LDS/Mormon Support Only Thread - Page 15 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-25-2008, 03:37 AM - Thread Starter
 
guestmama9911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Done!
guestmama9911 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-25-2008, 03:41 PM
 
KariM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the sewing machine (in zone 5A)
Posts: 3,326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
DH has finished his priesthood advancement classes, passed his interview with the Bishop and the Stake Presidency representative, was sustained and will be ordained within the week. :

We have our baby's blessing scheduled for September 7th.

I have a question regarding invitation etiquette. I plan to send out printed invitations to all of my extended family and also to DH's family.

How do you word the invitations? (obviously we've never done it before since we're new to the Church)

We're planning to have a light reception back at our house after the 3rd hour of meetings as well.

Any suggestions?
KariM is offline  
Old 08-25-2008, 07:48 PM
 
brightonwoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kotzebue, AK
Posts: 2,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yay Kari! How exciting!!
Just think, a few years down the road he'll be able to baptize your girlies too!

I don't think I've ever seen formal baby blessing announcments sent out, but since none of your family are members it owuld make sense to tell them what to expect...
I would probably just say something along the lines of "We invite you to be present as we bless our baby in our church meetings [date, time, place]. You are also invited to an open house at our home following the meetings [time]" I would suggest wording it in such a way that they feel welcome to the open house/celebration even if they don't feel comfortable coming to the church meetings...
Were you looking for suggestions for the open house/reception? most folks I know just have a veggie platter, maybe a deli platter or 6 ft sub or something like that, plus usually something for dessert--cookies or cupcakes or one big cake or whatever. We did Bear's blessing at home and stuck dutch oven dinner in the fire pit and then made homemade ice cream One thing you might want to do (since your families are not members) is take a few minutes to formally tell them about why we bless babies. It's not an official saving ordinance or anything, and it's really not equivalent to infant baptism or 'committings' in other churches. It's not even required--not everyone does it. You're not out anything if it was never done fo ryou. Now that I think about it I'm not 100% sure exactly WHY we DO do it. Does somebody know?! I think it's just to formally place their names on the church records, and a nice opportunity to give them a blessing. (which of course priesthood blessings can be given any time...)

~Jenni, rural frugal Alaskan, eternally married to Dragon
loving my wild things DS Wolf (12), 3 angels, DS Bear (6) & DS Eagle (3)
 

brightonwoman is offline  
Old 08-29-2008, 04:40 PM
 
NewCrunchyDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Burrow
Posts: 2,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So, Brightonwoman, what do you think of McCain's VP pick?

"A mind needs books as a sword needs a whetstone, if it is to keep its edge." - Tyrion Lannister

NewCrunchyDaddy is offline  
Old 08-29-2008, 05:17 PM
 
DucetteMama21842's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hey everyone...

I used to be on the LDS thread... I've been off of it for a while, but was looking to join back up in such a great supportive thread. Glad to see Alisa and NCD doing so beautifully and hoping to say hi to everyone again.

Can I jump in?

Eternal Companion to DH , Homeschooling mama to DS 05/04 , DS 11/05 , DD 12/07 , DS 07/10 and one on the way: June 2015!
DucetteMama21842 is online now  
Old 08-29-2008, 10:44 PM
 
linguistmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Happy Valley
Posts: 1,123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DucetteMama21842 View Post
Hey everyone...

I used to be on the LDS thread... I've been off of it for a while, but was looking to join back up in such a great supportive thread. Glad to see Alisa and NCD doing so beautifully and hoping to say hi to everyone again.

Can I jump in?
Welcome!

:::
linguistmama is offline  
Old 08-29-2008, 11:08 PM
 
DucetteMama21842's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I was shocked to see McCain's running mate BTW... maybe I'm a little ignorant... but I'm like... "Who in the world is she?"

Eternal Companion to DH , Homeschooling mama to DS 05/04 , DS 11/05 , DD 12/07 , DS 07/10 and one on the way: June 2015!
DucetteMama21842 is online now  
Old 08-30-2008, 12:24 AM
 
quarteralien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: upstate New York
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I remembered hearing about her, and her having a baby with Down's not too long ago, and it being her 5th. I thought it was pretty cool she had that many. But wow, I never would have guessed she'd end up VP candidate. So we'll have a first no matter who wins. I almost wonder if that wasn't the point. DH pointed out that of the four candidates involved, two presidential, and two VP, she is the only one who has actually been in charge of something, not just in a position to cast votes, like the other three who were senators. Interesting election to say the least.
quarteralien is offline  
Old 08-30-2008, 10:36 AM
 
klg47's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm turned off to her because of her willingness to take this position when her children are so young, even moreso since she has a special needs baby. She's 5 months postpartum. Not the time to pick up one of the most stressful, time-intensive, traveling-intensive jobs, in my opinion!

Maybe she takes some of the kids along; I don't know. I sure hope so.

I realize people wouldn't say this about a man, but it's true for them too. Also, if I die suddenly, the Feminists got me for writing this post
klg47 is offline  
Old 08-30-2008, 01:15 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Suburbian Sacramento
Posts: 4,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by klg47 View Post
I'm turned off to her because of her willingness to take this position when her children are so young, even moreso since she has a special needs baby. She's 5 months postpartum. Not the time to pick up one of the most stressful, time-intensive, traveling-intensive jobs, in my opinion!

Maybe she takes some of the kids along; I don't know. I sure hope so.

I realize people wouldn't say this about a man, but it's true for them too. Also, if I die suddenly, the Feminists got me for writing this post
I felt the same way, although a friend of mine made some good points. Maybe she is trying to make the world a better place for her child? Maybe she feels that she can raise awareness for Down's Syndrome and really make a difference?

Also, from what I can tell she did/does take her baby with her. There's been several photos of her wearing the baby in a sling. She also says she's still breastfeeding, not an easy feat with a Down's baby.

I'm a big liberal democrat and I'm going to vote for Obama anyway, so most of this is moot to me overall.
Talula Fairie is offline  
Old 08-30-2008, 01:35 PM
 
brightonwoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kotzebue, AK
Posts: 2,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I dont' know much more than you folks do honestly...she was elected before we moved up here, so we didn't have any say in that...
I Have NOT seen slinging/bf pictures, though I'm glad to hear it. Rumors were that she had returned to work within a few days of giving birth, and that was really rubbing me the wrong way. I found (find) it deeply disturbing that a party/candidate who were supposedly so pro-family would choose the mother of an infant, kwim?
Personally, I feel that the selection was an attempt to get attention, to attract some of the young/female/feminist vote. I think it was a game move, you know? I don't think it was a wise choice personally (which is not to say that I dislike her...)
Anyway, yeah, I'm reading up too. The thread about here here has been enlightening... http://www.mothering.com/discussions...php?p=12063199

~Jenni, rural frugal Alaskan, eternally married to Dragon
loving my wild things DS Wolf (12), 3 angels, DS Bear (6) & DS Eagle (3)
 

brightonwoman is offline  
Old 08-30-2008, 01:44 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Suburbian Sacramento
Posts: 4,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Here is the sling photo I mentioned:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_122474.html

I can't find the article that says she took the baby to work with her, but I've heard it several times so I am pretty sure she did.
Talula Fairie is offline  
Old 08-30-2008, 08:08 PM - Thread Starter
 
guestmama9911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
think it's a chess game move designed to woo continually disenchanted Hillary supporters. I don't think "the good of mankind" is reason enough to leave a newborn to go back to work, but that's just me. You'd think that there'd be at least three monthgs unpaid family leave for a prominent government leader.

Hi Ducette!

So (deep breath) I have a potentially divisive question to ask and I'm depending on all of you to help me keep it low key and respectful.

NCD has a friend who got a divorce and when she wanted to remarry her church leaders insisted that she get written permission from her ex-husband. I bourght this up at playgroup and a previously divorced mama said that isn't really a requirement, that she didn't have to and it is one of those strange things perpetuated around Mormon culture, such as the way some leaders say women can't give the opening prayer in Sacrament meeting (which isn't true).

So my question is - what is our obligation if our church leaders ask something of us we know isn't church policy? If we fight it, are we being bad for not sustaining our local leaders? Should we try and appeal to the apostles and prophet to please do something about these seemingly misogynist polices being maintained?

It breaks my heart that NCD's friend had to go through that unnecessarily.
guestmama9911 is offline  
Old 08-30-2008, 08:36 PM
 
quarteralien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: upstate New York
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't think it necessarily has to come to appealing to higher authority. I'm going to play the "pure speculation and what-if" game now. If it were me, I would simply ask whether that is church policy, if it's truly necessary, both in general and in this specific case. I might even ask to see where it's written. Maybe that's too confrontational, but someone more diplomatic than I am might have a better way to approach that.

ETA: I don't see this as not sustaining leaders. This is a sufficiently rare occurrence that it's quite possible not everyone is up to speed on current policy. It helps that this is a question of policy, not doctrine.
quarteralien is offline  
Old 08-30-2008, 09:37 PM
 
brightonwoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kotzebue, AK
Posts: 2,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I know that if you want to be married in the temple (and were temple married the first time) then you DO have to have a letter from your ex.
However, if it wasn't a temple thing, or isn't a temple thing this time, then no, I don't think it's church required... if either one is a temple marriage though, yes I think it IS policy.

~Jenni, rural frugal Alaskan, eternally married to Dragon
loving my wild things DS Wolf (12), 3 angels, DS Bear (6) & DS Eagle (3)
 

brightonwoman is offline  
Old 08-30-2008, 09:42 PM
 
brightonwoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kotzebue, AK
Posts: 2,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
By the way, as I have read up on Palin...I quite like her. I like her record, and a lot of her policies...that said, I don't intend to vote for her, mostly because I'm not a fan of her running mate...I think his selection of her says a lot about HIM, and I don't like what (imo) it says.
So, yeah, I don't want her to be VP...i want her to stay right here and be our gov.

~Jenni, rural frugal Alaskan, eternally married to Dragon
loving my wild things DS Wolf (12), 3 angels, DS Bear (6) & DS Eagle (3)
 

brightonwoman is offline  
Old 08-30-2008, 10:35 PM
 
quarteralien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: upstate New York
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brightonwoman View Post
I know that if you want to be married in the temple (and were temple married the first time) then you DO have to have a letter from your ex.
However, if it wasn't a temple thing, or isn't a temple thing this time, then no, I don't think it's church required... if either one is a temple marriage though, yes I think it IS policy.
I think that's an issue of the woman only being able to be sealed to one man, while the man can be sealed to multiple women. So she needs a cancellation of her sealing in order to be sealed again, while he wouldn't necessarily. I'd class that a level above just policy.
quarteralien is offline  
Old 08-31-2008, 01:47 AM - Thread Starter
 
guestmama9911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brightonwoman View Post
I know that if you want to be married in the temple (and were temple married the first time) then you DO have to have a letter from your ex.
.
That's the thing. According to one of the mamas in our group, she didn't have to have a letter from her ex to get married in the temple, and her previous marriage was also a temple marriage. I was surprised when she said that, because it's one of those policies I've always taken on faith and if I don't have to it makes me really sad that it is being required.
guestmama9911 is offline  
Old 08-31-2008, 03:29 AM
 
DucetteMama21842's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by alisaterry View Post
That's the thing. According to one of the mamas in our group, she didn't have to have a letter from her ex to get married in the temple, and her previous marriage was also a temple marriage. I was surprised when she said that, because it's one of those policies I've always taken on faith and if I don't have to it makes me really sad that it is being required.


That's really interesting and I wonder if something fell the cracks or if she's not being completely honest. (I don't know her... so I can't say...) but I have ALWAYS heard of this being policy. I've heard that the letters are actually reviewed by Salt Lake before it is approved to schedule the sealing. I would be more confused about what the friend said...


As for Palin... I am actually liking her record as well. I can't say I agree on the ANWR stuff... but I like a lot of other things. WHY OH WHY does she have to be McCain's VP?? I don't like any of the presidential candidates this year... maybe Palin should run Independent?

Eternal Companion to DH , Homeschooling mama to DS 05/04 , DS 11/05 , DD 12/07 , DS 07/10 and one on the way: June 2015!
DucetteMama21842 is online now  
Old 08-31-2008, 05:15 AM - Thread Starter
 
guestmama9911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hm. I wish my dad was still alive. He always knew the answer to these things.
guestmama9911 is offline  
Old 08-31-2008, 02:40 PM
 
brightonwoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kotzebue, AK
Posts: 2,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If a man, once sealed in the temple, wants to be sealed again (and the first wife is living) he has to get a letter from her. It's not called a 'cancellation' it's called a 'temple clearance' but he still has to have it. Not only did DH's bishop make sure he had one, but that morning at the temple right before the wedding they asked to see our marriage license AND our temple clearance.
It IS a hassle, and frankly I'm shocked that any priesthood leaders (or temple sealers) would let it slip through the cracks for your friend... The thing is that a civil divorce does NOT break a temple sealing. So you can be divorced all you want and you can re-marry civilly no problem...but if you want to be sealed you HAVE to do the paperwork to get the prior sealing broken. Sortof like you can be married and be separated and living with someone else, but you can't actually get married again until you do the paperwork to break the first one...

ETA
I *know* for a fact that the paperwork goes through Salt LAke and the office of the president--I can tell you a story about ours.
I think i know which friend you're talking about...perhaps she misunderstood the question when you asked her? If it's who I think it is, I trust her to be honest...but I also know the facts on this since I've been there! Perhaps this has not always been the policy? I dunno...I just knwo that we had to do the paperwork, and that getting a letter from DH's ex was part of it (and two years later when SHE wanted to get sealed, he had to write a letter for her as well). In both cases, the letter went to the bishop, not to the former spouse...so perhaps your friend never actually saw the letter and didn't realize there was one or whatever?

~Jenni, rural frugal Alaskan, eternally married to Dragon
loving my wild things DS Wolf (12), 3 angels, DS Bear (6) & DS Eagle (3)
 

brightonwoman is offline  
Old 08-31-2008, 05:36 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Suburbian Sacramento
Posts: 4,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
AM I THE ONLY MORMON IN CALIFORNIA WHO'S NOT GOING TO VOTE YES ON PROP. 8?

AHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Talula Fairie is offline  
Old 08-31-2008, 06:32 PM
 
sebarnes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: My own private Milky Way
Posts: 1,889
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Let me clear this up before it gets out of hand. My first marriage was NOT a temple marriage. I think there was a miscommunication there. However, I have had siblings and a good friend who had first marriages be temple marriages and when they got their sealings cancelled (or cleared, whatever word you want to use ), they wrote a letter requesting it, but did not have 'permission' from their ex spouses. Perhaps their cases are different from other cases because in all of these cases the ex's were either abusive, not in good standing with the church. or were excommunicated. Either way, them's the facts of what happened.

And yes, if a priesthood authority told me or asked me to do something that didn't seem right, I would absolutely ask to see the church policy or where the commandment from the prophets were.

, , , and
sebarnes is offline  
Old 08-31-2008, 06:43 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Suburbian Sacramento
Posts: 4,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh, my post had nothing to do with anything here...

I just had a huge meeting in church about this issue and it made me want to bang my head against the wall.
Talula Fairie is offline  
Old 08-31-2008, 06:45 PM
 
sebarnes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: My own private Milky Way
Posts: 1,889
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talula Fairie View Post
Oh, my post had nothing to do with anything here...

I just had a huge meeting in church about this issue and it made me want to bang my head against the wall.

Those are generally very frustrating for me, also!

, , , and
sebarnes is offline  
Old 08-31-2008, 08:18 PM - Thread Starter
 
guestmama9911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't think anything was getting out of hand, but now I'm back to the idea that it is something I don't like but I trust there is a reason for it and that someday I will understand what that is.

What is Prop 8?
guestmama9911 is offline  
Old 08-31-2008, 08:21 PM
 
sebarnes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: My own private Milky Way
Posts: 1,889
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by alisaterry View Post
I don't think anything was getting out of hand, but now I'm back to the idea that it is something I don't like but I trust there is a reason for it and that someday I will understand what that is.

What is Prop 8?

Oh, I meant it lovingly.. Prop 8 is a referendum on gay marriage, IIRC.

, , , and
sebarnes is offline  
Old 08-31-2008, 08:28 PM - Thread Starter
 
guestmama9911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Has a recoomendation on how to vote come down from the First Presidency, like last time?
guestmama9911 is offline  
Old 08-31-2008, 08:56 PM
 
sebarnes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: My own private Milky Way
Posts: 1,889
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well, the recommendation from the First Presidency last time was that we should let our representatives know how we felt about the very important bill. It did not, as so many people seem to think (not saying you did or didn't) tell people to vote for the bill or tell there representatives to vote for the bill. I can't seem to dig up the letter on LDS.org, but I'm sure someone else will!

, , , and
sebarnes is offline  
Old 08-31-2008, 08:57 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Suburbian Sacramento
Posts: 4,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebarnes View Post
Well, the recommendation from the First Presidency last time was that we should let our representatives know how we felt about the very important bill. It did not, as so many people seem to think (not saying you did or didn't) tell people to vote for the bill or tell there representatives to vote for the bill. I can't seem to dig up the letter on LDS.org, but I'm sure someone else will!
The letter I heard told us to spend our "time and means" passing prop 8. They didn't just say "vote with your conscience."

This article is pretty clear:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/...on-of-marriage

I am seriously thinking of leaving the church over this. I am furious.

Not sure where today's talk came from. I think the stake but again, I don't know for sure. I think in California this is a Big Deal. I have a friend in Utah who didn't even know this stuff was going on until I told her.

Our ward is calling everyone in the ward asking them to come on a walk to pass out pamphlets so that we can hopefully convince others to pass Prop 8. And yes, Prop 8 is the proposition that bans gay marriage.
Talula Fairie is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off