LDS Freedom Forum

shadow wrote:

Silas wrote:Eh, I think people worry to much.

) I don't know that they worry too much or just try to be involved in other people's business so they can find fault with them. I wonder what some people did to make themselves feel good about themselves before internet forums...

=)) :ymapplause:

And I can't stand when people assume unfair individual judgments are being passed when a principle is discussed.

Let's not talk about homosexuality...its judging. Let's not discuss receiving welfare....it's judging. If we were to limit our topics of discussion to only those areas where someone wouldn't feel like they are being judged we would have very little to discuss on this forum.

This topic is no different than a hundred other topics we discuss on this forum. It's just a topic that some are sensitive to. Discussing a principle in a general manner to promote greater understanding of that principle is not judging.

patriotsaint wrote:And I can't stand when people assume unfair individual judgments are being passed when a principle is discussed.

Discussing the principle in and of itself isn't the problem.

Please point out the problem then shadow. Do you have an example of an individual being singled out in this thread or some other action that is judgmental?

It amazes me that we can discuss same sex marriage, pornography, food storage, gadianton robbers and a host of other gospel topics on this forum with relatively little drama, but the moment birth control is mentioned people get upset. In my mind it is one of those "sacred cows" people want to force off limits for discussion.

comment withdrawn. I yield the floor.

The reasons for later marriage is that men become addicted to pornography and they either feel to ashamed to pursue a good woman to marriage or they become so deeply involved with pornography and associated immoral behavior that they do not desire marriage.

Gotta call for a reference on that. I have heard that many LDS men delay marriage because many young LDS gals want a lifestyle (big house, big car, etc.) when they are 22 even though it took their parents years to get the lifestyle these spoiled princesses grew up in. I have heard more than one LDS young male say that this is the reason LDS males often gravitate to non-members is that the non-member may come into the marriage with the assumption that if she wants the great lifestyle she is willing to work as well. Of course, the typical active LDS male hopes to convert the non-member.

Another reason many males delay marriage is that they come from broken homes and are scared that they will marry the wrong person and wind up in a divorce themselves.

There are a great deal of addicted men who marry thinking that if they marry a beautiful girl and they are able to have sex often then they won't want to look at pornography. Those men are usually very disappointed and always return to their addictions. I would expect this to be at the neglect of their wife. Eventually the woman finds out what is happening and why should we expect her to want to procreate with such a man?

I would think that is a tiny percentage of all men.

We are talking about latter day saints here not swedes. Pornography is not going to inspire a romantic evening, I have no doubt that it will create much less of those. And even if these couples are still having relations fairly regularly a lds girl is going to find birth control much more appealing when she can't trust her husband to be faithful to her. I don't care what people do with their body hair or weird bedroom stuff. That isn't the danger of pornography. The danger of pornography is that it destroys souls and it destroys families. I do believe that it is a major contributor to why LDS people are not marrying as early and often and why many are delaying children. Certainly it is part of why many are having unhappy marriages which contributes to not wanting children.

? Thomas Monson is a Swede. I also was talking about the Christian party representative's reasoning, not mine. And just to let you know, more young women are fans of internet porn than older men. I would even speculate that more 18 year old females in Utah have looked at internet porn than 65 year old males.

I really wish those of you who have such a hard time with this topic would just leave it alone for those of us who enjoy discussing it. It's annoying to constantly be derailed and shouted down. Especially when you can't point out that any individual judgements are being made. A principle is being discussed. If it's one that makes you uncomfortable...don't discuss it....but allow those of us who are to continue please.

patriotsaint wrote:Please point out the problem then shadow. Do you have an example of an individual being singled out in this thread or some other action that is judgmental?

It amazes me that we can discuss same sex marriage, pornography, food storage, gadianton robbers and a host of other gospel topics on this forum with relatively little drama, but the moment birth control is mentioned people get upset. In my mind it is one of those "sacred cows" people want to force off limits for discussion.

Have you read the thread patisaint? Almost from the get go we have unrighteous judgements based off conjecture (read Col.'s post), and it's continued throughout the thread with condemning members of wards, blaming the lack of kids on porn, blaming the lack of kids by not watching enough porn, etc. etc.. Even Mahonri will agree with me on this one. He tried to get it back to the principle of the matter at least twice with no success.
The principle of the matter is that we are to have children. We can also have sex with our spouse without having the consequence always be pregnancy. It's fairly simple to me at least as far as my puny mind can understand and comprehend. And how other people exercise or follow that principle is not my business. I'm failing at way too many other things to worry about why my neighbor only has 6 kids when clearly they could be having their 15th.
So if you want to discuss the principle, then great! but it's a futile attempt IMO and the proof is in this thread.

So there has been some wild conjecture in this thread. That hardly qualifies as the unfair individual judgments I asked you to reference. And anyway, how is that different than most any other thread on this forum, or are you going to tell me this thread is the only one that is full of conjecture?

Bottom line is, if you don't like the discussion, don't participate. You may be right that discussing this principle without getting off on ridiculous tangents isn't possible, but that hasn't stopped discussion on any other topic on this forum.

It's fairly simple to me at least as far as my puny mind can understand and comprehend. And how other people exercise or follow that principle is not my business.

Interesting thought though -- almost every elitist entity in the USA has marshaled its forces against people having traditional families (mom, dad, bunch of kids). If then we as representatives of the Gospel decide to say nothing in opposition to this then why be surprised someday when, maybe by 2050, you read about some rich Arab sheik buying up dozens of empty LDS stake centers in the USA and converting them to mosques.

Demographics is a numbers game. The future belongs to the people who show up, so the people who have large families will have a stake in the future and the ones who have small families will go extinct. Two children per family eventually is cultural suicide biologically and when we consider that convert baptisms are tanking, and that at least 1/3 of our youth go inactive, then just to maintain ourselves we would have to have at least a birth rate of 4 children per active LDS woman. Do the math...

Fiannan wrote:

The reasons for later marriage is that men become addicted to pornography and they either feel to ashamed to pursue a good woman to marriage or they become so deeply involved with pornography and associated immoral behavior that they do not desire marriage.

This is a valid point and while maybe not the main or only reason, likely is a big part of a high percentage of situations. Porn or any other immorality - in either sex.

Gotta call for a reference on that. I have heard that many LDS men delay marriage because many young LDS gals want a lifestyle (big house, big car, etc.) when they are 22 even though it took their parents years to get the lifestyle these spoiled princesses grew up in. I have heard more than one LDS young male say that this is the reason LDS males often gravitate to non-members is that the non-member may come into the marriage with the assumption that if she wants the great lifestyle she is willing to work as well. Of course, the typical active LDS male hopes to convert the non-member.

I don't know how many women have told me that I am "perfect in every-way, but You don't have a great career/job/income, and I want to stay home with the kids, / my standard of living better not drop, you are nothing if by age 30 you do not have a nice house and making $100,000/year, etc..."

THAT is why it took me to age 40 to find someone to marry me...

Another reason many males delay marriage is that they come from broken homes and are scared that they will marry the wrong person and wind up in a divorce themselves.

Consequently, my marriage was doomed from the beginning...after only 3 years, the divorce papers were signed by the judge last week.

And just to let you know, more young women are fans of internet porn than older men. I would even speculate that more 18 year old females in Utah have looked at internet porn than 65 year old males.

I don't know what 65 years old men do, but I know that the younger girls are getting totally sexualized, into various forms of porn, and bisexuality is pushed heavily at them by the media...

And don't forget the high number of women who are molested as children - particularly by fathers (many of whom were influenced by porn)...sadly, that molestation will seriously mess with the girl's mind, and if not conquered - will make the marriage terribly hard for everyone to endure...yes, it's a generalization, but having witnessed first-hand the effects (close relations to me, which I will not elaborate on)...yeah :-w :-s .

patriotsaint wrote:So there has been some wild conjecture in this thread. That hardly qualifies as the unfair individual judgments I asked you to reference. And anyway, how is that different than most any other thread on this forum, or are you going to tell me this thread is the only one that is full of conjecture?

Bottom line is, if you don't like the discussion, don't participate. You may be right that discussing this principle without getting off on ridiculous tangents isn't possible, but that hasn't stopped discussion on any other topic on this forum.

I never said anyone here was being unfairly judged did I?

I don't know what 65 years old men do, but I know that the younger girls are getting totally sexualized, into various forms of porn, and bisexuality is pushed heavily at them by the media...

And don't forget the high number of women who are molested as children - particularly by fathers

True, bi-sexuality is promoted heavily and it does not help that the so called "higher-end" actresses in porn often will only "act" with other women due to their fear of contracting a STD -- thus the image young girls viewing the stuff get is that it is the most beautiful and intelligent females that are into bisexuality. Add to this many actresses and music icons (female) who publicly state they are bi and it is no wonder so many females are seeing same-sex relations as acceptable and even desirable.

As for molestations, my understanding is that most "incest" is committed between a step father or boyfriend of the mother against a daughter. Often even a not-so-great husband will defend a daughter to his death, and when he is kicked out of the home one of nature's greatest safeguards of children is nullified.

shadow wrote:I never said anyone here was being unfairly judged did I?

No, but my post that you addressed originally was dealing was that specific group, which is why I've continued to reference that group in subsequent comments.

shadow wrote:

patriotsaint wrote:So there has been some wild conjecture in this thread. That hardly qualifies as the unfair individual judgments I asked you to reference. And anyway, how is that different than most any other thread on this forum, or are you going to tell me this thread is the only one that is full of conjecture?

Bottom line is, if you don't like the discussion, don't participate. You may be right that discussing this principle without getting off on ridiculous tangents isn't possible, but that hasn't stopped discussion on any other topic on this forum.

I never said anyone here was being unfairly judged did I?

Even if it is only the talking about other ward members, etc. that you're upset about....it was already pointed out that that was done to take a look at church membership generally. Something that is done in almost every thread on this forum without complaint until it comes to this topic.

patriotsaint wrote:And I can't stand when people assume unfair individual judgments are being passed when a principle is discussed.

Where do you get the idea that "people assume unfair individual judgements are being passed"? Why would you even make that assertion then later ask me for the proof of it? :-w

Read the thread. If you can't find those that are taking this subject personally, as if they were being called out individually than I don't know what to tell you.

I asked you for a reference because you responded to my post addressing this particular group of people.

Your constant effort to siderail threads you don't like gets annoying. How about we get back to the original topic?

patriotsaint wrote:Your constant effort to siderail threads you don't like gets annoying. How about we get back to the original topic?

) You're a mighty fine dancer yourself pat...

If you can't see that this thread never really has been much about the original topic, or "principle" then I don't know what to tell you. And as annoying as it is, you're partly to blame, just like the rest of us.


Now, how about we get back to the topic at hand?

shadow wrote:

patriotsaint wrote:Your constant effort to siderail threads you don't like gets annoying. How about we get back to the original topic?

If you can't see that this thread never really has been much about the original topic, or "principle" then I don't know what to tell you.

It certainly was about principle originally before the self-conscious and the side-railers joined. Any of my posts in the side-rail realm have been responses to you or others that are submarining the thread. I'll be happy to get back on track if that is what you truly want.

I apologize for contributing to the tangent re: pornography's effect on marriage as a reason many marry later/don't have children...

patriotsaint wrote: I'll be happy to get back on track if that is what you truly want.

Please do...

I think that perhaps a new thread would be a good idea. It seems some here want to only discuss what the prophets have said about birth control. That might be better done with a thread titled "What the prophets teach and have taught about birth control" rather than an opinion poll about whether and inanimate object is evil.

ChelC wrote:...rather than an opinion poll about whether and inanimate object is evil.

I could be wrong but I don't think Mahonri was asking if there is innate evil in a birth control pill, but rather if the use of birth control is generally evil.

Feel free to correct me if that assumption is wrong Mahonri.

ChelC wrote:I think that perhaps a new thread would be a good idea. It seems some here want to only discuss what the prophets have said about birth control. That might be better done with a thread titled "What the prophets teach and have taught about birth control" rather than an opinion poll about whether and inanimate object is evil.

We might have to re-title more threads than just this one if people are going to get that uppity about things. Seriously folks.........

How about this?

Regarding the blog post I referred to earlier, http://womeninthescriptures.blogspot.co ... i-had.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I thought it was interesting to note the connection to the Law of Consecration. I had never before looked at in that light. But when you think of it, we are to consecrate not only our time and talents, but ourSELVES. That caught my notice. Anything else have anything pertaining to the discussion?

I imagine you're right.