posted
Exactly, LDS people use birth control; the Leadership very likely uses birth control. Mormons still have families. I was trying to understand why some families are so much larger.
I give up. Too many people will take unnecessary offense.
[EDIT]
I am sure you are right he is a bit of a wisenheimer, but
quote: there's no way that I'm going answer you with any thing related to seriousness.
was a personal reaction, not a smart-aleck reaction.
posted
I'm not sure what you're question - why do some Mormons have big families?
Maybe it's because rural families used to be large and traditionally a lot of Mormons came from Utah and Idaho, which are often rural?
I don't know - my mother wanted a whole lot more than five but her body wasn't up to it. She didn't grow up Mormon, though.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Well, I've met at least a few Mormons who think that it's their duty to produce as many bodies for the soul backlog as possible. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Henry B Eyring-- 6 kids Jeffrey R. Holland- 3 kids Gordon B. Hinckley-- 5 kids Robert D. Hales- 2 kids Richard G. Scott- 7 kids Joseph B. Wirthlin- 8 kids M. Russell Ballard- 7 kids Dallin H. Oaks- 6 kids Russell M. Nelson- 10 kids Neal A. Maxwell- 4 kids James E. Faust- 5 kids David B. Haight- 3 kids L. Tom Perry- 3 kids Boyd K. Packer - 10 kids Thomas S. Monson- 3 kids
You said that you didn't bring up the dichotomy (no dichotomy, BTW, as the GA's have on average 5 kids, which is about on par with my experience with the membership) to disparage the leadership of the Mormon church. My mistake. I read your comments wrong.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It couldn't help it, everything here eventually turns into a discussion of mormon culture or religion. EVERYTHING! Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, they have more kids then I thought they did. I thought they had an average of about 3 or 4 kids with maybe 2 or 3 exceptions. I stand corrected.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel so guilty about drinking caffeine free mountain dew that I hide my stash in a secure compartment of our spaceship to keep my kids from knowing.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We separate our vast collection of Church videos into "kid-appropriate" and "kid-innappropriate." Sometimes the subject matter, like the war chapters in the Book of Mormon, is just too heavy for the kids. But we have been known to put in one of the "racier" ones when the kids are in bed and enjoy it with our unsalted popcorn.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ratio of times I've heard green jello references to the number of times I've even seen green jello is certainly over 100:1.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I’ll admit it. The real reason Bob and I decided to have a long engagement is that we were afraid that since we got engaged on our first date people might think we were Mormon. But this way we’ll have dated over a year before we get married, which should quell the suspicions.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm so Mormon that when I when I type da** or he** on a forum, it's obfuscating the word "darn" or "heck".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tammy:"How many of you are so Mormon that you refer to others who are not Mormon as "worldly"?"
Any Mormon who would use the word "worldly" that way would probably also use the word "Gentile" to refer to non-Mormons, and would use the word "mission field" to refer to the entire world outside of Utah.
In other words, they are the kind of Mormons who do not think about the words they are using before they use them.
I'm such a Mormon that I know the precise doctrinal reasons why each of the above usages is incorrect, and could write a ten page essay proving it to you.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm curious about this whole geneology back to Adam and Eve thing. Can you elaborate on this? How is this done, and how, um, literally do you believe your geneology to be correct? I swear I don't want to insult, just to understand. If another thread is the appropriate way to answer the question, then tell me and I'll gladly start one.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No it's not correct. Nor is it done anymore -- at least not by credible geneaologist.
But here's how it was done (quite easily if erroneously actually):
If you can tie your line in to European royalty (esp. British royalty) -- and many English Americans can -- then you're set because the royals (part of the whole divine right of kings you see) tied their family line in to Israelite royalty (line of David, etc.) which, if you accept Jewish geneologies, can then be traced all the way back to Adam and Eve.
Of course, while it's quite possible that there is Israelite (if not Jewish) blood among the some of the tribes from whence most Europeans descend, the specific claims made for these geneologies are a serious stretch.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've seen, most people who can trace geneology back to Adam and Eve do it through the "Royal Line". In other words, they are related to some king or duke or whatever from way back when. The royalty of the past kept very close records of their lineage, as it was often required for them to prove their nobility. For instance, it is possible for me to trace my family back to William the Conqueror, who was (supposedly) directly related to Charlemagne, who was related to King David, etc. etc. etc. The tricky part is that I don't know if anyone has proven Charlemagne was related to King David, or whether he just made it up to have a claim to the throne. But anyway, I'm not completely sure of how it works, but that's what I imagine people have done when attempting to trace their geneology back to Adam. I could be wrong, if I am, correct me please (I've seen some chart that outlines the lineage of all the kings of England and France to Adam, in a vague way, I just don't remember it exactly).
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am also descended from William the Conquerer. If, like, half the population of England and quite a few Americans were wiped out, I'd be in line for the throne.
<----the "real" Prince William
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, well I'm such a mongrel I doubt I'd ever be able to do any serious geneaology work.
My husband's father did on that family though, and got it traced all the way back to Ireland. The only notables in the ancestry were more recent, they are descended from the first schoolteacher in the state of Mississippi.
Okay, it's not royalty, but I like it. My kids are descended from an early pioneer in education. I think that's cool.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am also descended from William the Conquerer. If, like, half the population of England and quite a few Americans were wiped out, I'd be in line for the throne.
I would guess that it would be much higher than half of England. I'd guess it would be pretty close to half of America, though.
After 200 or 300 years, practically every member of a population is descended from practically everybody that was alive back then.
I prefer my heritage of the Clan of the Hay though... heheheh...
(Summarized story, Scotish army is fighting... the dutch I think. The Scot army starts to run, a farmer and his two sons see this... They grab their pitchforks and convince most of the army to go back in battle. The dutch surrender quickly.
Kind is overly happy, he takes a falcon and says wherever this falcon stops flying, that is the ending of your land. Which explains quite a bit of our coat of arms.)
(P.S. Our family also throws in the joke that the king threw the falcon in the ground...)
But, the geneology of my family is probably highly un-accurate, it's mostly guess work... but my dad made a complete one...
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I served under the Cleggs, too-- and President Goodman, briefly, before them. I served in Chivasso, Cuneo, Settimo Torinese, and Milano (II).
Ero l'Anziano Roberts. Tu? C'e un altro qua, chiama Dante che anche ha servito in Italia, pero' a Padova. Sfortunato lui. Sanno tutti che la missione di Milano e l'unica missione vivente e vero su tutta la superficie della terra.
posted
lol. sono anziano duckworth. le citta' dove' ho servito io sono torino campidoglio, vercelli, busto arsizio, piacenza, e torino monte rosa.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Torino Monte Rosa? Who was branch president there?
My memory's not as sharp as it was, but I think that was the branch I served in when I was in Settimo Tse.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
you would have to ask me that... i don't remember anymore... it's been 5 years and my journal is in storage i think.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many of you are so Mormon that you refer to others who are not Mormon as "worldly"?
My parents used that phrase often when I was a child. I of course associated it with our religion.
Tammy, in my family (quasi-Catholic, and I say "quasi" because my mother found the RCC to be troublingly liberal), worldliness and the avoidance of it was also a subject of much discussion.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
