Non-mormon, But Great Examples!

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Nov 4 2005, 01:00 AM

Laws get passed due to political pressure.  The Comstock Laws were the result of activism from the Protestant community due to the overwhelming attitude that family limitation was immoral.  It's akin to laws today being passed against gay marriage as most Protestants and Catholics are opposed to two guys getting married.

Laws do change. I'm sure all communities have laws on their books that do not mean anything today. Change is part of society. Society always evolves, it never stays the same for very long.

I have laready provided quotes from Luther, Calvin and Wesley that demonstrate that the "founding fathers" of Protestantism believed the Bible opposed birth control and that the section dealing with Onan has always been interpreted as the sin of Onan is refusing to bring forth children as God commanded.  Jewish tradition has always been that the first commandment of God is to "Be fruitful, and multiply..." and the notion that anyone would avoid children was traditionally seen as immoral.

It appears that Luther and Calvin were incorrect in their interpretation of Onan's sin. It was not about birth control it was about the levirate marriage rules. You may believe whatever you wish regarding the biblical morality of having no children - that is your choice - but it doesn't mean you're correct. If you and your spouse wish to have as many children as you want go right ahead, but you are in no position to preach to others about following the same path. It's a personal matter, you're interpretation of scripture means nothing to me.

In fact, while it is circumstantial evidence, one of the best evidences that Jesus was probably married is that a 30 year old calling himself a rabbi in the 1st. Century would have been extremely radical if he were unmarried (he would have surely been questioned by the Pharasies for such a thing).

I think the Jewish leaders at the time were more concerned with Jesus equating himself to God.

Now your showing that "modern" Protestant leaders have taken a different stand on birth control doesn't convince me at all.  Maybe they like the philosophies of man a bit too much (might explain the higher incidence of divorce among Protestants than one might expect as they have changed their stand on divorce as well).  I would not be surprised if 50 years from now Protestant leaders were to water down doctrine so much that men could marry each others in churches and those opposed to it would be seen as aberations (you can see that attitude in Holland and Sweden today).

That's the great thing about choice, we all have it. Whether the choices mankind makes are wrong or right, he still has that choice. Choose whatever you see is right for you, but I don't think you're in a position to say "Everyone should do what I do, because it's important to me." Make your own decisions and respect others to let them make their own.

M.

[begood2]

Originally posted by Maureen+Nov 4 2005, 10:43 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Fiannan@Nov 4 2005, 01:00 AM

Laws get passed due to political pressure.  The Comstock Laws were the result of activism from the Protestant community due to the overwhelming attitude that family limitation was immoral.  It's akin to laws today being passed against gay marriage as most Protestants and Catholics are opposed to two guys getting married.

Laws do change. I'm sure all communities have laws on their books that do not mean anything today. Change is part of society. Society always evolves, it never stays the same for very long.

I have laready provided quotes from Luther, Calvin and Wesley that demonstrate that the "founding fathers" of Protestantism believed the Bible opposed birth control and that the section dealing with Onan has always been interpreted as the sin of Onan is refusing to bring forth children as God commanded.  Jewish tradition has always been that the first commandment of God is to "Be fruitful, and multiply..." and the notion that anyone would avoid children was traditionally seen as immoral.

It appears that Luther and Calvin were incorrect in their interpretation of Onan's sin. It was not about birth control it was about the levirate marriage rules. You may believe whatever you wish regarding the biblical morality of having no children - that is your choice - but it doesn't mean you're correct. If you and your spouse wish to have as many children as you want go right ahead, but you are in no position to preach to others about following the same path. It's a personal matter, you're interpretation of scripture means nothing to me.

In fact, while it is circumstantial evidence, one of the best evidences that Jesus was probably married is that a 30 year old calling himself a rabbi in the 1st. Century would have been extremely radical if he were unmarried (he would have surely been questioned by the Pharasies for such a thing).

I think the Jewish leaders at the time were more concerned with Jesus equating himself to God.

Now your showing that "modern" Protestant leaders have taken a different stand on birth control doesn't convince me at all.  Maybe they like the philosophies of man a bit too much (might explain the higher incidence of divorce among Protestants than one might expect as they have changed their stand on divorce as well).  I would not be surprised if 50 years from now Protestant leaders were to water down doctrine so much that men could marry each others in churches and those opposed to it would be seen as aberations (you can see that attitude in Holland and Sweden today).

That's the great thing about choice, we all have it. Whether the choices mankind makes are wrong or right, he still has that choice. Choose whatever you see is right for you, but I don't think you're in a position to say "Everyone should do what I do, because it's important to me." Make your own decisions and respect others to let them make their own.

M.

←

Maureen,

I agree with your comments here as well.

[Fiannan]

Maureen, if you set no standard based on scripture (than cannot change) then you support moral relativism. If that is typical of the Christian world today (it seems it is) then no wonder Islam will soon dominate the Lutheran sections of Europe. At least in Islam society doesn't decide God's word as interpreted by their scriptures.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

M. : That's the great thing about choice, we all have it. Whether the choices mankind makes are wrong or right, he still has that choice. Choose whatever you see is right for you, but I don't think you're in a position to say "Everyone should do what I do, because it's important to me." Make your own decisions and respect others to let them make their own.

M.

Not everyone will choose to do what one says they should do... that is their choice... but it is also someone's choice to say... everyone should do as I do...

LOL the very fact that you say "Make your ow decisions and respect others to let them make their own." is telling everyone to do what you are doing....

So... everyone has choices... and everyone can say do as I am doing it is the right thing to do....

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Please@Nov 4 2005, 01:16 PM

LOL the very fact that you say "Make your ow decisions and respect others to let them make their own." is telling everyone to do what you are doing...

You think that's a bad motto to live by: "Respect your fellowman!" That's interesting! You would prefer to be judgmental towards people that don't share your beliefs/philosophies. I doubt you would win over too many friends with that attitude.

M.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Maureen+Nov 4 2005, 05:14 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Please@Nov 4 2005, 01:16 PM

LOL the very fact that you say "Make your ow decisions and respect others to let them make their own." is telling everyone to do what you are doing...

You think that's a bad motto to live by: "Respect your fellowman!" That's interesting! You would prefer to be judgmental towards people that don't share your beliefs/philosophies. I doubt you would win over too many friends with that attitude.

M.

←

Can you read? Where in my post did I say "I think that's a bad motto to live by: "Respect your fellowman!"

dontknow:

Where in my post did I say I would prefer to be judgmental towards people that don;t share my beliefs/phylosophies?

And then tell me how UN JUDGMENTAL THIS IS??

M :I doubt you would win over too many friends with that attitude. 

READ A LITTLE BETTER WILL YA.??

and maybe take off your jumpers so you can listen without jumping to unfounded conclusions

[Maureen]

Please, your question marks are messing up the screen size - I think.

You're a little dramatic. I guess you might understand that making the effort to comprehend the context of what anyone is saying (not just moi) makes a difference in how people respond.

M.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Maureen@Nov 4 2005, 06:19 PM

Please, your question marks are messing up the screen size - I think.

You're a little dramatic. I guess you might understand that making the effort to comprehend the context of what anyone is saying (not just moi) makes a difference in how people respond.

M.

←

Making up stuff just doesn't qualify for trying to comprehend what I say... In fact it totally detracts from the purpose of discussion.

btw thanks for the heads-up on the question mark faux pas

[Snow]

Originally posted by Maureen+Nov 3 2005, 08:51 AM-->

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 2 2005, 09:47 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Maureen@Nov 2 2005, 02:15 PM

You're saying the leaders of your church have actually said that waiting to have children is a sin. Could you provide us with some quotes? Thanks!

What point are you trying to make about someone like Martin Luther vs someone like a prophet?

The LDS members see their leaders as prophets, their words are to be heeded because they speak for God. Therefore if a first presidency member told the LDS people that "such and such is the way it is", there's a good chance that the majority of the members would revere his words and follow his revelation/advice.

Lutherans on the other hand do not see their pastors or past church leaders as the kind of person that should be revered as a "voice of God". Pastors are teachers and Lutherans have every ability to know what God wishes for them as any leader of a Lutheran congregation would. Therefore, any opinions and beliefs that Martin Luther may have had that is not necessarily backed up by scripture (or the interpretation thereof) would only be his views and not something the majority of the church organization would have to endorse or follow. Luther may have had insight into the truth of "justification by faith", but his own bigotry only effects him and not the whole body.

M.

←

You're making a distinction that doesn't really exist, at least as you describe. Mormons have the ability of know the mind of God just as you say Lutherans do but Mormons believe in the principle to a greater extent. Personal revelation is a foundational tenet of our faith.

Just as Martin Luther would be correct only so far as he is in alignment with the Bible, so to any Mormon leader must also be in alignment with our canon - our standard and measuring stick. If Brigham Young thougth Adam was God (I'm not saying he did) - so what? The is an incorrect idea as measured against the scriptures and so we ignore it.

The difference between Luther and what we think of as our prophet is really a matter of credibility. While Luther might be able to gain some insight and inspiration, we believe that the prophet has a much bigger pipeline to God and is able to gain lots and lots of insight and inspiration up to and including acutally talking with God, face to face as it were, if that's what is called for.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 4 2005, 11:57 PM-->

Originally posted by Maureen@Nov 3 2005, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 2 2005, 09:47 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Maureen@Nov 2 2005, 02:15 PM

You're saying the leaders of your church have actually said that waiting to have children is a sin. Could you provide us with some quotes? Thanks!

What point are you trying to make about someone like Martin Luther vs someone like a prophet?

The LDS members see their leaders as prophets, their words are to be heeded because they speak for God. Therefore if a first presidency member told the LDS people that "such and such is the way it is", there's a good chance that the majority of the members would revere his words and follow his revelation/advice.

Lutherans on the other hand do not see their pastors or past church leaders as the kind of person that should be revered as a "voice of God". Pastors are teachers and Lutherans have every ability to know what God wishes for them as any leader of a Lutheran congregation would. Therefore, any opinions and beliefs that Martin Luther may have had that is not necessarily backed up by scripture (or the interpretation thereof) would only be his views and not something the majority of the church organization would have to endorse or follow. Luther may have had insight into the truth of "justification by faith", but his own bigotry only effects him and not the whole body.

M.

←

You're making a distinction that doesn't really exist, at least as you describe. Mormons have the ability of know the mind of God just as you say Lutherans do but Mormons believe in the principle to a greater extent. Personal revelation is a foundational tenet of our faith.

Just as Martin Luther would be correct only so far as he is in alignment with the Bible, so to any Mormon leader must also be in alignment with our canon - our standard and measuring stick. If Brigham Young thougth Adam was God (I'm not saying he did) - so what? The is an incorrect idea as measured against the scriptures and so we ignore it.

The difference between Luther and what we think of as our prophet is really a matter of credibility. While Luther might be able to gain some insight and inspiration, we believe that the prophet has a much bigger pipeline to God and is able to gain lots and lots of insight and inspiration up to and including acutally talking with God, face to face as it were, if that's what is called for.

←

But the adam god theory is in the bible... I found it once... don't read it like that intense any more... so don't ask me where...

[Snow]

Originally posted by Please@Nov 4 2005, 10:28 PM

But the adam god theory is in the bible... I found it once... don't read it like that intense any more... so don't ask me where...

←

Yeah Please... and I once found a recipe for a concoction that made me irresistable to Afganni hand models but I don't read recipe books that intensely any more so don't ask me for proof of my lunatic ravings/

[Fiannan]

Maureen states to Please:

You think that's a bad motto to live by: "Respect your fellowman!" That's interesting! You would prefer to be judgmental towards people that don't share your beliefs/philosophies. I doubt you would win over too many friends with that attitude.

Oh now come on, you don't make judgements Maureen? You've made a couple towards Mr. Luther.

Now let's see, you would be fine with one of your kids joining a polygamist sect and setting a goal of having 12 kids? Let's say the other one decides to join a free love commune down by Mt. Shasta, that would get your blessings as well?

Everyone makes judgements. The scriptures warn us to base those judgements on scripture and not personal preferences.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 5 2005, 12:43 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Please@Nov 4 2005, 10:28 PM

But the adam god theory is in the bible... I found it once... don't read it like that intense any more... so don't ask me where...

←

Yeah Please... and I once found a recipe for a concoction that made me irresistable to Afganni hand models but I don't read recipe books that intensely any more so don't ask me for proof of my lunatic ravings/

←

You must eat a lot of mush cause that is all you put out...

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Nov 5 2005, 12:31 AM

Maureen states to Please:

You think that's a bad motto to live by: "Respect your fellowman!" That's interesting! You would prefer to be judgmental towards people that don't share your beliefs/philosophies. I doubt you would win over too many friends with that attitude.

Oh now come on, you don't make judgements Maureen? You've made a couple towards Mr. Luther.

Now let's see, you would be fine with one of your kids joining a polygamist sect and setting a goal of having 12 kids? Let's say the other one decides to join a free love commune down by Mt. Shasta, that would get your blessings as well?

Everyone makes judgements. The scriptures warn us to base those judgements on scripture and not personal preferences.

Mankind in general has to make judgements on everyday living. The problem with Please's incorrect assessment with what I was trying to say is that she's leaving out the rest of my statement which gives my context of respecting others' decisions meaning. I'm not saying that everybody makes good decisions, I'm just saying that in the context of this thread, Fiannan seems to be on a mission to convince everyone that because he thinks LDS and other Christian communities should have large families (because he interprets scripture to say "have large families") then they better have large families. I disagree with Fiannan and his interpretation of scripture and 16th century church leaders' opinions. He ignores what others have said, still insisting that he is correct and therefore everyone should listen to him and follow his lead and have a bazillion kids. My opinion is that family size is a personal decision and no matter how Fiannan feels I will respect his right to believe what he wants and do what he wants but I refuse to agree and follow is opinions. I would think that after much discussion he would have the fortitude to also respect others differing opinions and leave it at that.

And Fiannan's example of my kids joining a polygamist community is overly dramatic. I'm sure my kids will make decisions that I may not agree with, but so far I can't complain (they are only 17 and 14).

M.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 4 2005, 10:57 PM

The difference between Luther and what we think of as our prophet is really a matter of credibility. While Luther might be able to gain some insight and inspiration, we believe that the prophet has a much bigger pipeline to God and is able to gain lots and lots of insight and inspiration up to and including acutally talking with God, face to face as it were, if that's what is called for.

Exactly! LDS members believe that their prophet has a pipeline to God, while Lutherans do not view Luther or any of their church leaders in the same regard.

M.

[BenRaines]

Family size is between the couple and the Lord.

The story is related that President Kimball was called to his granddaughter's side after a very difficult pregnancy and delivery. As he was visiting with her she asked "Is that enough" His loving response to his granddaughter was "That is between you, your husband and the Lord."

We have been told by modern day leaders that when considering family size the following should be taken in to consideration: Physical health of mother, mental health of mother, ability to financially support the children.

We are not to pop them out like a Pez dispenser just because we can. There is more to parenting and being a good steward than just being able to biologically reproduce.

[Fiannan]

Maureen, you can do whatever you please, Lutheranism is fizzling out anyway and if that what family limitation is all about, well, by their fruits ye shall know them. And what, I can find Protestant leaders, as well as Lutheran leaders in Euroland, who believe homosexual weddings should be given full church honors. Just because a view is "modern" doesn't mean it is Biblically correct.

And Ben, do you really believe everyone REALLY consults with the Lord in regards to family size? I believe the ones that do generally are the ones with big families, while the ones that think they do are the ones with small families and big SUVs and Hummers.

And everybody seems to have a story about Spencer W. Kimball that is used to promote the idea that big families aren't really the norm while President Kimball did PUBLICALLY state that big families are a characteristic of the LDS faith -- because the LDS follow the intent of scripture. I'll stick to comments by church leaders and leave urban legends and individual cases out of the macro-social view that the Church promotes.

Also, I can point to a lot of anti family limitations made in conferences even recently but can you show me one pro birth control statement made in the context of a conference? And please don't refer to the handbook unless you can provide me a source where I can read the entire thing on every issue (otherwise it is not doctrine).

[Fiannan]

Oh, and when I joined the Church I read comments from President Kimball that economics were not a proper consideration in determining family size. Did the church change and I was with the high priests taking a snooze?

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Nov 8 2005, 03:47 PM

Oh, and when I joined the Church I read comments from President Kimball that economics were not a proper consideration in determining family size.  Did the church change and I was with the high priests taking a snooze?

←

Hopefully so... after so many families started breaking up due to financial troubles... and stress of having too many kids... they couldn't afford... and

the ward and stake welfare buget going to HE....L because of so many asking

for help.....

Back in the days when Kimball grew up... children were an econmic benefit if they were working a farm or ranch... or anything... cause their children are free labor...

I know a family which works all 10 of their kids in their machinery factory.... but geeze louis... not everyone is going to do that...

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Nov 8 2005, 02:45 PM

Also, I can point to a lot of anti family limitations made in conferences even recently but can you show me one pro birth control statement made in the context of a conference?  And please don't refer to the handbook unless you can provide me a source where I can read the entire thing on every issue (otherwise it is not doctrine).

I guess these two statements are not in the context of a conference but they exist. We should have a fair definition of birth control - how about having the ability or control to decide how many children and when. Here's what I found from lds.org:

Birth Control

36863, True to the Faith, Birth Control, 26

When married couples are physically able, they have the privilege of providing mortal bodies for Heavenly Father’s spirit children. They play a part in the great plan of happiness, which permits God’s children to receive physical bodies and experience mortality.

If you are married, you and your spouse should discuss your sacred responsibility to bring children into the world and nurture them in righteousness. As you do so, consider the sanctity and meaning of life. Ponder the joy that comes when children are in the home. Consider the eternal blessings that come from having a good posterity. With a testimony of these principles, you and your spouse will be prepared to prayerfully decide how many children to have and when to have them. Such decisions are between the two of you and the Lord.

As you discuss this sacred matter, remember that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved. While one purpose of these relations is to provide physical bodies for God’s children, another purpose is to express love for one another—to bind husband and wife together in loyalty, fidelity, consideration, and common purpose.

Birth control

“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 with the number of children they desire. In a matter as intimate as this, we should not judge one another” (Dallin H. Oaks, in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 101; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 75).

“The Lord has told us to multiply and replenish the earth that we might have joy in our posterity, and there is no greater joy than the joy that comes of happy children in good families. But he did not designate the number, nor has the Church. That is a sacred matter left to the couple and the Lord” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Cornerstones of a Happy Home [pamphlet, 1984], 6).

31114, The Latter-day Saint Woman, Part B, Duties and Responsibilities, 14: Withstanding the Evils of the World, 110

I'd be interested in reading those anti-family-limitation statements - the more recent the better, since the LDS church is a continuing revelation church.

M.

[BenRaines]

Maureen,

Thank you for the great research. All said family size is to be determined by husband, wife and the Lord.

[john doe]

And Ben, do you really believe everyone REALLY consults with the Lord in regards to family size? I believe the ones that do generally are the ones with big families, while the ones that think they do are the ones with small families and big SUVs and Hummers.

And you know this how? Do you sit in on these consultations? Are you the guy who sits in church and looks down his nose at couples who don't pop out 6 or 8 kids? Who appointed you as the judge of these people? In case you don't know, there are more than economics at play in these decisions that some people make to have smaller families. Physical and mental health and well being of either parent or their existing children are certainly acceptable factors to consider as far as I'm concerned. There are also age factors to consider when making these decisions also. Personally, I don't blame a woman who marries later in life and decides to stop having children after age 40. Since you probably don't know the intimate details of every couple's life around you, I suggest you not prejudge those who choose to have less kids than you.

[Fiannan]

Ah, Maureen, you left out presdient Oaks' prior paragraph delivered at conference:

"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."

Definently changes the context when he further states (and where you quoted):

"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...Control.htm#dho

Elder Mark E. Peterson stated:

"Your Faith and You, Pg. 121

Some who have been perfectly healthy and able to bear children have avoided this responsibility, and in doing so have resorted to the use of harmful practices and devices resulting often in physical injury to the wife and demoralization to both parties. Some have wondered if the Church would approve such practices. Of course it never has and never could."

and...

"In this birth control effort man places himself in direct opposition to the plan and laws of God."

Then...

by Elder J. Ballard Washburn

April 1995 General Conference

"Thus we see that in marriage, a husband and wife enter into an order of the priesthood called the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. This covenant includes a willingness to have children and to teach them the gospel. Many problems of the world today are brought about when parents do not accept the responsibilities of this covenant. It is contradictory to this covenant to prevent the birth of children if the parents are in good health."

That's the LDS Church's OFFICIAL stand. You know that the Pope, who represents a growing church as opposed to the rapidly shrinking Lutheran church, is fully opposed to family limitation. And the Koran states that it is evil to get rid of children for economic reasons (while the reference is to poor people eliminating girl babies modern Islamic scholars interpret this to apply to abortion as well as birth control for economic reasons).

Don't get me started on where the Protestnat religion is going, especially Lutheranism as my wife, who is Mormon, is technically a member of the Lutheran Church (never has had her name removed from the parish records). Protestantism in the past had stands that were in many respects more conservative than the Mormon or Catholic stands -- what it needs is a revival, and fast.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Nov 8 2005, 11:54 PM

Ah, Maureen, you left out presdient Oaks' prior paragraph delivered at conference:

"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."

And who is to determine who these selfish Mormons are that postpone having children for such evil reasons, like having the financial means to care for them? <gasp> Do you propose to set up some sort of Church Family Watch Dog Society to interrogate those couples who have not produced within 2 years of married life? What happens if you find out they are not able through natural channels and are seeking medical advice? What happens if they are unable to ever have biological children? It must be because of a punishment from God for something else they did in their life, what else could it be. If all couples were as good as you, Fiannan and your wife they wouldn't hesitate or have any medical issues, they would pop them out and look down on anyone else who isn't doing the same. Oh, but wait, isn't it also church policy to not judge others for not living up to your expectations. Whether a couple takes 9 months after marriage to have their first child or 9 years, it's still between them and the Lord.

...You know that the Pope, who represents a growing church as opposed to the rapidly shrinking Lutheran church...

Hmmm, you make it sound as if there are only 10 Lutherans left in the whole world. This is what I found:

Number of Lutherans worldwide

Europe – between 49.3 and 51.3 million

North America – 14.2 million

Africa – 10.5 million

Asia & Pacific – 7.5 million

Latin America – 1.1 million

Total World – 82.6 million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherans#Num...erans_worldwide

M.

[BenRaines]

John Doe,

No I do not believe that everyone consults with the Lord in determining family size. The same that I believe there are many who attend church and think that is all they need to do in order to return to live in the Celestial Kingdom. I believe that there are many that when the day of judgement comes will say "But I went to church every Sunday" and the Lord will say "Depart I knew you not".

I also know many that plan their families and at some point in their lives may have a child that they didn't plan but they love that child and it is a part of their family.

I know people inside and outside the church that probably shouldn't have children but because it is a result of the intimate relations with a spouse they do and they don't have a clue what to do and/or don't take the time to learn. Raising children is a learning process but there are people that are too busy with the other important things to them to take the time to learn by experience. These children usually end up neglected.

Those are my thoughts.