| polygamy |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: ramona ® 03/17/2003, 17:27:48 Author Profile Mail author |
Yesterday I spent some time on the internet checking out some polygamy sites. I admit to my own horror. On a polyg forum, a posting stated that the person believed that Elizabeth Smart ran-away from home, that she is married to Mitchell, and that she should be reunited with her "beloved" and rightful husband. That person received no opposing responses. The girl was 14 when she was kidnapped, but age seems not to matter. Direct consanguinity including brother/sister and half-sibling incest is commonplace, along with high number of birth defects. Here is the face of another missing child relating to polygamy.
Here's the problem. There is great strength in the FLDS cult. The Church owns the property on which a person builds his home. Stay on the straight and narrow and you are fine. The church grants you property on which to build. Oppose the church, by refusing to give up a wife (wives are married to the priesthood not the man), refusing to kick out a son (competition for women), refusing to relinquish a daughter to a lecherous old man(possibly even out of the country) and you lose your home.
What bothers me to the core is the church denial of the practice of polygamy, which is listed in the D & C 132. It seems to me that the only thing that is true is that the L.D.S. church believes polygamy to be a "not here and now" issue. Where is the removal of D & C 132?
|
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Reason? Re: polygamy -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: James ®
03/17/2003, 17:51:16
Author Profile Mail author
The LDS church considers Polygamy officially over with O.D. 1, issued by Wilford Woodruff. He himself did not divorce any of his wives, instead he moved to canada where he could practice this without breaking the law. Others moved to Mexico. So, many LDS people have family connections to Canada or mexico. I don't know how O.D. one reads, but I think it said that the church would not allow any new plural marriages. I don't believe that it ever voided any marriages, as LDS people view marriage as lasting forever, ideally.
A friend has said that if someone married young just before O.D. 1 and lived long, they could have been still living and married up until about the 1950's and possibly the 1960s, without breaking official church teachings. I don't think that ever happened. Mostly, the LDS people have been trying their darnest to disown this practice, due to negative public sentiment.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Reason? Re: Reason? -- James Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
03/17/2003, 18:38:18
Author Profile Mail author
B. More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.
What?
A. Says that Mormons obey the law of the land. I have no issue with that. SO it would stand to reason that one cannot practice polygamy only in the U.S.but, B. Say even if polygamy is the law of the land, Church says that it is not allowed to be practiced.
Oh, my head is still spinning with confusion,
RamonaP.S. Do you have info. stating the church sanctioning of marriage post Manifesto? I realize it's common knowledge, but I would like to see a hard copy.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
OD 1 Re: Re: Reason? -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
03/17/2003, 19:03:32
Author Profile Mail author
I would also mention that it is from an LDS website, can't get any more authentic than that. Even if its been modified (I don't have any reason to believe that it has) Its still what is acknowledged by the church today.
http://scriptures.lds.org/od/1That was issuedfrom Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.
If you read it carefully, it states that they have not preached plural marriage, nor performed any new plural marriages.
"We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory."
Is there anything in the O.D. 1 that indicates that plural marriages already existing would be disolved? I don't think that there is.
He died in San Francisco on September 2, 1898.
http://www.angelfire.com/ut/Nimrod133/P04.html
Do you honestly believe that he divorced his wives, and abandoned his children? He may not have had intercourse with his wives, and may not have been seen in public, but to the church these sealings were taken very seriously. So technically, he was still married in the eyes of the church, but maybe not in public. He was fairly old when he issued the OD one. But in theory, people in their early 20's COULD have been married before that time, and the church would have recognized any marriage made before OD 1.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Reason? Re: Reason? -- James Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rpcman ®
03/17/2003, 19:22:31
Author Profile Mail author
Now they do. That wasn't the way things were considered then. http://www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_polygamy.shtml
He himself did not divorce any of his wives, instead he moved to canada where he could practice this without breaking the law. Others moved to Mexico.
Or so the LDS church would like you to believe now. Polygamy wasn't legal in Canada or Mexico when the LDS church practiced it there.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Oh, ok Re: Re: Reason? -- rpcman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
03/17/2003, 20:51:29
Author Profile Mail author
Modified by james at Mon, Mar 17, 2003, 20:52:17
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Huh? Re: Oh, ok -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Victoria! ®
03/18/2003, 18:34:18
Author Profile Mail author
I confess I don't know the era you're speaking of regarding Woodruff, did I miss it? Did Woodruff reside in Utah? No open spaces there?
Victoria
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Cross dressing Re: Huh? -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
03/24/2003, 15:04:28
Author Profile Mail author
well, he did evade capture for a long time in utah, by cross dressing to look like one of his wives. (gives you some idea about what his wives looked like)I suppose he could have exscaped into the mountains or something, but what he and other mormons wanted was statehood. It was named 'utah', but I believe they wanted the name deseret.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: polygamy Re: polygamy -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
03/17/2003, 20:09:16
Author Profile Mail author
I wonder what she went through and how she views "Emmanuel." Does she think she is/was his wife?
---------
The LDS Church has never repudiated polygamy as an official doctrine. Therefore, there is no reason to remove DC132. OD1 only states a change in policy, not belief (and wasn't accurate anyway). The Church tries not to publicly change its beliefs, but simply reduce their importance by discontinuing and playing down their practice. In both polygamy and priesthood issues, the Church has never admitted fault--they have just changed policy.
They phase out beliefs (such as Adam-God), change ceremonies (Temple), and redirect focus (to Jesus Christ, lately), but they rarely challenge their own doctrines directly. To do so would undermine the idea of revelation--the whole basis of their Church. It isn't reasonable to expect them to throw out a "revelation" as if it were in error.
-Dan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Doctrinal Shift Re: Re: polygamy -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/17/2003, 20:48:12
Author Profile Mail author
Your post actually points to a larger truth in doctrinal shifts in all denominations which have such shifts. That is, they seek to mute the rhetoric previously articulated as doctrine paramount. There are the ways you mention.
1. Stop talking about what was previously talked.
2. Change the subject by focusing on another doctrine.
3. Reduce the importance of a practice or belief.
The Roman Catholic Church has made gradual, momentous shifts in Biblical interpretations in recent decades. It gets less attention than the disappearance of Latin Masses and fish on Friday or the warmer relations with Protestants and Jews.
This change gets full coverage, however, in the recently published second edition of the New Catholic Encyclopedia. It is a substantial and authoritative update of the 1967 edition. The 15-volume work, with 12 million words from thousands of contributors was edited by a team from the Catholic University of America.
The encyclopedia’s account pivots on Pop Leo XII’s creation of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) in 1902 to set official limits on new theories emanating from Europe’s liberal Protestant and post-Protestant thinkers.
Among policies subsequently defined by the PBC:
1. Moses wrote or supervised production of the Bible’s first five books.
2. The early chapters of Genesis, including the creation accounts, are historical.
3. The prophet Isaiah wrote the entire book of Isaiah
4. The apostle Paul wrote each letter attributed to him.
5. The apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.
6. Matthew was the earliest Gospel to be written.
The PBC beliefs restricted Catholic academics for decades. But the new encyclopedia undercuts each of them, reflecting current majority opinion among Catholic Bible scholars. The Vatican has not disciplined any biblical expert for decades, although it continues to act against scholars in other fields including doctrine, moral teaching, and church authority.
As for New Testament material about Jesus, the bishops of the Second Vatican Council were cautious, affirming the “historical character” of the four gospels as collections of oral and written traditions that provided “the truth about Jesus.”
The larger the religious institution, the more slowly doctrinal shifts occur. With the Protestant Reformation, doctrinal departure from Roman Catholicism became as simple as breaking from the first Protestant groups. Reforms in doctrine occur from within religious groups and from breaks or start-ups which embraced the same Bible.
Your point of analysis is well made. Most people committed to a religious sect hardly recognize doctrinal shifts which occur over time. They simply don’t watch that closely and often don’t even know that doctrines are in play in the evolution of religion.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I'll take Moses for $20, JAK Re: Doctrinal Shift -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Victoria! ®
03/18/2003, 18:32:10
Author Profile Mail author
Are you saying that the current doctrine in the Catholic Church is that Moses wrote or supervised the writing of the Pentatuch? I don't see any way that he could have.
Victoria
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Doctrinal Shift Re: I'll take Moses for $20, JAK -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/18/2003, 21:15:00
Author Profile Mail author
Rechecking an Associated Press article on that, it does say (as I indicated) Moses wrote or supervised production of the Bible’s first five books. The article referred specifically to the New Catholic Encyclopedia. It is an update of the 1967 edition.
If the AP is correct, you might ask a liberal Catholic. I say “liberal” because when doctrinal shifts occur, they are most likely to be embraced by the liberals in the sect first. It sometimes takes much longer...even generations for people who are simply members to accept the shifts.
If the AP is incorrect, we will have to find some other sources.
Also, as I stated in another post shifts are often played down for several reasons. To do that, a denomination simply doesn’t say too much or say it too loudly knowing that some may be upset by an official doctrinal shift.It is frequently the case that the pulpit and pew are in disagreement.
JAK
(I will post a piece on the division between pulpit and pew.)
Modified by JAK at Tue, Mar 18, 2003, 21:27:06
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I doubt Re: Re: Doctrinal Shift -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Victoria! ®
03/18/2003, 22:41:39
Author Profile Mail author
Victoria
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I doubt Re: I doubt -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/18/2003, 22:51:55
Author Profile Mail author
Skepticism is the first step toward enlightenment. It should not be difficult to find the updated New Catholic Encyclopedia. What could be difficult would be to find the particular writings cited by the Associated Press in the 15-volume set with 12 million words.
Fresh seminarians from Catholic universities might be up on this. They should be.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
...and eventually forgotten, if lucky? Re: Re: polygamy -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
03/17/2003, 20:54:44
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Not “lucky,” ignorant Re: ...and eventually forgotten, if lucky? -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/17/2003, 21:17:35
Author Profile Mail author
“and perhaps these things will eventually be forgotten.”
Historical particulars are most important. The fact of doctrinal shifts in any religion demonstrate its failure to have had the doctrine right in the first place, or the second for that matter. (It's the evolution of doctrine.)While the hierarchy of religious sects don’t want their parishioners to focus in shifts in doctrine, it is important. It educates and makes transparent the failed reliability of doctrine from any religious sect, denomination, or cult.
The thought is well expressed in this sentence.
You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
What possible reason to forget if not to obscure the truth regarding exposed fallacy?
Religious doctrine-makers can survive only by maintaining a certain level of ignorance in those on whom they seek to impose their dogma.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Mon, Mar 17, 2003, 21:25:05
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
About a great many things... Re: Not “lucky,” ignorant -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
03/17/2003, 21:42:02
Author Profile Mail author
(visual: The emperor in 'Star wars', with glowing eyes)http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/palpatine/index.html
I love it! Visualize those same glowing eyes, and greasy hands rubbing together..."very good young jedi, ... the truth shall set you free"
Or how about a mormon asking 'the golden question' to Luke skywalker?
http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/bibfortuna/index.html
"The book of Mormon is true.... honestly"
(Why doesn't he believe me?)
Modified by james at Mon, Mar 17, 2003, 21:57:04
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
LDS not lucky, shrewd Re: ...and eventually forgotten, if lucky? -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Victoria! ®
03/18/2003, 18:39:01
Author Profile Mail author
I realize I'm jumping into a discussion already in progress and may not have the entire picture here and I know JAK's comments had to do with the Catholic Church but, with regards to doctrinal shifts in the LDS Church it is my opinion that the LDS Church is in a perpetual process of santitizing it's original doctrines in order to make them appear more mainstream in nature, which they are not. When the rubber meets the road, while Mormonism appears Christian on the outside, inside it bears little resemblance to Christianity. My 2 cents.
Victoria
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: sanitizing Re: LDS not lucky, shrewd -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/18/2003, 22:43:08
Author Profile Mail author
While words like sanitizing are pejorative in nature when connected with doctrine which is supposed to be for all time the same, nevertheless, it is an important point which you make.
It is also important to recognize that re-interpreting or even rewriting doctrine is an integral part of evolving religion. No religious doctrines remain static for long. And I do not mean by that simply human life expectancy. Historically, some doctrines remain in tact for hundreds of years, but not many. The devil is always in the details.
Appearing “mainstream” may or may not be an advantage depending upon the particular denomination, sect, or cult. Particularly cults want to be the opposite of mainstream. Early Christianity wanted to be the antithesis of mainstream. It wanted to claim uniqueness. The beginnings of any religious movement are usually if not almost always the antithesis of mainstream. In order to be established as unique, special, the one true..., it is necessary for a religious movement to project that it is different.
Your last sentence presumes omniscience about what Christianity is.
Notions of “original doctrines” are always interpretations of what they were. That is particularly the case the more time that passes between what were the beginnings of some religious perception and the present.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Perception Re: LDS not lucky, shrewd -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
03/24/2003, 15:16:57
Author Profile Mail author
I was raised LDS, so whatever is the normal accepted view of Christianity...that is difficult for me to really see. My view of what other people consider "regular christians" are those of Jim and Tammy Baker, or perhaps the 700 club.In my view, they don't seem anymore reasonable, mentally stable, or doctrinally consistent than Mormons, 7th day adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Bahais or Hare Krishnas.
For all the criticisms mormons get over polygamy, I find it interesting that other 'cults' have tried the polygamy and communal living experiment. How did they ever get the idea to try it? I haven't heard any good explanation for why the ancient prophets in the Bible were permitted to practice it. (moses, Abraham, david)
As a child, I sensed that it was wrong, when I first heard of this doctrine. I didn't have any interest in attending church. My parents eventually talked me out of it, through years of church attendance, and explanations from various members and use of bible passages.
However, I would admit that perception is not always reality. Certainly there are A LOT of ideas which are common. Just because a large percentage of the population holds a 'common sense' of reality, doesn't mean that there are other ways to approach life, or living arrangements that work.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Poly gametes, syngamy Re: polygamy -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
03/17/2003, 21:10:11
Author Profile Mail author
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss6/gametes.htmlor to be more artistic about it
http://www.petergcohen.com/Syngamy_1/syngamy_1.html
Can't we finally take the sin out of syngamy?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Bigamy/Polygamy in other cultures Re: polygamy -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
03/17/2003, 21:21:49
Author Profile Mail author
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02561a.htm
It would not violate any law of the united states, and it is allowable even in 'regular' christianity.
What about Polygamy in other cultures? In theory the LDS could have allowed plural marriage to occur in countries where plural marriage would be legal. I can only speculate as to the reason why they did not choose this option. What is the status of polygamists that get married in other countries, and move to the United States? I would assume that the united states would not legally recognize such union, but I am sure that in history SOMEONE with influence has at least visited the USA with such an arrangement. I assume that people did there best to respect their arrangement, and hopefully not criticize them.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: polygamy Re: polygamy -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Chad ®
03/18/2003, 20:34:42
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Ho Li Cau :-) Re: Re: polygamy -- Chad Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
03/18/2003, 21:39:59
Author Profile Mail author
What I found interesting in my search of polygamy is that
F(undamentalist)LDS women are not married to the man, but married to the priesthood. Hmm, if a man with higher priesthood authority wants to partake of the cake that has already been snacked upon, he may do so. Joseph Smith had the courtesy to be inspired to send a man to a distant mission in an effort to steal a wife. Oh the power of prophetic inspiration. Sounds to me a bit like priesthood prostitutes, don't you think?The practice of polygamy brings to mind the new post about creating a God, let's tweek it a little to religion. The practice of polygamy is an excellent idea when creating a religion. First, with pregnancy/young children a women is less inclined to leave that which is familiar. Create a divine calling for women that are able to tolerate such a life, and a few will bite. Second, an instant rise in membership with each baby born. Keep the women pregnant and they become more dependant yielding to an even slimmer chance of leaving. Allow the children to grow up in this lifestyle and they remain in that which is familiar. Ah, what a good start. But then look at the Cathlics with the ban on birth control. There is still a healthy quantity of members. Let's look at Hassidics (fundamental Jews) or even orthodox. A woman is ritually unclean for two weeks. During uncleanliness, she is not to have sexual relations with her husband. Coincidentally ;-) as she gets near her peak fertile period, her relations with her husband may continue. It' all about instant members.
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Polygamy, a lot of men's secret desire..... Re: polygamy -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
03/19/2003, 08:43:16
Author Profile Mail author
I have often wondered if the worlds oldest profession enjoys a similar time line as when our ancestors first began incorporating the practice of a one on one relationship to more fit in with an agricultural society, as opposed to their earlier hunter gatherer lifestyle.In the natural world of higher mammals, primates (of which we belong) have evolved no practical use for such a one on one condition that I am aware of. Some lower forms of birds and mammals of course,do.
OK everyone, I'm bracing for a good beating up on this one.
TLC
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Polygamy, a lot of men's secret desire..... Re: Polygamy, a lot of men's secret desire..... -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
03/19/2003, 12:36:50
Author Profile Mail author
Did you find that in MY PROFILE or you have other sources of secret information?!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Polygamy, a lot of men's secret desire..... Re: Polygamy, a lot of men's secret desire..... -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
03/19/2003, 15:21:21
Author Profile Mail author
Ramona - A "board" certified female.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: "certified"? Re: Re: Polygamy, a lot of men's secret desire..... -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/19/2003, 18:28:28
Author Profile Mail author
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
certifiably nuts? Is that what you wanted to say? Re: Re: "certified"? -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
03/19/2003, 21:26:23
Author Profile Mail author
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
certifiably nuts? Is that what you wanted to say? Re: certifiably nuts? Is that what you wanted to say? -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/19/2003, 21:44:17
Author Profile Mail author
Y, I wouldn’t ever entertain such a notion. Vhat made ya say dat?
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Polygamy, a lot of men's secret desire..... Re: Re: Polygamy, a lot of men's secret desire..... -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
03/20/2003, 09:28:17
Author Profile Mail author
But in the meantime, testosterone driven males will continue to drive females up the proverbial wall with their male dominated and sexist slants on everything. That's just the way we are.
It is a lot easier for me to envision a man with 15 wives than to envision a woman to have and manage 15 husbands.
TLC
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Polygamy, a lot of men's secret desire..... Re: Re: Polygamy, a lot of men's secret desire..... -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
03/20/2003, 10:51:03
Author Profile Mail author
Oh, but those are just your hormones talking. Is it that time of the month dear? Can I buy you some chocolates? ;-)
At the same time, I understand the concept of polygamy...kinda. Flipping through channels, seeking battle cry, trash t.v. had a man that had fathered 9 children, by six women. While polygamy is not legally an option, is this that different? The other common occurance is marriage, divorce, and new marriage. This is a representation of serial polygamy, and women are just as guilty.
Just thinking,
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Serial polygamy........ Re: Re: Polygamy, a lot of men's secret desire..... -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
03/20/2003, 11:41:19
Author Profile Mail author
Have a good one,
TLC
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Chocolate.said in the donut voice of homer simpson Re: Serial polygamy........ -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
03/20/2003, 18:23:59
Author Profile Mail author
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: asparagus, lettus, garlic-Humph! Re: Chocolate.said in the donut voice of homer simpson -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/20/2003, 18:50:04
Author Profile Mail author
You certainly know how to bring on envy and greed. Oh, I shouldn’t have use that last word. But it was banned for a day only.
I know you have this beat all to smithereens, but we achieved 67 today. Then we got storms with hail.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Hey Yankee!! You sure are greedy. Re: Re: asparagus, lettus, garlic-Humph! -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
03/20/2003, 19:02:27
Author Profile Mail author
As I said before, when we are blistering with heat you will have you comeuppance.
Ramona
P.S. Did I mention that my roses should be blooming soon? I know, that was low.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: O Re: Hey Yankee!! You sure are greedy. -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/20/2003, 19:22:23
Author Profile Mail author
P.S. Did I mention that my roses should be blooming soon? I know, that was low.
May the thorns get you where it hurts -- low indeed.JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
What's wrong with casual sex? Re: Polygamy, a lot of men's secret desire..... -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
03/19/2003, 20:15:39
Author Profile Mail author
I'm of the opinion that attempts to find a life-long mate as soon as possible lead to far more pain than happiness.
-Dan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Sexual jealousy Re: What's wrong with casual sex? -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
03/20/2003, 07:05:57
Author Profile Mail author
Casual sex is certainly viewed in a positive manner by most males in society, even if secretly harbored. Females,also, are not immune to this desire, however they are not quite as subject to the testosterone driven natural urges to populate the world.
In a nutshell: Casual sex is great as long as you don't want to practice it with my women. That is, and has always been the crux of the problem.
Always good to hear your comments,
TLC
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Or click here for a modern alternative Re: Sexual jealousy -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
03/20/2003, 18:58:24
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Wow! Re: Or click here for a modern alternative -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/20/2003, 19:27:48
Author Profile Mail author
This gives new meaning to the term liberal Christian. It’s all in the interpretation, yes?
How clever of you to come with this site! Did you research long, or was it one of those “pop-up” screens? ;-)
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
