The True Doctrine of th Family

[Benaishtart]

Procreation is not part of the plan, it is the plan of salvation - Boyd K Packer

I can’t believe I have to explain this to my fellow saints. The family is central to everything. And by family I mean a man having priesthood power and a virtuous woman coming together to build a kingdom. We have as many children as we can in this life to provide spirits with bodies. The greater our posterity in this life the more our progression will be related to this world. In the eternities we will continue to procreate both physically and spiritually. This is absolutely central to the atonement and any and every work of salvation. This is why infertility is death, it is the antithesis of eternal life. Why purposely become infertile in the here and now if you want eternal increase in the here after. A few other points include, women who die in childbirth it’s the same as a person dying and sacrificing themself for another and is inherently extremely salvific. Sperm banks are inherently wrong - same effect as cuckoldry. One man for each priesthood line for that is a crucial part of the doctrine of the priesthood. I would rather be killed than get a vesectomy. I’m shocked so many of these readers are limiting their kingdoms. Transhumanism is utterly demonic. If you remove procreation from sex you’ll reap sorrowful consequences. God’s power comes from his fertility. Procreation is by far the most divine power we have an when we misuse it we will bring dire consequences on ourselves. Virtue is a real power and Moroni 9:9 shows that Mormon knows exactly what he’s talking about. The prophets have taught the truth for generations and now I worry they shy away or are commanded to not teach these things due to the stiffneckedness of the saints.

[nightlight]

Procreation is not part of the plan, it is the plan of salvation - Boyd K Packer

I can’t believe I have to explain this to my fellow saints. The family is central to everything. And by family I mean a man having priesthood power and a virtuous woman coming together to build a kingdom. We have as many children as we can in this life to provide spirits with bodies. The greater our posterity in this life the more our progression will be related to this world. In the eternities we will continue to procreate both physically and spiritually. This is absolutely central to the atonement and any and every work of salvation. This is why infertility is death, it is the antithesis of eternal life. Why purposely become infertile in the here and now if you want eternal increase in the here after. A few other points include, women who die in childbirth it’s the same as a person dying and sacrificing themself for another and is inherently extremely salvific. Sperm banks are inherently wrong - same effect as cuckoldry. One man for each priesthood line for that is a crucial part of the doctrine of the priesthood. I would rather be killed than get a vesectomy. I’m shocked so many of these readers are limiting their kingdoms. Transhumanism is utterly demonic. If you remove procreation from sex you’ll reap sorrowful consequences. God’s power comes from his fertility. Procreation is by far the most divine power we have an when we misuse it we will bring dire consequences on ourselves. Virtue is a real power and Moroni 9:9 shows that Mormon knows exactly what he’s talking about. The prophets have taught the truth for generations and now I worry they shy away or are commanded to not teach these things due to the stiffneckedness of the saints.

Like you said.... those who don't believe what you believe are like toddlers not wanting to leave home....and you a 17yr old ready to forge out on your own !!!!!!!!!
*ends sarcasm *

Bro...come on....you are killing me. Don't come at people like your own personal beliefs are doctrine.
Or are you claiming Revalation for the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS that we make Adams and Eves to populate the worlds???????


11 And the Lord said unto him: Believest thou the words which I shall speak?

12 And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.

13 And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

[EmmaLee]

If you remove procreation from sex you’ll reap sorrowful consequences.

Going by this, and your comments on the fertility thread, it is obvious that once your wife starts menopause, no more sex for you - none, zip, zero, zilch, nada - you will be refraining for the rest of your, hopefully, many decades long life.

[Fiannan]

Okay, of course I am not in agreement with some of the OP's initial statements but the spirit of the paragraph is correct. We are to be positive to having children and a person with a large family will potentially reap more blessings than one without, all other variables being equal.

Note:

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.

Not sure if the Proclamation is more important or if the Holy Handbook is, but there it is, plain and simple.

Furthermore:

Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

That is true. Civilizations such as Rome and Greece had sharp decreases in births before they collapsed and eventually were conquered by other, stronger, nations and peoples. Sure, there was sexual immorality but, that was merely symptomatic of a decrease in the respect of family. Romans 1 notes that peoples give up the natural functions of their biological bodies and then all else enters into the mix. Nietzsche noted that civilizations reach a level of comfort and then they begin the path to decline and death. The Church is not any more immune to this than the world if we adopt the attitude the world has towards reproduction.

[RocknRoll]

I can’t believe I have to explain this to my fellow saints.

You can explain all you want, but that doesn’t mean your opinions (and that’s exactly what most of what this post is) are any more valid than anyone else’s.

We have as many children as we can in this life to provide spirits with bodies

As many as we can? Many, if not most, women can have a child nearly every year during their peak childbearing years. That could mean as many as 10 to 20 children. Most families would be living in poverty with more than 6 or 7, especially if the wife doesn’t work (how could she?).

In the eternities we will continue to procreate both physically and spiritually. This is absolutely central to the atonement

Do you have a reference, either scripturally or from a G.A. to back this up?

This is why infertility is death, it is the antithesis of eternal life

Reference for this as well?

One man for each priesthood line for that is a crucial part of the doctrine of the priesthood.

Which "doctrine of the priesthood" is that?

I would rather be killed than get a vesectomy.

A very strange attitude, to say the least.

If you remove procreation from sex you’ll reap sorrowful consequences.

Do you believe this to be in every case? So, are you saying that sex between a husband and wife, that is not intended to produce a child, is some kind of sin?

God’s power comes from his fertility.

What makes you say this? Do you have a reference?

[Benaishtart]

You guys just luuuvvvvvvv to crush pearls. You’ll regret a lot of your views in the next life.

[Zathura]

If you remove procreation from sex you’ll reap sorrowful consequences.

Going by this, and your comments on the fertility thread, it is obvious that once your wife starts menopause, no more sex for you - none, zip, zero, zilch, nada - you will be refraining for the rest of your, hopefully, many decades long life.

I'll be shocked if he responds to this. He doesn't respond to valid rebuttals. There will always be some comment about crushing pearls and then *crickets*

[Zathura]

You guys just luuuvvvvvvv to crush pearls. You’ll regret a lot of your views in the next life.

I'm sure all of us will have regrets, but unlike some at least I don't have to explain to God why I taught young women that they are unclean if they are raped, no matter how righteous they are.

Again, I suggest that you reconsider the "revelation" you've received. It may not be what you think it is.

[Zathura]

You can explain all you want, but that doesn’t mean your opinions (and that’s exactly what most of what this post is) are any more valid than anyone else’s.

If you read his other posts, it's not his opinion. It's "Revelation" he received in the Temple. Go through his posts, you'll find some real Pearls.

[RocknRoll]

If you remove procreation from sex you’ll reap sorrowful consequences.

Going by this, and your comments on the fertility thread, it is obvious that once your wife starts menopause, no more sex for you - none, zip, zero, zilch, nada - you will be refraining for the rest of your, hopefully, many decades long life.

I'll be shocked if he responds to this. He doesn't respond to valid rebuttals. There will always be some comment about crushing pearls and then *crickets*

It could just be me, but his opinions and “doctrines” sound a lot like what Warren Jeffs and his ilk preach. I could be wrong.

[Zathura]

If you remove procreation from sex you’ll reap sorrowful consequences.

Going by this, and your comments on the fertility thread, it is obvious that once your wife starts menopause, no more sex for you - none, zip, zero, zilch, nada - you will be refraining for the rest of your, hopefully, many decades long life.

I'll be shocked if he responds to this. He doesn't respond to valid rebuttals. There will always be some comment about crushing pearls and then *crickets*

It could just be me, but his opinions and “doctrines” sound a lot like what Warren Jeffs and his ilk preach. I could be wrong.

You may disagree, but To me, his opinions and “doctrines” sound like Brigham Young and those who were influenced by his teachings over the next 100 years.

Whatever good BY did, I still believe his teachings(or teachings that were influenced by him) on polygamy, mans place in the home, women “submitting”, sex etc. were and are damaging.

[Michelle]

If you remove procreation from sex you’ll reap sorrowful consequences.

Going by this, and your comments on the fertility thread, it is obvious that once your wife starts menopause, no more sex for you - none, zip, zero, zilch, nada - you will be refraining for the rest of your, hopefully, many decades long life.

I don't see him saying no sex after menopause.

There is a big difference between a person willfully choosing to divorce sex from procreation and the natural process God had instituted to end childbearing as a woman ages. Just like an infertile woman or man should not be kept from sex with their husband or wife, in the eternities, the faithful will still have children.

In both cases it is God who decides and man who submits to his will.

[EmmaLee]

I don't think there is anyone here (that I've read comments of, anyway) that doesn't believe children aren't a true blessing. Our children are my and my husband's treasures! After our relationship with God and with each other, we count them as our greatest blessings and joys, by far and without comparison.

I think where people are getting into trouble here on the forum (and at church, etc.) is when they militantly (and unrighteously) judge and condemn other people who they don't even know and have never met - let alone do they know or understand all the myriad intricacies of their personal lives, hearts, and souls. This, to me, is where some people go WAY beyond where they should.

There are many reasons why any given LDS couple has whatever number of children they have - and guess what? It is exactly NO ONE else's business. Some might say that it is our business because of how this will affect the demographics in our countries, Church, etc. - and to a point, that is true. BUT, none of that even matters when it comes to how we treat each other! This is what is so baffling. People can preach until they're hoarse and dead of exhaustion on the merits of having lots of children, but if they treat others like crap and judge and condemn them unrighteously, then guess what? The fact that the preachers had 10 children isn't going to matter one whit, because they will be the ones going to hell with no increase in the next life - whereas the good-hearted, selfless, charitable parent of two children might just make it to the celestial kingdom.

Honestly, people who think that the ONLY thing that matters, or the main thing, is how many children they have, to the exclusion of what kind of person they are, and where their heart is in relation to GOD (and he knows where our hearts are, make no mistake) are truly fooling themselves. Yes, it's a commandment to multiply. Having one child is multiplying. Some people physically can't have children. Sure, they can adopt, and that's a wonderful way to grow a family. The Lord has already made provision for people who in this telestial world cannot have children, but desire to - they will be able to do so later. We are here on this earth for such a short time in comparison to eternity.

I picture God doing all kinds of face-palms and head shaking when he sees what we slothful servants argue and bicker about. Who is more likely to be comfortable in His presence - someone who has many children, but who belittles, berates, condemns, and judges other people for their extremely personal choice on how many kids to have? Or the person who is kind, loving, charitable, and Christ-like to others - but who doesn't have many children (or none, for that matter)?

Yes, I believe married couples should have as many children as they and the Lord decide they should have. No, when I see married couples who "only" have one or two children, I never automatically assume it's because they want to have more free time or spend money on trips, etc. instead of having more kids (also, those who think this, and many here do, as you have posted as much - people are judging you in exactly the same way - that is, unrighteously. If you don't want to be condemned for your choices, start practicing the Golden Rule). People complain about the Church trying to micromanage every aspect of our lives - then they themselves try to micromanage other people's lives (and all that shows, by the way, is that those people actually have very little control over their own lives, or at least they feel they have no control - same with the Church, for that matter). People here on this little anonymous internet forum can condemn others all they want - they will get their reward (which will most likely be very different than what they think they will be getting - God is funny that way). All the posts on LDSFF that I've read from both sides, the people know and understand the importance of having children and of family. It just seems that one side wants to control everyone on the other side, and when they can't, they condemn them. That's the impression given anyway.

So, people with lots of kids - good for you. Now be born again, as THAT is the birth that really counts.

[EmmaLee]

If you remove procreation from sex you’ll reap sorrowful consequences.

Going by this, and your comments on the fertility thread, it is obvious that once your wife starts menopause, no more sex for you - none, zip, zero, zilch, nada - you will be refraining for the rest of your, hopefully, many decades long life.

I don't see him saying no sex after menopause.
He flat-out states that very thing in the fertility thread, as I said above. Hopefully, he won't go edit those posts, and you can read them yourself. He states that sex is ONLY for making babies - that it exists for no other reason - therefore, once his wife starts menopause, by his own reasoning and words, he should never, EVER have sex again. Oh, and also, he should never be having sex while his wife is pregnant.

There is a big difference between a person willfully choosing to divorce sex from procreation and the natural process God had instituted to end childbearing as a woman ages. Just like an infertile woman or man should not be kept from sex with their husband or wife, in the eternities, the faithful will still have children.
Per Benaishtart's own comments, he does not believe this.

In both cases it is God who decides and man who submits to his will.
That should be the case for every subject, every aspect of our lives. Few have the humility to submit to God's will, but many preach that they do.

[Michelle]

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostl ... s?lang=eng

Family Choices
Family choices follow a similar pattern. In the Father’s plan, the role of families is clearly set forth. In “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” we read:

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.20

It is fairly common in today’s world, in another paradigm shift, to trumpet alternative choices in a positive way that are in direct conflict with this plan and that are unfavorable to marriage and family. Let me mention a few.

The choice for both women and men to put education and careers ahead of marriage and family.
The choice to purposefully have no or few children or to terminate pregnancy when it is inconvenient.21
The choice to engage in immoral conduct as a substitute for the sacred institution of marriage.
The adversary has targeted women and has painted motherhood as a dead-end road of drudgery. He has targeted men and has painted fatherhood as unimportant and fidelity as “old-school.” The alienation and objectification of pornography is an example of immoral conduct being substituted for the sacred institution of marriage. It underscores the horrific turning from truth and righteousness that the adversary seeks.

Inappropriate alternative choices are painted as appropriate in helping to achieve the worldly goals of freedom and equality. As a result of such choices, the average number of children a woman will bear in her lifetime is declining dramatically. It is estimated that 46 percent of the world lives in countries in which the fertility rate is below 2.1 children—the rate necessary for the population to remain stable. Most European and Asian countries are below this level. Italy and Japan are both at about 1.3 births. Japan is expected to decrease in population from 120 million to about 100 million by the year 2050.22

This worldwide decline in population has been described by some as the “demographic winter.”23 Many countries are not having enough children to replace the generation that is dying.

Let’s see if we can illustrate this problem here in the Marriott Center. Will all of you who are the oldest child in your family please stand and remain standing? In today’s world, in many of these countries, but not in the United States, most of the rest of you who are still seated would never have been born.

Thank you. Please be seated.

Now, everybody who is the third or later child in your family, please stand and remain standing. You would not have been born, even in the United States, if the current trends applied. Can you see why they call it the demographic winter?

Thank you. Please be seated.

Let me share one other reality that is of great concern to me. I had a sobering experience in Jerusalem last October. We visited the Children’s Memorial, which is part of the World Holocaust Remembrance Center. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland and I, together with two American Jewish leaders, laid a remembrance wreath. As you move through the Children’s Memorial, the first names of the children and their ages at death are announced one after another with a background of music that portrays this terrible atrocity. It is believed that more than one million Jewish children were killed during the Holocaust.24

As I experienced the museum, I was overcome with emotion and completely devastated. Standing outside to regain my composure, I reflected on the horror of the experience and suddenly realized that in the United States alone there are as many abortions every two years25 as the number of Jewish children killed in the Holocaust during the Second World War.

Now, as a lawyer, I am cognizant that the motives and intent of these two tragedies are entirely different. The Jewish children were killed because they were Jews, and there is no analogue to this in all history, but the intensity of my feeling was about the loss of children. Bringing children into the world is a sacred part of our Father in Heaven’s plan of happiness. We are so numbed and intimidated by the immensity of the practice of abortion that many of us have pushed it to the back of our minds and try to keep it out of our consciousness. Clearly the adversary is attacking the value of children on many levels.

Abortion needs to be approached very carefully. This is a problem that will probably not be solved by personal condemnation or judgmental accusations. Some have cautioned to not judge a ship—or men or women—without understanding the length of the voyage and the storms encountered.26 I might add, many who engage in this deplorable conduct do not have a testimony of the Savior or knowledge of the Father’s plan.

However, for those who believe we are accountable to God—and even for many of those not of our faith who are secular but pride themselves on being on the so-called “right side of history”—this has become a tragedy of monumental proportions. When you combine it with the demographic winter that we have just explored, it is a serious moral blot on our society.

President Spencer W. Kimball taught:

Supreme happiness in marriage is governed considerably by a primary factor—that of the bearing and rearing of children. . . . The Church cannot approve nor condone . . . measures which . . . greatly limit the family.27

With respect to the number and spacing of children, the health of the mother must be considered, and the decision should be made prayerfully by husbands and wives.28 Such decisions should never be judged by outsiders.29 Some faithful Saints are not able to have children or may not have the opportunity to marry. They will receive every blessing at the ultimate banquet of consequences.30

Nevertheless, Lucifer has supported abortion and convinced many people in a horrific paradigm shift that children represent lost opportunity and misery instead of joy and happiness.

As Latter-day Saints, we must be at the forefront of changing hearts and minds on the importance of children. The attacks on the family that I just described ultimately result in grief and misery.

The Lord has declared that His work and His glory is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”31 The plan is established through families. Every family member is important, and their roles are beautiful, glorious, and fulfilling.

The family proclamation could not be more clear about the consequences of choices inconsistent with the Father’s plan. It unequivocally proclaims:

We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.32

This clearly sets forth the ultimate banquet of consequences and the cumulative impact of choices not in accordance with the Father’s plan of happiness.

In all marriages and in raising children there are challenges and sacrifices. But the rewards both in this life and in the eternities are breathtakingly beautiful. They emanate from a loving Father in Heaven.

[Michelle]

If you remove procreation from sex you’ll reap sorrowful consequences.

Going by this, and your comments on the fertility thread, it is obvious that once your wife starts menopause, no more sex for you - none, zip, zero, zilch, nada - you will be refraining for the rest of your, hopefully, many decades long life.

I don't see him saying no sex after menopause.
He flat-out states that very thing in the fertility thread, as I said above. Hopefully, he won't go edit those posts, and you can read them yourself. He states that sex is ONLY for making babies - that it exists for no other reason - therefore, once his wife starts menopause, by his own reasoning and words, he should never, EVER have sex again. Oh, and also, he should never be having sex while his wife is pregnant.

There is a big difference between a person willfully choosing to divorce sex from procreation and the natural process God had instituted to end childbearing as a woman ages. Just like an infertile woman or man should not be kept from sex with their husband or wife, in the eternities, the faithful will still have children.
Per Benaishtart's own comments, he does not believe this.

In both cases it is God who decides and man who submits to his will.
That should be the case for every subject, every aspect of our lives. Few have the humility to submit to God's will, but many preach that they do.

I already read his other comments. I do agree with much, but not all he said. There is no good going to come from adding to them though. He didn't reach all the more extreme conclusions you did.

[EmmaLee]

Going by this, and your comments on the fertility thread, it is obvious that once your wife starts menopause, no more sex for you - none, zip, zero, zilch, nada - you will be refraining for the rest of your, hopefully, many decades long life.

I don't see him saying no sex after menopause.
He flat-out states that very thing in the fertility thread, as I said above. Hopefully, he won't go edit those posts, and you can read them yourself. He states that sex is ONLY for making babies - that it exists for no other reason - therefore, once his wife starts menopause, by his own reasoning and words, he should never, EVER have sex again. Oh, and also, he should never be having sex while his wife is pregnant.

There is a big difference between a person willfully choosing to divorce sex from procreation and the natural process God had instituted to end childbearing as a woman ages. Just like an infertile woman or man should not be kept from sex with their husband or wife, in the eternities, the faithful will still have children.
Per Benaishtart's own comments, he does not believe this.

In both cases it is God who decides and man who submits to his will.
That should be the case for every subject, every aspect of our lives. Few have the humility to submit to God's will, but many preach that they do.

I already read his other comments. I do agree with much, but not all he said. There is no good going to come from adding to them though. He didn't reach all the more extreme conclusions you did.

He most certainly did say sex was only for procreation. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=50886

Him saying sex is only for procreation IS saying no more sex after menopause, and no sex while his wife is pregnant - those "extreme conclusions" are self-evident. That's basic biology and basic logic - no "adding to" his words is necessary. No sex other than to procreate MEANS those very things, whether he (or you) wants to admit it or not.

[thestock]

I just laugh when ignorant people claim sex is only for children. That's like saying eating bread at the sacrament is just to get a little snack to calm our tummies before we head to Sunday School.....

[Benaishtart]

I love bringing out people’s true colors!

[Benaishtart]

Going by this, and your comments on the fertility thread, it is obvious that once your wife starts menopause, no more sex for you - none, zip, zero, zilch, nada - you will be refraining for the rest of your, hopefully, many decades long life.

I'll be shocked if he responds to this. He doesn't respond to valid rebuttals. There will always be some comment about crushing pearls and then *crickets*

It could just be me, but his opinions and “doctrines” sound a lot like what Warren Jeffs and his ilk preach. I could be wrong.

You may disagree, but To me, his opinions and “doctrines” sound like Brigham Young and those who were influenced by his teachings over the next 100 years.

Whatever good BY did, I still believe his teachings(or teachings that were influenced by him) on polygamy, mans place in the home, women “submitting”, sex etc. were and are damaging.

BY undertood the gospel better than anyone on this forum. He also understood the eternities in a way that most members now wouldn’t consider to the least bit. I am at peace with everything he has said. Besides, purity culture is just so so sexy.

[RocknRoll]

I love bringing out people’s true colors!

So, you are admitting you are just a troll?

[nightlight]

Going by this, and your comments on the fertility thread, it is obvious that once your wife starts menopause, no more sex for you - none, zip, zero, zilch, nada - you will be refraining for the rest of your, hopefully, many decades long life.

I'll be shocked if he responds to this. He doesn't respond to valid rebuttals. There will always be some comment about crushing pearls and then *crickets*

It could just be me, but his opinions and “doctrines” sound a lot like what Warren Jeffs and his ilk preach. I could be wrong.

You may disagree, but To me, his opinions and “doctrines” sound like Brigham Young and those who were influenced by his teachings over the next 100 years.

Whatever good BY did, I still believe his teachings(or teachings that were influenced by him) on polygamy, mans place in the home, women “submitting”, sex etc. were and are damaging.

Don't get it twisted...

BY is not the one who came up with "man is head of house". This is biblical doctrine. Man is the head.

IMO
You only think this way because our society has brainwashed men/women to leave their place.


12As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

13The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people.

14The LORD will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses.

15What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord GOD of hosts.

16Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

17Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.

18In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, 19The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, 20The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, 21The rings, and nose jewels, 22The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, 23The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.

24And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

25Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

26And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.

[Michelle]

I'll be shocked if he responds to this. He doesn't respond to valid rebuttals. There will always be some comment about crushing pearls and then *crickets*

It could just be me, but his opinions and “doctrines” sound a lot like what Warren Jeffs and his ilk preach. I could be wrong.

You may disagree, but To me, his opinions and “doctrines” sound like Brigham Young and those who were influenced by his teachings over the next 100 years.

Whatever good BY did, I still believe his teachings(or teachings that were influenced by him) on polygamy, mans place in the home, women “submitting”, sex etc. were and are damaging.

Don't get it twisted...

BY is not the one who came up with "man is head of house". This is biblical doctrine. Man is the head.

IMO
You only think this way because our society has brainwashed men/women to leave their place.


12As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

13The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people.

14The LORD will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses.

15What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord GOD of hosts.

16Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

17Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.

18In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, 19The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, 20The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, 21The rings, and nose jewels, 22The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, 23The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.

24And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

25Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

26And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.

I was just reading that this morning.

Isaiah is right.

[EmmaLee]

I love bringing out people’s true colors!

So, you are admitting you are just a troll?

I'm 99.9% sure Benaishtart is none other than the poster formerly known as mcgridle1, who was the poster formerly known as yjacket - both of whom were banned for the exact behavior Benaishtart is exhibiting here and on other threads. Some people never learn. And quite ironic that he then boasts of bringing out people's "true" colors, when his own true colors are clearly on display for all to see (regardless of what names he posts under).

[nightlight]

I love bringing out people’s true colors!

So, you are admitting you are just a troll?

I'm 99.9% sure Benaishtart is none other than the poster formerly known as mcgridle1, who was the poster formerly known as yjacket - both of whom were banned for the exact behavior Benaishtart is exhibiting here and on other threads. Some people never learn. And quite ironic that he then boasts of bringing out people's "true" colors, when his own true colors are clearly on display for all to see (regardless of what names he posts under).

No way he is mcgridle1... I would bet you my favorite gun (SIG Sauer P226) that he is not.

I didn't know mcgridle1 was banned?