Niagra stood still.

He stopped the train whistles,

Boat whistles,

steam whistles,

Cop whistles,

all whistles bowed to his skill

Sing Johnny One-Note,

Sing out with "gusto" and

Just overwhelm all the crowd

Ah!

So sing Johnny One-Note, out loud!!

Sing Johnny One-Note

Sing Johnny One-Note out loud!

Link to comment

Over at Shady Acres, Bridget Jack Myers has posted this remark:

Wow! In the past week alone I have now drawn the ire of Scott Lloyd, bcspace, Yahoo Bot, and Droopy, none of whom ever paid a lick of attention to me before. I must be doing something right.

One of the recurring themes over there is the alleged "persecution complex" of Mormons. Yet, generally speaking, the regulars over there are the touchiest lot I've ever encountered. Mere disagreement, in their minds, somehow equates to "ire," "rage," "seething anger," etc. It happens so often, I think it is more than mere Scratchian hyperbole.

For the record, Miss/Mrs. Myers flatters herself. I am not irate. My participation here is only borne of my awareness of the enlightening (and divinely inspired) commentary in D&C 74 on an oft misunderstood Bible passage. I have pointed it out before, and will undoubtedly do so again, if the subject ever comes up, regardless of who is involved in the dialogue.

Link to comment

His feelings are largely identical to mine. He'll be disappointed, but he already loves one evangelical and he's prepared to love more.

That's fine if all religions take you back to God. And though we see value in most or all faiths, that's not what we believe. Your husband must not fully understand the potential consequences/loss if his children (and eventually their children, and their children's children, etc.) reject his religion, otherwise he'd be more than disappointed. He'd be heartbroken.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...