Obama/Biden versus Romney/Ryan?

[Romy]

In the LDS church, every single divorce must be spiritually "annulled" so that the people involved can remarry in the temple regardless of whether the man or woman initiated it. This is done by the first presidency themselves at request of the person who want it done. The same thing for getting a temple recommend after a divorce.

The reason for that is not to control anybody. It's because divorce is often precluded by some major transgression on the part of one or both persons that prevents them from being templeworthy (like spouse abuse, adultery, etc.) so the first presidency looks over the case to make sure they aren't giving out temple reccommends to people who haven't kept their covenants.

Also, they go over things to make sure the person getting married isn't getting sealed to someone they had an adulterous relationship with during the previous marriage, since that's absolutely inappropriate.

This all applies equally to both genders.

Nicole, I believe you. And I believe that you experienced horrific abuse by evil people who saw the church as an opportunity to get close to and groom their victims. Unfortunately, it's something that happens in every organization where adults are put in a position to mentor children or other vulnerable people. Those predators are drawn to it. They don't represent the beliefs or ideals of the organization by any means. I'm so sorry that you had to go through it.

Didn't you tell me that bishop (or was it your awful teacher?) got excommunicated? I can't remember now.

Also, BC is totally allowed. It's just abortion that is considered murder. My SIL is an active member of the LDS church. She was raped and took a morning after pill. The bishop had absolutely no problem with it. Even abortion isn't totally black and white, and victims of rape and incest are encouraged to counsel with their bishops who are in the position to get them into free professional counseling.

It doesn't function perfectly, because that would require the people that make the church up to be perfect people. And we're not. We're just regular laymen, regular people who are trying to be good people.

[Pops2]

Originally Posted by ~Jessie~

Especially by reading how Romy talks about being LDS, I have a hard time believing that the entire religion is the way you paint it.

this isthe real point people are CHOOSING the create threats in their head based on out of context snippets of scripture or the NONDOCTRINAL actions of idnividuals. when i began developing my religous convictions i attended several different baptist churches (1 free will, 1 first & 4 southern) at some point in ALL of them i heard preachings of hate & intolerance. in no way do i believe all baptists are violent bigots. I know that what i was exposed to was the personal views of those pastors backed by out of context snippets of scripture.

[Pops2]

Originally Posted by Izzy's Valkyrie

I have no idea where I said that LDS/Mormon men beat their wives. In fact, I did not at all say that men were hurting their wives. I was saying that there are people who believe that men should govern their wives bodies (GOVERN ie Control what she can and can't do with her own body) based on a (Yes Maikoda, misconstrued) passage from the bible.

I personally do not believe in anything the bible has said. However, there are many people who do pick and choose what they want to use as rules for others based on little snippets here and there of scripture.

I have also been part of the LDS commnity as a child before I was given the choice whether or not to attend church. When I asked the Bishop of my church about the disparity between opportunities for men and women to be powerful leading figures (meaning, ordained) int he church, he told me women did not need the ability to be ordained because their "greater gift of power is the ability to give birth and bring life into this world" I'm sorry but that's a male chauvinist point of view if I ever saw one "You don't need to be a leader in the church, just be happy you can make us babies". I am not saying all LDS churches are run this way but some are. That was one of the huge turn offs from that church for me. I would not have minded staying around for the community aspect of the church rather than the spiritual but I couldn't swallow how much women were expected to do only what they were allowed to do instead of what they wanted to do.

you didn't another poster tried to create the perception that the church as a whole is built on the glorification/perpetuation of violent mysigonists.

[~Jessie~]

Originally Posted by Pops2

this isthe real point people are CHOOSING the create threats in their head based on out of context snippets of scripture or the NONDOCTRINAL actions of idnividuals. when i began developing my religous convictions i attended several different baptist churches (1 free will, 1 first & 4 southern) at some point in ALL of them i heard preachings of hate & intolerance. in no way do i believe all baptists are violent bigots. I know that what i was exposed to was the personal views of those pastors backed by out of context snippets of scripture.

It's the same thing with dog breeds. People will have a bad experience with (insert breed here), and suddenly EVERY dog of that breed is a monster.

I've met many good and bad Christians. I've been to churches where everyone is accepting and welcoming, and I've also experienced some terrible things said by so called "Christians."

There's a bad apple in every bunch. You'd assume every elementary school teacher would love kids, right? And every doctor wants to help people? And Christians should strive to be Christ-like? Just because someone has experienced the bad side of these people doesn't mean that a blanket can be thrown over them all.

[Laurelin]

I miss all the good threads.

[Romy]

[Barbara!]

Originally Posted by Pops2

and again no where in there did either of them promote banning contraceptive, denying homosexuals basic civil right & liberties nor taking away the civil right or liberties of women..

You OBVIOUSLY didn't read the links... The "on the issues" one.

[Romy]

Originally Posted by Barbara!

You OBVIOUSLY didn't read the links... The "on the issues" one.

I didn't really look at other dude's link because I know I don't like him, lol, but this is what jumped out at me from the Romney one you posted:

1994: Supported abortion rights but personally opposed. (Jan 2012)
2002: No to new abortion law; yes to emergency contraception. (Jan 2012)
States shouldn't ban contraception; and no state wants to. (Jan 2012)
1993: Personally opposed, but let women decide themselves. (Nov 2011

No punishment for women who have partial birth abortions. (Dec 2007)

Personally pro-life, but government should not intrude. (May 2007)

Anti-abortion views have “evolved & deepened” while governor. (Jul 2005)
Personally against abortion, but pro-choice as governor. (Mar 2002)
For safe, legal abortion since relative’s death from illegal. (Oct 1994)

Now, obviously his views adjust over time because people have life experiences and their views change. However he's never tried to ban it, and I don't see anywhere in your link where he's done so. I also don't see anywhere in your link where he's said he's going to, just that he personally feels it's wrong but he's not going to stop it.

ETA: and this is an issue a lot of LDS people have a major beef with him on, as many are very firmly pro life.

[Pops2]

Originally Posted by Barbara!

You OBVIOUSLY didn't read the links... The "on the issues" one.

you obviously didn't read them. Romney has been either supportive of abortion rights or hands off (that is government hands off).

Ryan has been anti abortion.

NEITHER has advocated taking away womens civil rights (voting, free speech, gun ownership etc).

as somone who may very well be living ONLY because abortion was illegal at the time, I fully understand that abortion for ANY reason except to save the life of the mother is in fact murder. and saving the life of the mother is a tragic decision for a doctor & patient to have to make like seperating siamese twins.

so not only are you expressing support for hyperbolic rhetoric, but in typical uberliberal fashion you're ASSUMING that i'm ignorant & if i had all the information i'd agree w/ you. well i have all the information you posted and NONE of it told me they plan to establish a theocracy, take away the civil rights of women & and take away the civil rights of homosexuals ALL of which has been proposed in the posts I disagreed with that generated your response to me. honestly i have bigger concern over some of Ryan's foreign policy actions than their stance on abortion or gay marriage.

[sparks19]

Originally Posted by Pops2

you obviously didn't read them. Romney has been either supportive of abortion rights or hands off (that is government hands off).

Ryan has been anti abortion.

NEITHER has advocated taking away womens civil rights (voting, free speech, gun ownership etc).

as somone who may very well be living ONLY because abortion was illegal at the time, I fully understand that abortion for ANY reason except to save the life of the mother is in fact murder. and saving the life of the mother is a tragic decision for a doctor & patient to have to make like seperating siamese twins.

so not only are you expressing support for hyperbolic rhetoric, but in typical uberliberal fashion you're ASSUMING that i'm ignorant & if i had all the information i'd agree w/ you. well i have all the information you posted and NONE of it told me they plan to establish a theocracy, take away the civil rights of women & and take away the civil rights of homosexuals ALL of which has been proposed in the posts I disagreed with that generated your response to me. honestly i have bigger concern over some of Ryan's foreign policy actions than their stance on abortion or gay marriage.

Good post. There is a difference between
Personal belief and what you plan to make law in office.

I also don't see being anti abortion (for birth control) as taking away womens rights