or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › LDS Papas and Mamas #48
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LDS Papas and Mamas #48 - Page 7

post #121 of 678
Good job, NCD! I'd actually like to read that.

Somehow we survived undergrad/grad with 3 kids and no money. Dh has his EE undergrad and his CE grad. I thought the thesis/defense would kill us, but we soldiered through. Now we have three years off before the PhD or patent law degree. We shan't be penniless again, either -- the company foots the bill, including moving expenses, and gives him 75% of his salary while he's gone. We keep our benefits and he has 40 months to do nothing but his advanced degree. And that's the last degree for him! After that it's my turn. My bachelor's is 11 years old!
post #122 of 678
My dh is in school too, I totally miss him when he's away studying. (He goes to his parents' house which is a few minutes away or stays late at work to study, so that he can get more peace and quiet from our boys.) Anyway, I hate having him be in school and can hardly wait for it to be over, but I am also so proud of him and how well he's doing with it-- especially since he is also working more than full time and he still finds time for service projects and helping out neighbors, family, and church members. It's definitely a balancing act though, timewise, and I have shed a few tears over it all. :


BTW, topic change, but there is a thread going on over in TAO right now that states that any church which believes that homosexual relationships are "less than" heterosexual relationships in any way, is homophobic. Just a question-- do you believe that the LDS church is homophobic?

I guess maybe it is, depending on how you define homophobic . . . but I don't consider myself to be "hateful" of anyone, even though I 100% believe/accept/support everything taught by the church doctrine. Our neighbors/landlords are gay, and we get along quite well with them. In fact, they were actively looking for LDS tenants to fill their latest vacancy because they wanted more tenants like us.

Oh, and let's not get the thread locked, please.
post #123 of 678
hey i just posted on that thread!

no, i don't. but i defnitly believe there are homophobic members. i fight with them all the time.
i also don't believe that standing for social gay rights goes against the church. just want to get that out there before it comes up.
post #124 of 678
Maggie, I wanted to give you a hug on the other thread, but I also just didn't want to get into it there. I guess maybe it all comes down to semantics.

I just know I don't hate anyone for having a different moral code than me, yk? *sigh*
post #125 of 678
I think it would be a good idea to define homophobia. I see it as those who actively work against gays having any sort of place in our society, and I don't believe the church does that at all. President Hinckley has stated over and over that we love all people, no matter what their persuasion. However, that does not in any way mean that he or anyone else will condone their actions. Those actions are contrary to the plan of salvation, which will lead us to exaltation with a spouse to whom we are sealed for time and all eternity. That does not happen in same-sex relationships. I'm not sure I'm clearing the water any, so I'll just stop there.
post #126 of 678
the whole thing is people try and redefine homophobia so that they can attach it to people/religions that simply disagree with acting on it.
post #127 of 678
quick! i need a DDDDC that says "homophobe for gay rights!"
post #128 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by DucetteMama21842 View Post
NCD-

Congrats! I dropped my last paper off yesterday. Not nearly as long as yours! Wowzer! I can't believe you could accomplish that with a newborn in the house!
Neither can I ... neither can I.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DucetteMama21842 View Post
(Props to Alisa too- a spouse in school is like living in a madhouse).
Yes, Alisa deserves all the props and laurels and lauds and whatever else you can send her way. I have not been very helpful the last week. I've had papers galore due: four lit classes will do that. I've had 2 5-8 page papers, 1 8-10, 1 2-3 and 1 10-12 all due within the last week. All on different topics.

1 5-8: How does the authorial controversy in Mark Twain's The Mysterious Stranger affect the realism of the story, or not affect? (For American Literary Realism and Naturalism)

1 5-8: Is the institutional (and critical) marginalization of authors such as Kurt Vonnegut, Sherman Alexie and Rick Bass into subgenres such as "regional," "ethnic" or "science fiction" writing constitute a sort of literary elitism? Why? (For 20th Century American Short Stories)

1 8-10: A topic of my choice dealing with Victorian Lit. My paper was on how The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Dracula mirror Victorian anxieties of degeneration, deevolution, atavism and the duality of man, using both textual sources (the characters of Edward Hyde and Coutn Dracula in particular) as well as the culture of Victorian London at the time, which itself presented a kind of duality - at the same time it was the largest, most civilized city and one of the most dangerous cities in the world. (For Victorian Lit)

1 2-3: An assesment of my Contemporary American Lit class, and what I got from the class.

1 10-12: This ended up being my big 29-pager that discusses how Stephen King, through the character of Jack Torrance in The Shining mirrors the social and cultural shift that was taking place in the late-1970s that saw the return to Teddy Roosevelt's ideal of the "strenuous life" as a male backlash against 70s movements such as Women's and Gay Liberation and Affirmative Action (as well as the socio-economic conditions of the time) which were percieved as an assault on masculinity; and how the 1970s Men's Movement in turn mirrors a similar movement in the 1890s and how, as The Shining mirrors male gender anxieties in the 70s, Bram Stoker's Dracula mirrors male gender anxieties of the fin-de-siècle. (Both for Contemporary American Lit)

*phew!*
post #129 of 678
I'll tell you guys the same thing I told the missionaries when we were discussing this. I don't think that the church is ness. homophobic. HOWEVER I have issues with members being encouraged to vote against gay marriage. It's fine that the church says it's wrong. But not everyone in this country belongs to the church, and I have real issues with people imposing their beliefs on others. Think gay marriage is wrong? Don't get married to someone of the same sex. But don't force two people who love each other every bit as much as you love your spouse to not be able to marry just because a religion they don't belong to thinks it's wrong.

/rant
post #130 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonprysm View Post
HOWEVER I have issues with members being encouraged to vote against gay marriage.
The church itself does not encourage members to vote in any way, except to follow their conscience. What individual members do to encourage fellow members to vote certain ways, will differ, of course.
post #131 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by LionTigerBear View Post
The church itself does not encourage members to vote in any way, except to follow their conscience. What individual members do to encourage fellow members to vote certain ways, will differ, of course.
When gay marriage came up in California, members were encouraged to vote against it. I don't know how high up in the church that direction came from, but I know my parents were asked by their stake president to donate money to the political cause.

Tiffani, I typed out a whole response and decided against posting it. I know this is a personal topic for you, and I definitely feel for you, but I will stand by what I said in my original post.
post #132 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by quarteralien View Post
When gay marriage came up in California, members were encouraged to vote against it. I don't know how high up in the church that direction came from, but I know my parents were asked by their stake president to donate money to the political cause.
true, and i strongly disagree with what happened with the church and Prop 22. it was out of line.

ETA- disagreeing with the act of homosexuality is one thing but i think there is a point where we are denying others their agency and their rights. obviously we are not going to condone acting on homosexuality within the church or hold same-sex sealings and that is perfectly fine. but outside the church is where the line is crossed, IMO.
post #133 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by LionTigerBear View Post
The church itself does not encourage members to vote in any way, except to follow their conscience. What individual members do to encourage fellow members to vote certain ways, will differ, of course.
this is true, now.
post #134 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonprysm View Post
I'll tell you guys the same thing I told the missionaries when we were discussing this. I don't think that the church is ness. homophobic. HOWEVER I have issues with members being encouraged to vote against gay marriage. It's fine that the church says it's wrong. But not everyone in this country belongs to the church, and I have real issues with people imposing their beliefs on others. Think gay marriage is wrong? Don't get married to someone of the same sex. But don't force two people who love each other every bit as much as you love your spouse to not be able to marry just because a religion they don't belong to thinks it's wrong.

/rant
Amen
I tried to express this belief and was shot down big time. I mainly just keep my mouth shut on the subject now. Although I guess that's not the perfect solution. Yes, I believe that my beliefs are the best for me, but even Pres Hinckley has said that this church is not for everyone.
post #135 of 678

on a slightly related topic

I'd like to explore this idea a bit with you guys. I'm presenting it, not necessarily saying I wholeheartedly agree, but I'm trying to decide what I do think on the subject. Lately, I've been listening to Robert Mendelsohn's "Confessions of a Medical Heretic" on tape as I drive around. I read his other two books and enjoyed them immensely, and I'm also enjoying this one. The premise of his book is comparing modern medicine to a religion, and how devotion to that religion can be detrimental to your health. He spent a chapter on the medical profession's assault on the family, which I listened to in total fascination, because it sounded like everything we hear over the pulpit about the detrimental effects that media can have on the family. He talks about how pediatricians undermine a mother's confidence, how modern childbirth destroys the sanctity of the event, and how doctors discourage family members' involvement in one another's lives, as in "Listen to me, not your mom, dad, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc about how to raise your kids."

I'm sure you're wondering where I'm going with all this. Here goes. the author asserts in another chapter that the Church of Modern Medicine, as he calls it, worships the god of death. They do things to discourage life, and condone lifestyles that won't perpetuate the species. They encourage women to have fewer children by promoting birth control, no matter how little tested that birth control may be. And he also asserts that practices such as masturbation and homosexuality are part of this religion, because they lessen our desire to come together and create more children. He talks about ancient religions, and that the ones that are still around (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) respect life, both children nd elders, and encourage families. He contrasts that with the ancient Greek and Roman religions that valued the mind, practiced infanticide, and encouraged homosexuality. These religions did not last through the ages. They died out.

So a lot of what he said resonates with me. I do totally distrust the medical profession and I believe that Heavenly Father gave us to tools necessary to succeed in this life, and that we need to value our families. I thought his discussion on the effects of masturbation and homosexuality on society were very interesting, and like I said, I'm trying to decide what I exactly think about it. It is true that by themselves, these practices do not lead to children, unlike conventional sex. And we know that that is part of our purpose here on earth. I'm just not sure it's a one-for-one equation, i.e. these things lead to the demise of a culture.

So if you made it through all that, what do you think?
post #136 of 678
I have not read that book but now I will be interested to. What you talk about him discussing resonates with me, too.

What the ancient Greek and Roman cultures and the modern medical culture have in common is, I believe, called secular humanism. Now, the Greek and Roman cultures were not all bad, but they obviously had huge, glaring problems of basic selfishness, greed, indulgence (a lack of self-control) and thus, violence. And these were extremely intellectual, supposedly civilized cultures.
post #137 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by LionTigerBear View Post
What the ancient Greek and Roman cultures and the modern medical culture have in common is, I believe, called secular humanism. Now, the Greek and Roman cultures were not all bad, but they obviously had huge, glaring problems of basic selfishness, greed, indulgence (a lack of self-control) and thus, violence. And these were extremely intellectual, supposedly civilized cultures.
Which sounds an awful lot like what goes on in some medical circles, don't you think?
post #138 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by brightonwoman View Post
Yeah, I think that will be the one hard thing about tandem nursing...Connor is two though, so I think he could start learning to be comforted other ways...didn't he mostly wean while you were pg? Maybe you and Bryan and Connor can all make a deal together about how he can have nursing at certain times/places, but in the night, he needs to snuggle with daddy for comfort...not that he can't nurse, just that he can't nurse at night, kwim? I would probably explain that his tummy is big enough to go all night without nursing, but Deirdre's isn't, so she gets night-nursies, but Connor is big so he can have night cuddles and that's more or less the same as nursing, just sans milk...
jenni
We've tried this. He snuggled fine with Daddy while I was in the hospital, even. Now, if I deny him, there's insane screaming. It's heartwrenching.
post #139 of 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by alisaterry View Post
We've tried this. He snuggled fine with Daddy while I was in the hospital, even. Now, if I deny him, there's insane screaming. It's heartwrenching.
Alisa, I'm sorry. Have you tried having NCD give him a blessing specifically for this. When we found out that Mady's teeth were falling apart I was so heartbroken. I have had different opinions from different dental health professionals on whether or not it was from nursing at night so much, I was basically a pacifier for a long time. Dh and I talked about it and prayed about it together and decided we should night wean. The first night was terrible. All three of us were in tears. Dh gave her a fathers blessing the next night. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't quite as bad either. I hope you get some rest soon.
post #140 of 678
Alisa, I haven't talked about it much on MDC, but after several weeks, I had to wean DS1 for that reason. He wanted to nurse every single time the baby did (every hour and more!) and he was NOT gentle at all! I say this not to pressure you or anyone into weaning at all. I think tandeming is a beautiful ,wonderful thing. But I wouldn't want anyone to feel like a failure if tandeming didn't work out for them, yk? It can be hard sometimes. Throw in PPD . . . and yeah.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Spirituality
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › LDS Papas and Mamas #48