LDS Freedom Forum

Fiannan wrote:If this couple can raise 4 kids why can't any healthy LDS young couple?

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12/Le ... 50x300.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Okay, now let's see...why is the church against masturbation? It is never condemned in the Bible, nor do I think Joseph Smith or Brigham Young ever mentioned it. So why, may one ask, is it condemned nowadays? Obviously we know that there are no negative health consequences, in fact the opposite, so could it be because it distracts reproductive energies away from procreation? Perhaps if it were accepted then people would neglect marriage, or when marriage occurred might engage in far fewer sexual activities with their partner and thus send the birth rate down?
...................

As for porn I think it is safe to say that for every "movie night" a couple might have -- despite their religion -- that results in a pregnancy, there is probably as many that don't conceive because of the reasons cited above in regards to masturbation. There is also a serious danger that you will see many more couples like the one I linked the picture to as porn entices more and more young women into same-sex experimentation that can lead to romantic pairing with someone of the same gender. And while many lesbians are having kids they generally only have two, which means usually only one woman gets AI and has the babies. Yet isn't it weird that when birth control came out and became mainstream in our western culture that is when doctors came up with more ways (perhaps through inspiration from God?) to help people get pregnant? Maybe it is so vital for spirits to come down that God is willing to see His spirits go into same-sex marriages than to have to wait around for LDS couples to decide if they are willing to sacrifice having a nicer home in order to have an extra baby or two.

Re: Masturbation: You mean besides the Lord slaying Onan, the 2nd son of Judah because he went into Tamar, his older brother's widow and instead of doing his duty to get her pregnant, he "spilled it on the ground"? (Genesis 38: 7-10).
Actually, masturbation outside of a committed, respectful loving marriage can be extremely damaging health-wise.
Donald L. Hilton, M.D., is a brain surgeon who has performed over 100 brain surgeries at the time (2009) he wrote his book: He Restoreth My Soul: Understanding and Breaking the Chemical and Spiritual Chains of Pornography through the Atonement of Jesus Christ" http://deseretbook.com/He-Restoreth-My- ... /i/5039716

In his research into how addictions of ALL types dramatically change the physical makeup/size and neuro-chemical function of certain brain parts (research backed up by over 20 different scientific studies around the world - so this is NOT just a Utah morality thing), Dr. Hilton explains the endorphins released during times of excitement or pleasure (the rush or thrill of a moment) affects us. The two most powerful chemicals released are Oxytocin and Vasopressin (along with adrenaline and dopamine). These two particularly are critical in proper sexuality. The Oxytocin is the female bonding chemical between mother and her unborn/live child. The Vasopressin is the male bonding chemical. The Adreneline is the rush, and the dopamine is the pleasure chemical. The bonding occurs upon orgasm. When done within marriage, this is absolutely wonderful and further strengthen the ties between husband and wife - whether or not a pregnancy results. This bonding is frequently cited by prophets and apostles a a chief benefit of marriage. Even an unmarried couple who really do like and respect each other, and are in a (hopefully) exclusive relationship can have some of this bonding as well. When someone - particularly the girl - is a virgin, and is only thinking of their first time as a wonderful romantic experience with someone they are "in love with", this bonding also occurs.
But what happens when the other person - usually the boy/man - is only in for the sex? He gets his release/relief (vasopressin). She bonds with him (oxytocin), but hat does he bond with? The ACT itself. To him (or also her) it is a one night stand...and he/she can easily walk away. This is where most of our younger society is at now.

What happens if the person (particularly men, but also women) are viewing pornography? The bonding doesn't happen with another person, but rather with an image, a fantasy - a self-deception/ lie that the sexy person on the screen, page, mental image is really with you and wants you...and since the vast majority of people will NEVER look as good as who is on the screen - the person will never be satisfied with who they are with/who is available, and the incessant stream of new images/variety of objects of lust make it near impossible to ever fully bond with/be committed to one person.

Dr. HIlton cites the studies that proves that pornography/masturbation addiction is 100 times more powerful than the most powerful form of heroin. Try breaking that by telling the boy he needs to behave for 3 months before he can submit his mission papers. Two years of consistent counseling and self-restraint is needed.

BTW, He also makes the point that women can get into sexual addictions not only through pornography (an ever increasing number), but also through making connections on Facebook and other social networking sites, as well as romance novels, even the Twilight series (the danger is in seeking after the emotional validation from the wrong sources).

Aussie asks an interesting question about older men who are single (widowers) not trying to find a wife and get married. I have thought of that myself. When I was in my 20s I knew a lot of women in their late 20s who could not find a husband. When my former bishop's wife died of cancer he was in his early 50s (but looked a lot younger). Since he and his wife could only have one child I assumed he would marry a younger woman and have some more kids but he wound up marrying someone his age who was divorced with a lot of grown children. Seemed a waste to me, but hey, that's just me. Yet one wonders if he had married some 27 year old, who might have had 4 or 5 kids, what those offspring could have contributed to the Church. And as for older men my grandfather remarried after he became a widower at 63 (fathered 3 kids too). It could be assumed, however, that younger-looking men could get younger women -- probably for the best anyway since younger looking guys in old age have been shown to live longer than older-looking men of the same age cohort.

Elder Richard G. Scott of the 12 is a good example of this. His wife died 14 years ago, when he was in his 50's. He has never remarried - I imagine out of love and devotion to her. Other elderly apostles/prophets have remarried after their wives died. Pres. Howard W. Hunter and Elder Russell M. Nelson are prime examples. Maybe they wanted some companionship. Nothing wrong with either of these two approaches.

As for the question of how come a man in his 50's doesn't marry a girl in or 20's or 30's: who would have him? The girls want someone their own age (unless he has a lot of money or prestige - even then it seems no more than a 10-15 year gap is acceptable, unless she is the worse form of gold-digger). People want to date/marry someone in their own age range, with similar outlooks on life/similar life experiences/stages. While older men may want a much younger woman because of a mid-life crisis - they want a trophy babe to make themselves feel young again...that tends to last only until they girl opens her mouth and speaks...then the man will usually tire of the girl quite quickly - and long for a mature woman with a brain and a more healthy outlook on life. Hence, the middle-age man with marry a middle-age woman already with kids.

BTW, He also makes the point that women can get into sexual addictions not only through pornography (an ever increasing number), but also through making connections on Facebook and other social networking sites, as well as romance novels, even the Twilight series (the danger is in seeking after the emotional validation from the wrong sources).

I will respond to the other aspects of your post later -- but for now I would then ask would that not mean all romance movies and novels are merely porn without the nudity? However, just to perhaps illustrate your point here....I know someone who is an aspiring author. He wrote a book about a psychopathic girl with sexuality issues. What shocked him is that young women, particularly conservative women, love the book. In fact he has had women say that while they are heterosexual they would date the main character if she were real -- he mentioned the other day that one gal said she is not into women but would marry the main character!

So yeah, emotional bonding can occur when seeing a character on TV. I am sure more than a few women have crushes on Sokie in True Blood and others are taken in by Bill and Erik -- the two rival vampires. And we have recently seen how women love someone like Charlie Sheen. Is that what you mean by seeking emotional validation in the wrong sources?

Yet isn't it weird that when birth control came out and became mainstream in our western culture that is when doctors came up with more ways (perhaps through inspiration from God?) to help people get pregnant? Maybe it is so vital for spirits to come down that God is willing to see His spirits go into same-sex marriages than to have to wait around for LDS couples to decide if they are willing to sacrifice having a nicer home in order to have an extra baby or two.

Agreed as to pregnancy aids. Partial Disagree as to the same-sex...pregnancy is a natural result of an action (with or without medical help). A spirit needs to come down to inhabit the body thus created. God will ideally send his children down to good loving families with the Gospel, but He will send us WHERE He can, and WHEN he can...and the circumstances of our birth becomes part of our proving ourselves in this life (though for others, the circumstances may be carefully matched-up for the life mission of the spirit coming down).

As for the question of how come a man in his 50's doesn't marry a girl in or 20's or 30's: who would have him? The girls want someone their own age (unless he has a lot of money or prestige - even then it seems no more than a 10-15 year gap is acceptable, unless she is the worse form of gold-digger). People want to date/marry someone in their own age range, with similar outlooks on life/similar life experiences/stages. While older men may want a much younger woman because of a mid-life crisis - they want a trophy babe to make themselves feel young again...that tends to last only until they girl opens her mouth and speaks...then the man will usually tire of the girl quite quickly - and long for a mature woman with a brain and a more healthy outlook on life. Hence, the middle-age man with marry a middle-age woman already with kids.

Gee, how many women would not have wanted a Sean Connery when he was in his 50s or a Johnny Depp who is currently almost 50?

Okay, yeah, there are a lot of men who turn 50 and look 70 but there are a lot of men who turn 50 and look 35. So no, the average gal in her late 20s is not going to want a fat guy who is not really into life. However, there are women who are into older men who take good care of themselves and are free-thinkers. Maybe my family is unique but there are a lot of older guys and young women marriages that have worked out just fine. As for the idea of age-appropriateness, I know one guy who is near 50 who likes to go to rock concerts, is into bodybuilding and is far from rich. He is married with three kids and women are flirting with him all the time. So like I said, if a guy is unique in some sort of way it will attract females (ever read The Game? -- gave it to my son for his birthday). And the thing is, the signals he puts out are the most crucial part of the process - if he is an esoteric thinker he will attract 20-somethings who are also into such ways of thinking. If he conveys sportish vibes then that sort of woman will gravitate into his circle of influence. If he thinks like a 50 year old he will attract women that age, or young women with those attitudes.

Note the age differences in movies -- Hollywood knows the chemistry that sells to both men and women.

PS. as for what I said about the guy who writes books, he is a high priest, married with a large family. His fans tell him he has the weird ability to capture the thought patterns (the psyche) of young women. He jokes about forming a cult -- and some women have said they would join if he did. Who knows, maybe he is a psychopath (he should seriously run for political office in my opinion).

Fiannan wrote:

As for the question of how come a man in his 50's doesn't marry a girl in or 20's or 30's: who would have him? The girls want someone their own age (unless he has a lot of money or prestige - even then it seems no more than a 10-15 year gap is acceptable, unless she is the worse form of gold-digger). People want to date/marry someone in their own age range, with similar outlooks on life/similar life experiences/stages. While older men may want a much younger woman because of a mid-life crisis - they want a trophy babe to make themselves feel young again...that tends to last only until they girl opens her mouth and speaks...then the man will usually tire of the girl quite quickly - and long for a mature woman with a brain and a more healthy outlook on life. Hence, the middle-age man with marry a middle-age woman already with kids.

Gee, how many women would not have wanted a Sean Connery when he was in his 50s or a Johnny Depp who is currently almost 50?



Note the age differences in movies -- Hollywood knows the chemistry that sells to both men and women.

Nicolas Cage also. Celebrities will always attract people simply on the basis of being heavily promoted/famous - everyone wants to fantasize about someone above their station in life...

Heck... I totally love Jaclyn Smith and Jane Seymour - and I am probably 20 years younger than each! (But I also love Catherine Zeta-Jones).

Hollywood knows whet sells, - but also consider that the heads of studios are always men, and always pair old man with young babe (or fat male comedian with young babe wife in the case of TV). They pair up based on the fantasies of the male producers, executives.

As for TV...in both Home Improvement and also Everyone Loves Raymond (also the one with Kevin James as a UPS deliveryman) - I read reports about how it was great that the actresses playing the wives of these men were more realistic in weight and size, instead of the skinny, toned-legs/perky-boobed young actresses which are the norm. IN EACH CASE...the actresses playing the wives had to rapidly drop weight, tone up, and glamorize herself - because the studios were deluged with thousands of letters and emails FROM WOMEN DEMANDING THE ACTRESSES BE SEXY - because they themselves were not and wanted to envision themselves in those roles (even in the man was a fat comedian).

Fiannan wrote:

BTW, He also makes the point that women can get into sexual addictions not only through pornography (an ever increasing number), but also through making connections on Facebook and other social networking sites, as well as romance novels, even the Twilight series (the danger is in seeking after the emotional validation from the wrong sources).

I will respond to the other aspects of your post later -- but for now I would then ask would that not mean all romance movies and novels are merely porn without the nudity? However, just to perhaps illustrate your point here....I know someone who is an aspiring author. He wrote a book about a psychopathic girl with sexuality issues. What shocked him is that young women, particularly conservative women, love the book. In fact he has had women say that while they are heterosexual they would date the main character if she were real -- he mentioned the other day that one gal said she is not into women but would marry the main character!

So yeah, emotional bonding can occur when seeing a character on TV. I am sure more than a few women have crushes on Sokie in True Blood and others are taken in by Bill and Erik -- the two rival vampires. And we have recently seen how women love someone like Charlie Sheen. Is that what you mean by seeking emotional validation in the wrong sources?

In March 2010, the area presidency for UT south had a letter read in sacrament...It warned against reconnecting with old flames on FaceBook, and other sites. There were significant number of cases recently where someone (usually the wife) found her high school or college boyfriend, they talked, reminisced, reconnected - and she left her husband and family to be with the guy from the past (guys can do this to, btw).

My boss who lives in the southern most stake in Highland immediately above the west side of American Fork, UT...told me that in 2010, Elder M. Russell Ballard of the 12 spoke at his stake conference. He said the Elder Ballard finished his talk, invoked an apostolic blessing on the members, was about to turn away and sit down...Elder Ballard looked up and firmly said:
"And you women - stay away from FaceBook - Don't even start."

Strong words from an apostle.

Opinion? Possibly. Binding? Maybe for that stake. Wise counsel? Definitely.

As for Emotional Bonding:
Everyone wants to be loved. Women especially want to be appreciated, cherished, and adored - and they also want their husbands to find them desirable and sexy. If this is lacking, either in the marriage, after divorce, or otherwise single...all it takes is a man (or even a woman) to come along and talk like they value her, compliment her, find her attractive and desirable. Whether the guy means it or not, the woman is hooked - someone is paying attention and valuing her...she is getting emotionally validated. Therein is the danger.

Before I married, I did a lot of Internet dating - exclusively LDS women. I talked to several dozen in a five year period who admitted that after their divorces (sometimes while in the marriage) that when the first guy came around who treated them nice and told them they were beautiful...they had the hardest time not sleeping with the guys (many did fornicate with them). ALL of these had come from temple marriages - most had not had chastity issues before marriage. They were unprepared for the depths their emotional needs that Satan soon assaulted with temptation.


As for the novel you mentioned/books and movies in general: the hero is usually idealized in such a way that women crave to be with him, or one like him (or else to "fix him and he'll be perfect for me"). In most romance novels now...they are highly sexualized, and almost never anything about sex only in marriage. Vampire storied are always highly eroticized and sexualized...and once the woman gets sucked into the Twilight series and reads about the married sex scenes - she begins wanting that to be her own marriage, and focuses on why her husband isn't like the boy hero vampire...or bemoans the fact she doesn't have a man...either way, she begins looking for that validation - from any source available...and it causes problems.

That is what the Doctor was getting at. I have seen it happen too much to disagree.

(and yes, even guys can look for validation from the wrong sources - but that usually starts with pornography, at any rate quickly leads to immorality).

I'm getting really tired of the implication that those who don't use birth control don't "take action, make decisions" or do anything other than lie back and wait to get pregnant. It takes an extreme amount of effort to keep oneself healthy, mentally and physically, to make sure that your family is provided for as it needs to be, let alone the physical rigors of pregnancy, labor, delivery and then taking care of the children... and as I've pointed out before....the decision of whether or not to have a child doesn't just come to mind the one time you fill your prescription and then go away while you wait for the light bulb to go off....it is a careful thoughtful process each and every month. For that matter there are also those who assume the exact opposite...that you have to be celibate until you want to have a child. Not true folks. And I'm pretty sure you all know enough about basic human anatomy to realize that. So let's stop throwing those silly arguments around.

Next time you doubt how much "action" it takes to turn things over to the Lord, come on over and spend the day with my soon to be 5 kids.

Also, I think it's silly to say that anyone who doesn't use birth control must also assume that as long as you're faithful you'll be having kids. We don't folks. We're all given different life circumstances, because the Lord knows us personally and what will help us grow the most. Some of the most amazing women I know struggle with infertility and I don't see it as any sort of curse on them for their life choices. They are good women with different struggles than me. Period.

katers wrote:I'm getting really tired of the implication that those who don't use birth control don't "take action, make decisions" or do anything other than lie back and wait to get pregnant. It takes an extreme amount of effort to keep oneself healthy, mentally and physically, to make sure that your family is provided for as it needs to be, let alone the physical rigors of pregnancy, labor, delivery and then taking care of the children... and as I've pointed out before....the decision of whether or not to have a child doesn't just come to mind the one time you fill your prescription and then go away while you wait for the light bulb to go off....it is a careful thoughtful process each and every month. For that matter there are also those who assume the exact opposite...that you have to be celibate until you want to have a child. Not true folks. And I'm pretty sure you all know enough about basic human anatomy to realize that. So let's stop throwing those silly arguments around.

Next time you doubt how much "action" it takes to turn things over to the Lord, come on over and spend the day with my soon to be 5 kids.

Also, I think it's silly to say that anyone who doesn't use birth control must also assume that as long as you're faithful you'll be having kids. We don't folks. We're all given different life circumstances, because the Lord knows us personally and what will help us grow the most. Some of the most amazing women I know struggle with infertility and I don't see it as any sort of curse on them for their life choices. They are good women with different struggles than me. Period.

:ymapplause:

HeirofNumenor, I agree with you that people can fixate on an ideal from novels and movies and then wind up comparing their present partner with that ideal.. I did hear of young women dumping their boyfriends because Edward in Twilight became their new standard of excellence. And in the case of my friend's novel, the fans seem attracted to the female character even though she is a sadistic killer -- yet unlike the Dexter series the woman's thought patterns and emotions are dealt with in such a manner that people identify with her, and yes, actually form crushes on her (especially women). He told me that after he wrote the novel he had no idea that it would effect people in such a way.

So is this what writers and producers aim for in movies and TV programs? Probably. I also agree with you that vampire movies appeal to women on a sub-conscious level that few other movies do. Think of the taboo involved in almost every vampire movie -- the lead man is always WAY older, he is psychopathic even at a spiritual level, and lesbianism has always been a thread that runs through these movies (note that there is always an assumption that getting bitten is not the only thing going and that women are as likely to go for each other as they are the head vampire). Maybe Hollywood actually understands the female psyche more than we give them credit for. But here's the dangerous part...knowing what truly lurks in the sub conscious is a potent weapon for those who want to control our behavior -- that is why if we live in denial of what forces lie under the surface, in the deep recesses of the mind, we are much easier to manipulate than if we understand them, and then seek to channel them in positive ways.

So how does this relate to birth control? Simple, the elites of our society believe that population control is the most vital issue of our time. Come on folks, anyone see Saturday's Warriors? But seriously, it is true. And just as Edward Bernays was able to get women to smoke by connecting smoking with liberation the population control-oriented people know how to sell population control to a Christian population that claims to worship a very pro-natalist Bible. Its not effective just to tell people the world will end if they keep having kids, no that will not work. What does work is to throw around words like "choice," and "quality of life" and then you can lead the people to whatever agenda you wish. It has worked with the Protestants, the Catholics and now seems the dominant ethic of the Mormons.

Now as for the issue of porn and brain chemistry -- I would agree that porn can alter brain composition, just as learning a new language, or taking up a new sport or hobby. I do not believe it fundamentally changes us in some sort of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" sort of way. What I worry about is that it has become the prime source of sexual, or should I say sexuality, education in the modern world.

Porn is the reason young women today just assume that the ideal is to remove all body hair -- and the trend is catching on for men. The other day my wife and I were watching a popular TV series, and in one scene the lead man had his shirt off. My wife noted that he used to have chest hair in his movies but I pointed out to her that that was the 1990s when men had hairier chests. Now leading men wax. This trend has been linked to the popularity of porn for both men and women.

On a more dangerous level though is the message porn gives that sexuality is mere recreation. And as I have stated already porn is probably the driving force behind so many young women identifying themselves as bisexuals.

Now as for the issue of masturbation I am not sure there is any medical evidence that it is dangerous. On the contrary it has been linked to increased fertility (male and female), healthier sperm, lower prostate cancer and increases in testosterone for both genders -- which is associated with better health. However, one can get these benefits with their husband/wife. The danger with porn is that people might gravitate to that rather than their spouse which would be a cheap and immoral substitute for a healthy sex life...and of course a lower birth rate.

I've heard it mentioned here that Heavenly Father is sending his spirits to gay couples because LDSs refuse to have them.

Well, don't you think if that were the reason, he'd instead choose to heal the thousands of couples who march through the doors of LDS Family Services every year hoping to adopt?

Brigham Young made that statement more or less and I believe it. It is a matter of agency and law (to which God is bound). Likewise I would wager that most infertility is the result of the misuse of agency to which God himself is bound. Does that mean the infertile sinned? No absolutely not, it means the world is full of crap that man created and it has really bad and really real effects that God cannot simply undo because we're really good people.

I wonder for those that choose children as a second or thrid or fourth or fifth priority here, how it is that they expect to get to the next life where the same sociality exists and have their desires changed and respected and magically poof they desire and are rewarded with eternal increase. The thought (to quote Eliza R. Snow) makes reason stare.

I'm aware of the quote, I just happen to believe that Heavenly Father uses a little more reason than, "this LDS couple won't have this child, which gay couple will take it?"

That just doesn't make sense to me. I agree that He has to allow agency, and so bad things happen. I just don't agree that gays have babies because LDS people won't. I think gays have babies because homosexuality is openly embraced.

Not to be misunderstood, I don't believe Heavenly Father will heal every infertile couple before moving down the line. I don't believe it works that way at all. I do believe a loving Heavenly Father will (indeed already has) look at the characteristics of each of his children and place them in the best place where they can overcome their weaknesses, offer their individual strengths to build up others, etc to suit His purposes.

LDSs who won't have babies they are intended to do force those children into nonmember homes. That's not my contention. My contention is that LDSs are to blame for babies being born into gay and lesbian homes as if the Heavenly Father only has two options.

No ChelC, lesbians have babies because many, not all, still have a strong maternal instinct. Now I only know a couple of true lesbians but I know many young women who consider themselves bisexual and many of these women well tell me that it just depends on who they eventually fall in love with as to if they will be with a man or woman in the future. The really weird part is that for some reason these women almost all seem to be the most positive to children. Kinda makes me wonder if there is some sort of psychological manipulation society employs that captures highly fertile, child-positive women in this new trend.

But conspiracies aside, I think Brigham Young makes it clear that spirits are so desirous to come to earth that if there is not a good Christian/Mormon home to be birthed into then they will gladly go to some region of Saharan Africa where they might die of starvation, or to a crack mom, or a lesbian couple, or....

That being the case, what is ironic beyond that is that there are many, many women who desire children -- even large families -- in this country who are not Mormon or even Christian. In a way their desire is a testimony AGAINST traditional religion IF the people in those religions do their best to justify what, 30 years ago, would have been considered a secular humanist approach to population and child rearing ideals.

What is it that you do Fiannan that allows you to know all the wants needs and desires of these strange women?? You seem to have an up to date grasp on sexual lifestyles...

shadow wrote:What is it that you do Fiannan that allows you to know all the wants needs and desires of these strange women?? You seem to have an up to date grasp on sexual lifestyles...

...had that thought myself.....

tmac wrote:

Hasn't it always been between the couple and the Lord? Who else would it be between?

The suggestion or implication is that the Church, and Church leaders should get involved, and give direction and tell people what they should do in this regard.

This much I know, the laws of nature and nature's God apply. With respect to procreation, we have complete liberty and free agency. What I have learned is that in terms of the Lord's Will, his highest priority is that His children will have and exercise their free agency regardless of the outcome and consequences. Free agency is the bedrock and foundation of the Plan of Salvation. And 99.9% of the time, the Lord does not intervene, and simply let's nature take its course.

The other thing to remember is that the Church has made a black and white policy statement that between legally and lawfully married couples, sexual intercourse is not only for the purpose of procreation. Based on that statement alone, a lot of conclusions can be drawn. If it were otherwise, the Lord and the Church would say the only time legally and lawfully wedded couples should engage in sexual intercourse is for the purpose of procreation. But since that isn't the case, as Aussie Oi says, anything and everything else that is done to avoid pregnancy despite having sexual intercourse, from timing to pills to condoms, is a form of birth control -- all tools that can be used for good or ill.

Even in terms of the whole concept of consecrating one's body, and fertility and health to the Lord for him to do with as He will, the general, blanket, one-size-fits-all statement that "birth control is generally evil" flies in the face of reason. Again, for the most part, the Lord's will is that his children will exercise their free agency to use all the tools and technology available as they feel guided by the Spirit, and let nature take its course. If that were not the case, then we could say the same sorts of things about our bodies and health generally -- "Let's just consecrate them to the Lord, and completely forget doctors, medicine, preventative and otherwise, along with everything else, and just leave it all to the Lord." Again, even if we consecrate ourselves, our time, our talents, bodies, and everything with which the Lord has blessed us, or may bless us, to the building up of His kingdom on earth, He still expects us to take action, make decisions, and do something. What we do is between us and the Lord.

Amen and well said!!!

shadow wrote:What is it that you do Fiannan that allows you to know all the wants needs and desires of these strange women?? You seem to have an up to date grasp on sexual lifestyles...

Strange? Not sure what is strange anymore. Sarah Palin is strange.

As for communication...for some reason people feel free to open up to me regardless of their lifestyle, religion or economics. Can't really explain it.

I'm aware of the quote, I just happen to believe that Heavenly Father uses a little more reason than, "this LDS couple won't have this child, which gay couple will take it?"

That just doesn't make sense to me. I agree that He has to allow agency, and so bad things happen. I just don't agree that gays have babies because LDS people won't. I think gays have babies because homosexuality is openly embraced.

Not to be misunderstood, I don't believe Heavenly Father will heal every infertile couple before moving down the line. I don't believe it works that way at all. I do believe a loving Heavenly Father will (indeed already has) look at the characteristics of each of his children and place them in the best place where they can overcome their weaknesses, offer their individual strengths to build up others, etc to suit His purposes.

LDSs who won't have babies they are intended to do force those children into nonmember homes. That's not my contention. My contention is that LDSs are to blame for babies being born into gay and lesbian homes as if the Heavenly Father only has two options.

That's illogical Chel, by saying so, it is precisely you who are limiting God to one of two options. What is it that you think He could do about it? Maybe there is no God at all or else He would only send children to LDS couples?

It is the misuse of our agency and yes toleration of gays and their supposed rights that creates the issue. Is it only the fact that we, failing in our duty to rear as many children as possible, force them into the homes of the wicked (which naturally includes...the wicked) or is it the fact that we let gays adopt at all?

So far as I can see you are the only one forcing an "either/or" and I am quite sure the majority see the obvious fact that it is indeed both evils that create the problem. You cannot discount the effect of refusing to have children as having some if not many children wind up in the homes of homosexuals, because we see them and they are there.

Again I ask what is God to do about it?

The doctrine is clear, the counsel too. Nothing has changed except our willingness to coddle each other under the guise of supposed charity instead of willingness to bear the weight of Heavenly Fathers first command.

Just because we are not supposed to judge each other based upon this issue in a negative light does not mean that we should judge each other and praise each other on this issue in a positive light. Either is wrong and disobedient to counsel. But of course I have not and do not seek to judge anyone on the issue but instead speak in generalities regarding the law/counsel itself and not those specifically who do or do not heed it's counsel.