Non-mormon, But Great Examples!

[Fiannan]

http://www.duggarfamily.com/default.php

Just recently read where the mother gave birth to her 16th. child and they want to keep going. I think this is great! Many LDS couples who have been contaminated by decadent (dare I say "infidel") western culture (or what has become western ideals during the 20th. Century) need examples like this whether they are LDS or non-LDS. This family is unapologetic about their principles and their belief in God and the Bible. That's real faith.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Oct 22 2005, 01:48 AM

http://www.duggarfamily.com/default.php

Just recently read where the mother gave birth to her 16th. child and they want to keep going.  I think this is great!  Many LDS couples who have been contaminated by decadent (dare I say "infidel") western culture (or what has become western ideals during the 20th. Century) need examples like this whether they are LDS or non-LDS.  This family is unapologetic about their principles and their belief in God and the Bible.  That's real faith.

←

I don't know you have the right to judge those who are not having 16+ children... everyone has their own missions here... and as long as they are listening to the Lord... it doesn't matter if they have 0 or 20.....

What is wrong... is those who have too many and the children are neglected... horribly.... the mother is nothing more than a baby machine and the father is near worked into a nervous breakdown... trying to provide for children he shouldn't have fathered...

We had a family in our ward who were having a baby every year.... and the little kids were just suffering horrible emotional and physical neglect... and then the Lord stepped in... (at least that is how I saw it... as I prayed for these children and their parents)... and she had such horrible complications with this 5th child in less than 4 years... that they had to remove her uterus.....

It has only been 6 months... and already I see a difference in these children... and the whold family... they are starting to take care of what they have... she isn't prenant again... already... and has the energy and health to take care of her children....

[shanstress70]

Amen, Sister Please! I totally agree with you here. I don't judge anyone who has many children, as I feel this is none of my business - AS LONG AS THE CHILDREN ARE TAKEN CARE OF AND GIVEN THE LOVE AND ATTENTION THEY NEED. You are absolutely correct in saying that is no one's business about the number of children that anyone has.

[kriskriechel]

Oh most definitely. Its nobody's business how many kids someone has. The Church wants us to be financially sound also. So they don't want you to have anymore kids than you can afford. It is a personal choice and there are so many factors that come into play in family planning. And they are nobody's business.

[pushka]

Fiannan...are you following the example of the family whose story you've just related? How many children are you up to now?

Hope you've the means to take care of them all sufficiently!

[Fiannan]

Please, a single child with two working parents can experience more neglect than a child in a family of 10 where the mother is at home. Also, the child from the large family has siblings that will be there for life.

Don't get started on large families being inferior until you read the theories of psychological pioneer Alfred Adler on childrearing. He correctly pointed out that pampering a child is child abuse.

Also, it's news to me that the Church has changed its stand on childbearing and "financial security". Hope you aren't taking out of contect the "Bishop's Handbood" which holds no doctrinal importance whatsoever -- if it did then it would be sold at the LDS bookstore and not only for use of bishops.

I can quote many Church leaders on this issue but right now I have to have some games with my youngest kids. Also, I posted this as a great example. If this family can do it then there are many families in our Church that (although they may be doubting themselves) can do it as well.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Oct 21 2005, 11:48 PM

http://www.duggarfamily.com/default.php

Just recently read where the mother gave birth to her 16th. child and they want to keep going.  I think this is great!  Many LDS couples who have been contaminated by decadent (dare I say "infidel") western culture (or what has become western ideals during the 20th. Century) need examples like this whether they are LDS or non-LDS.  This family is unapologetic about their principles and their belief in God and the Bible.  That's real faith.

←

What's the great example?

Having 16 children? Let's get serious. If unrestrained progeneration is the example you are referring to, then your example is an exceedingly poor one. Although rare families might be able to provide a proper upbringing for a brood the size of a small country, most families would fail miserably in providing the love, the attention, the financial support, the education and the like for such a boat load. The children and society would be made the worse for it.

If everyone had 16 children, within 4 short generations, today's population would increase from roughly 5 billion to 1.3 trillion... except the earth and civilation could not accomodate a 256x increase, disease, pestilence, famine, warfare, violence, raw sewage, death, misery and suffering would be the order of the day... chaos, pollution, cats and dogs sleeping together, real wrath of God type stuff.

If, on the other hand, you think that popping out youngens every years is an example of following God then so is paying your tithing. Big deal. Lot's of devote people pay thier tithing and raise happy, healthy families.

Don't get started on large families being inferior until you read the theories of psychological pioneer Alfred Adler on childrearing. He correctly pointed out that pampering a child is child abuse.

Oink, bleet, moo (and other noises of animal incredulity). One needn't read the theories of a long dead anyone in order to have opinions on raising families.

By the way: I thought it was a really deft move the way, in your last post, you suggested you were too busy to quote Church leaders cuz you were too busy being father-of-the-year. Nice touch and very persuasive!

[Fiannan]

Oh come now Snow, take a chill pill, take a few deep breaths, and relax. I am not suggesting that every person or every LDS person try to raise a dozen kids or more. I'd think the world would be better off though if healthy, intelligent, devout and married LDS couples had large families. I'd also like to see healthy, intelligent, devout and married Christians also have large families. The rest can do whatever.

Spiritual eugenics? I could live with that.

By the way, aren't you being a bit disrespectful towards prophets with the "dead" comment?

[Fiannan]

by Elder Dallin H. Oaks

Conference Report, October 1993, Pg. 101

President Kimball said, "It is an act of extreme selfishness for a married couple to refuse to have children when they are able to do so." When married couples postpone childbearing until after they have satisfied their material goals, the mere passage of time assures that they seriously reduce their potential to participate in furthering our Heavenly Father's plan for all of his spirit children. Faithful Latter-day Saints cannot afford to look upon children as an interference with what the world calls "self-fulfillment." Our covenants with God and the ultimate purpose of life are tied up in those little ones who reach for our time, our love, and our sacrifices.

How many children should a couple have? All they can care for! Of course, to care for children means more than simply giving them life. Children must be loved, nurtured, taught, fed clothed, housed, and well started in their capacities to be good parents themselves. Exercising faith in God's promises to bless them when they are keeping his commandments, many LDS parents have large families. Others seek but are not blessed with children or the number of children they desire. In a matter as intimate as this, we should not judge one another.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/s...rth_Control.htm

[Jason]

The only reason to have large families, is if civilization has crumbled and your kids are dying young.

But with the miracle of modern medicine, we no longer need to have large families.

[jesusFREAK]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Oct 22 2005, 01:48 AM

http://www.duggarfamily.com/default.php

Just recently read where the mother gave birth to her 16th. child and they want to keep going.  I think this is great!  Many LDS couples who have been contaminated by decadent (dare I say "infidel") western culture (or what has become western ideals during the 20th. Century) need examples like this whether they are LDS or non-LDS.  This family is unapologetic about their principles and their belief in God and the Bible.  That's real faith.

←

you crazy cracka.

what about people who cant have kids?

does that make them less godly?

or are you just a school boy ######?

[Guest touchdownJESUS]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Oct 22 2005, 01:48 AM

http://www.duggarfamily.com/default.php

Just recently read where the mother gave birth to her 16th. child and they want to keep going.  I think this is great!  Many LDS couples who have been contaminated by decadent (dare I say "infidel") western culture (or what has become western ideals during the 20th. Century) need examples like this whether they are LDS or non-LDS.  This family is unapologetic about their principles and their belief in God and the Bible.  That's real faith.

←

thats not real faith. that is incest...

[Guest BYUnationalchumps]

deleted

[jesusFREAK]

deleted

[Guest touchdownJESUS]

deleted

[Snow]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Oct 23 2005, 10:32 AM

By the way, aren't you being a bit disrespectful towards prophets with the "dead" comment?

←

Sorry - what dead comment?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Oct 23 2005, 10:35 AM

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/s...rth_Control.htm

←

That's dandy except many of those remarks are out of step with current official Church policy.

Church Handbook of Instructions

January 1999

It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many chldren to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

Married couples also should understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.

Like I've said before. I don't take other people's advice on what I do in my bedroom.

Of course, almost anyone, any General Authority who spoke on the matter years ago was out of step with current Church policy:

Relief Society Magazine

3:367-368, July 1916

Joseph Fielding Smith

Those who attempt to pervert the ways of the Lord, and to prevent their offspring from coming into the world...are guilty of one of the most heinous crimes in the category. There is no promise of eternal salvation and exaltation for such as they...

Millennial Star

6:174 and 7:30-31, 1845

Orson Pratt, PARAPHRASED

Woman is capable of bearing one child per year.

[Orson is not here specifically discussing birth control, but rather is trying to calculate the number of spirits present in the pre-existence and the amount of time required for a Heavenly Mother to have produced them; he argues that Her reproductive capability was (is) essentially the same as that for mortal mothers ("...heavenly things are, in many respects, typical of earthly...") Cf. also The Seer 1:38-39, March 1853]

Relief Society Magazine

3:364 July 1916

Rudger Clawson

God's command, while it did not specify the exact number of children allotted to woman, simply implied that she should exercise the sacred power of procreation to its utmost limit.

Relief Society Magazine

4:69, 1917

George F. Richards

My wife has borne to me fifteen children. Anything short of this would have been less than her duty and privilege.

Liahona: The Elders' Journal

8(2):36, 1908

Elder B.F. Cummings, ed.

[in earlier days, any form of contraception was often considered "killing" or "destroying" offspring; the distinctions made today between contraception and abortion were often not made. In response to the questions: "Is it wrong for married people to refuse to have children when they can have them? Is it right for a poor couple to have a large family when the mother is sickly and the children receive very little care?", the following statement was given:]

Neither poverty no impaired health on the part of either or both parents can be pleaded in justification of pre-natal destruction of offspring. The soundness of this view will become apparent if the form of the question is slightly changed, thus: 'Is it right for a poor couple to kill some of their children when the wife is sickly and the receive very little care...'

[Jason]

Snow,

You've got to be grateful that today's LDS church is more enlightened than yesterdays...

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jason@Oct 23 2005, 06:50 PM

Snow,

You've got to be grateful that today's LDS church is more enlightened than yesterdays...

←

Many things, even in the restored church, are cultural.

The Churhes stance on blacks mirrored society as did the Church's thoughts on birth control match the standard orthodox Christian mood. Joseph Smiths belief in folk magic was a product of the culture he was raised in.

[Fiannan]

Following your interpretation that God's church has to be in step with the culture (and I'd assume that to be the western culture -- a tiny fraction of the world's population) then I suppose lesbian couples will be able to be sealed in the temples let's say, in 20 or 30 years?

[john doe]

Nowhere did Snow write that the church has to mirror societal norms. What he said is that many times the church's stances are influenced by the cultural makeup of its members.

Did you know that in some areas it's normal for Pacific Islanders to get up and address the congregation by saying "Aloha!", and it is expected that when they do this, the congregation responds by saying "Aloha!" back? In other areas, this practice is totally unheard of, and would get you a weird look if you tried it.

BTW, I have no problem reconciling the fact that my ancestors had boatloads of children, partly so someone would be able to work the fields and the family could sustain itself by having enough built-in free labor to keep the family farm going, with the fact that I have only 3 children and live in a totally different world and set of circumstances than they did. I don't think they are judging me harshly, and I don't judge them for how they lived.

My great-grandfather crossed the plains with the Mormon pioneers a couple times, and he used to tell stories of how, after a long day of outriding for the companies, it would be so good to come into camp and have a nice hot cup of coffee. When asked about it, he said it was normal and not frowned upon at all by the others there. Today, it would be a rare occasion for a good Mormon to talk about how great a cup of coffee would taste. Sure, the WOW wasn't commandment then, but it wasn't unheard of among the Saints at the time, either. I would call that another cultural difference between then and now.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by touchdownJESUS@Oct 23 2005, 06:10 PM

deleted

←

Hey... this is a mighty fine thread.... what happened... spamming trolls??

[Fiannan]

The reason the Church's stand on birth control (which has not changed nor has the encouragement of larger families) reflects that of orthodox Christianity is that orthodox Christianity and Mormonism have the same Biblical roots. Just because many Protestant churches ignore that doesn't mean we should follow a societal trend fostered by materialism and selfishness.

And considering most Mormons live in the developed world, and the developed world has a severe birthrate shortage, it is rather ironic than some Mormons think the advantages of having a large family are a thing of the past.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Oct 23 2005, 07:17 PM

Following your interpretation that God's church has to be in step with the culture (and I'd assume that to be the western culture -- a tiny fraction of the world's population) then I suppose lesbian couples will be able to be sealed in the temples let's say, in 20 or 30 years?

←

Just the opposite. John Doe got it right.

The Church shouldn't have been among the last to promote equality for blacks - it should have been among the first. Granted the Church was behind most other American Churchs by about 20 years but why should God's institution on earth be the follower instead of the leader?

Besides which - your example is sophmoric. Being black is not immoral. Neither is being lesbian for that matter - being a sexually active lesbian is another matter - but in as much as I try to stay out of other adults bedroom (as I require others to stay out of mine), I'll say little more on the topic.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Oct 24 2005, 08:59 AM

The reason the Church's stand on birth control (which has not changed nor has the encouragement of larger families) reflects that of orthodox Christianity is that orthodox Christianity and Mormonism have the same Biblical roots.  Just because many Protestant churches ignore that doesn't mean we should follow a societal trend fostered by materialism and selfishness.

←

Er, wrong and wrong.

The Church's policy on birth control and changed dramatically. Way back - before the Church wrote policy as such... the de facto policy was whatever the Brethren said and Joseph Fielding Smith said that practicing birth control was among the most heinous sins and that those who did practice it would not (or could not be promised) eternal salvation.

Oh please. If President Hinckley said that today it would be a farce.

Then the policy prior to 1999 was this:

LDS Church Policy (pre-1999)

General Handbook of Instructions

March 1989, p. 11-4

"Husbands must be considerate of their wives, who have a great responsibility not only for bearing children but also for caring for them through childhood, Husbands should help their wives conserve their health and strength. Married couples should seek inspiration from the Lord in meeting their marital challenges and rearing their children according to the teachings of the gospel."

Then the policy was changed (see above) to:

Hey Bishops - stay out of the members bedroom. Note: sex is good for a variety of reason beyond procreation.

And the second point that you are wrong on is Mormon policy on birth control reflects orthodox Christianity. It doesn't. It is similar to some of orthodox Christianity but not all.

For example - bc is grave sin in the Catholic Church and Baptist/ United Churches of Christ Family Groups say that bc is acceptable (compared to the LDS policy of: 'Stay out of the member's bedroom')