Non-mormon, But Great Examples!

[Fiannan]

From the Duggar website:

"When we are out together we get questions like… “Is this a school group?”, “Are they all yours?”, “Are you Catholic or Mormon?”, “Don’t you know what causes this?” These questions give us many opportunities to share with others the hope that is in us, that children are a gift from God. We did not always view children as a gift. Michelle & I did not have any children for the first 4 years of marriage.

We chose to use the birth control pill. After our first child was born, Michelle started back on the pill, shortly after, she miscarried. We found that sometimes the birth control pill will allow you to conceive, but then cause a miscarriage.

We then realized we had the same heart attitude about children as those willfully choosing abortion (wanting to make our own plans, live our own lives, children could be a bother or interruption).

We searched the scriptures & found that God says, “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: & the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them” (Psalms 127:3-5).

We asked God to forgive us for not wanting to receive His gifts, & we gave Him control of this area of our lives. We’ve been married 20 years & have been blessed with 15 precious gifts, 10 boys & 5 girls, which include two sets of twins. We had no idea life could be so abundant and full.

We would love to receive more children! Exhortation to other families…We face challenges everyday, but as we humble ourselves God gives grace & His mercies are new each morning. God’s Word is an owner’s manual for our lives. In it are the answers to all of life’s questions. James 1:5 states, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally & upbraideth not; & it shall be given him.” Jesus said, “I am come that they might have life & that they might have it more abundantly” John 10:10.

God Bless you as you seek to follow Him with your whole heart & train your children in the way they should go! "

[dizzysmiles]

Finanan, its nice to know your a guy , i thought you were a girl, and Im glad to see men love children. About the birth control, same as a IUD sometimes the egg becomes fertilized but cannot attach to the uterine wall, in other words if the spirit enters the body at conception, and it takes seven days to attach to the wall but the birthcotrol option does not allow it to attach and the egg dies off, does that mean it was a mini abortion? guess depends on what people think,. i on the other hand do belive that would be considerd one, although a lot of people dont research or know about it. An egg can attach and grow to the tube, aka. tubal pregnancy and can kill a woman, but the egg still grows so if it can't attach it dies off. A lot of women including myself have tried the birth control method with pills, patches, rings, or whatever else produces hormones and wonder why they dont want sex. Many women become so depressed they just want to go home to heavenly father, I know i did and got off that stuff fast! then there are women who can take it and have no problem with it. Yesterday I talked with a girl who wants a kid so bad but she thinks if she uses her pills that if it is meant to be it will happen wheather or not she is on b.c. Little does she know it is our agency to chose and if we prevent it then that is what will happen. You have to have faith but you also have to do your part. There are other birth control options out there that are safe and dont make people depressed. so if you find in your life your not the same person, your tired, depressed and do not have an interest in sexual relations with your spouse it may be the birth control you are using. I guess the only birth control you can be using and still get pregnant is punching holes in condoms.. but sad for your spouse who doesnt have that trust in you when he or she finds out haha. I agree children are a gift from god, it is the hardest job to be a parent but the most joyful. It is between husband and wife if they want to use b,c but i would study each option first to really understand what it does to the body before you go on it. Men dont like using the condoms much but if they want some and want a wife who isnt depressed with the hormones * there are other depressiono but im not talking about it right now only the homorne from b.c hormones* im sure they will.

[Fiannan]

Interesting points you bring up. I have heard the objections to certain forms of birth control as abortifacians but have not studied it in detail.

And yes, I do love children and see a big family as a gift to each of my kids.

[pushka]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Oct 30 2005, 12:28 PM

A 9mm in your purse, plus one sicko rapist charging you, equals a dead rapist.  That's my philosophy on this issue.

←

That method of defending yourself would not be considered acceptable by UK courts where guns are not permitted without a license, to begin with...the majority of people in the UK do not own or carry guns.

Also, whether being attacked, robbed or having your house burgled, no person is allowed to use anything but 'reasonable force' otherwise they will be charged for the injuries that their attacker/robber incurs!

Obviously I would want to fight to defend myself against Rape, if I thought that it was a viable option and that I would survive, but I wouldn't put my life at risk to protect my body against rape...the wounds, I know are very deep mentally, and would be difficult to live with, but I would hope that with support I would be able to live and perhaps help to bring the rapist to court and prevent any further attacks from him to others.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by pushka@Oct 31 2005, 02:17 PM

Also, whether being attacked, robbed or having your house burgled, no person is allowed to use anything but 'reasonable force' otherwise they will be charged for the injuries that their attacker/robber incurs!

That's so messed up!

[dizzysmiles]

I know the church is agianst the morning after pill unless raped. I have a question, if you were raped and concieved would you keep it or give it up? Also I would defend myself and that would not be considered murder if the dork ended up dying, its called self defense, and you can carry a conceled weapon if you have a permit. If you have keys put three of them between your three fingers so if someone were to attack you can reach back and those keys become knives and scratch their face, try to go for the eyes, and they say if you are being raped try to urinate on the person scratch, kick him where it counts but go for the eyes, therefore you wil have evidence of who it was that raped you and hopefully they can catch him. I have been in a situation that i could've bene raped, and during that experience was the first time i relized the holy ghost was real.

[pushka]

Some good tactics there Dizzysmiles...

Yes, Shanstress it is all messed up when the victim can become the accused in a trial following the attack! terrible...

[begood2]

Originally posted by pushka@Oct 31 2005, 06:19 PM

Some good tactics there Dizzysmiles...

Yes, Shanstress it is all messed up when the victim can become the accused in a trial following the attack!  terrible...

←

I have no more respect for a rapist than I would a rabid animal.

[pushka]

I have more respect for a rabid animal...it didn't choose it's condition!

[aurora]

I have three children and I am unable to have any more.

I think that the members of the church are kinda split on this point. we have the " It's a sin to hold back the spirits of the pre-mortal exsistance" in one corner and on the other hand we have people like me who believe that the prophets were inspired when they told us, that we should not hold back spirits from life, however we should consider the health of the Mother and the unborn child as well as the children which already exsist.

I had to have three sections for all my children due to various complications and I have been advised that any above three goes against medical advice.

After my youngest was born I returned to church and was immediately asked when I would be POPPING out the next. I explained I couldn't have anymore for the reasons above and a member actually said to me Oh you'll be alright I know someone who's had six by section and they're fine.

I'm sorry but I believe the Lord blessed us with free agency and Intelligence for a reason. If you have the means and the physical capability to pop out a sprog every year or so then go for it if thats what you really want.

There is no hard and fast rule and sometimes those of us who have less or no children are made to feel inferior or selfish which is not the case. I would be selfish to give into my broodiness and have another baby and put both our lives at risk.

I also have a friend who suffers severely from post-natal depression every time she has a child and it worsens with each one. She has made the decision not to have anymore as she can not cope and I think that she has made the right decision.

Just a thought we don't always know peoples indiviual circumstances so we should just really keep our noses out when it comes to the kids. I learnt this the hard way.

When I was about 17 I worked at the social services offices as a personnel officer, my boss was nasty, she took every opportunity to put me down, she shouted at me for not doing things which she had forgotten to tell me to do to cover her own butt.

Anyway needless to say we weren't friendly as such. I stayed away from her, did my job. One day I was talking to a guy in the office after hearing her talking again about how much money her and her husband earned, how she was having skiing holidays etc new cars. I said to my colleague what a selfish cow. She's too self involved to have children. (i was less active at the time, hence the gossiping) anyway It turned out she couldn't have children and she and her husband had been waiting for years for a child to adopt to come through. I felt horrible. Since then I have tried not to say anything regarding children.

Anyway down from my soapbox. cheers for the chance to RANT

[begood2]

Originally posted by pushka@Nov 1 2005, 10:45 AM

I have more respect for a rabid animal...it didn't choose it's condition!

←

Pushka,

Come to think of it ... your right!

[Fiannan]

Maureen asked a while back:

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!

Here's one:

""[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him." "

How's that for a quote from a church leader? Oh wait, Maureen, this wasn't a Mormon leader -- it was the founder of YOUR church MARTIN LUTHER!

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

[dizzysmiles]

aurora, I believe that if the mother is going to die, or cannot handle children then it wouldnt be fair for the children to not have a mother, or abuse. in your case i think you did the right thing and no one should judge you. AS for your friend, does she take medication during her pregnancies? i had to be on two anti depressents and the postpartum didnt seem as bad, but depression is hard and like i said if the moterhs life is in jeperody or if she can't take care of them thats not fair. Many mormons think that they wil stay on b.c becasue if its meant to be the lord will give us a kid, thats bull crap we all have agency and if we want to prevent kids that is what will happen, the lord will not chose to give us one, WE decide and should go to the lord if that is ok, the reason we get pregnant isnt becasue oh it must have been meant to be its becasue we had an accident, yes the children are from the lord, but becasue of our choices good consequences follow, and i say good becasue children are good, so those of you who want a child and are using b.c during the period of trying for one, good luck i say this beacsue a girl came to me with this problem i was like well duh the reason your not concieving is becasue your on the patch.. that could be the problemo! because what about these druggies who get pregnant or abusers? is it becasue the lord wanted to give them one? no its called their agency was to have se x without b.c .. same with mormons if you want a child right away and are still using b.c to PREVENt it think about it. Im not saying b.c is bad im just saying if your tryin to concieve well then you shuold probably stop the b.c for a while. duh! AS for finannian thanks for that i liked the qoute! lol

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by aurora@Nov 2 2005, 04:53 AM

I'm sorry but I believe the Lord blessed us with free agency and Intelligence for a reason. If you have the means and the physical capability to pop out a sprog every year or so then go for it if thats what you really want. 

←

Some very good words thanks. :)

I have three children and I have never felt pressured from anyone in the church to have more. My son and his wife a waiting to have children for a year or two which would make her 22 the same age I started having children. I see no problem in waiting to have children for a few years. I believe that we have the ability to choose these things for ourselves.

[dizzysmiles]

i waited a year before my children came i think my hubby and i neede that to grow in our marriage, but if we were to put off kids till school was over we wouldnt have our 2 bundles of joy, age doesnt matter when u ewant kids as long as you dont put it off for dumb reasons and your married.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Nov 2 2005, 07:59 AM

Maureen asked a while back:

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!

Here's one:

""[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him." "

How's that for a quote from a church leader? Oh wait, Maureen, this wasn't a Mormon leader -- it was the founder of YOUR church MARTIN LUTHER!

Lutherans don't see Martin Luther as a prophet. They see a man who changed religious and doctrinal thought according to scripture (or the interpretation of scripture). His own opinions about mankind, what is right and wrong are really just his opinions. Martin Luther was also anti-Semitic and both Lutheran denominations (Missouri Synod and Evangelical) have rejected his writings on anti-Semitism.

M.

[Fiannan]

But was what Luther said about birth control supported by the scriptures (Bible) or not? And if they were not, then why has Christianity upheld this view until more recently? Now I know that many Christian leaders have tried to water down Chritianity's teachings on the family until what passes today as Christian would have been considered Unitarian or even in conformity to Margaret Sanger's views on humanism and family limitation back a few generations ago but...who do you believe I guess is the most important question.

A couple more quotes from the Catholic website:

John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."

John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

I know there have been some that believe that Onan was punished for masterbation but that is far from the truth as what he did was perform withdrawal (a common form of birth control). And if you carefully read Romans Chapter One the condemnation of homosexuality does exist, but the root of lesbian and homosexual temptations appears to be materialism, secularism and wanting to avoid having families.

Sound like any society you have heard of?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Nov 2 2005, 03:33 PM

But was what Luther said about birth control supported by the scriptures (Bible) or not?

No, it is not supported by scripture. I will say that both Luther and Calvin misinterpreted Onan’s sin. His sin was when he did not fulfill his duties to the levirate marriage system.

Most modern Biblical scholars, however, say that Onan's primary sin was to violate the rules of levirate marriage, the Biblical law which states that a childless widow must marry her late husband's brother….But the main purpose of these verses was probably to denote the punishment for violating the rules of levirate marriage, which was a divine law, rather than practicing either coitus interruptus or masturbation, which are not known to be condemned by the Holy Scriptures. The purpose of this form of marriage was to prevent a childless widow from becoming pauperized, due to not having a husband or son to support her and not being able to own property herself; thus Onan's refusal was considered very cruel treatment of his sister-in-law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

Levirate marriage is the practice of a woman marrying one of her husband's sons or brothers after her husband's death, in order to continue his line. Levirate marriage has been practiced by societies with a strong clan structure in which exogamous marriage outside the clan was forbidden. Groups that have practiced levirate marriage include the Israelites, the Xiongnu, the Mongols, and the Tibetans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage

The term "sororate marriage" denotes the right of a spouse to engage in sexual activity with sisters-in-law. More specifically, sororate marriages (see also levirate marriages) occur in societies where two separate groups are bound by the obligation of marriage. Should the female partner die or prove to be barren, the family or group of the deceased/infertile partner is obliged to provide a new mate, in order to preserve the alliance and keep the familial structure intact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sororate_marriage

And scripture itself:

Then Judah said to Onan, "Have sexual relations with13 your brother's wife and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her so that you may raise14 up a descendant for your brother."15 But Onan knew that the child16 would not be considered his.17 So whenever18 he had sexual relations with19 his brother's wife, he withdrew prematurely20 so as not to give his brother a descendant. What he did was evil in the Lord's sight, so the Lord21 killed him too. (Genesis 38:8-10, NET Bible)

15 sn Raise up a descendant for your brother. The purpose of this custom, called the levirate system, was to ensure that no line of the family would become extinct. The name of the deceased was to be maintained through this custom of having a child by the nearest relative. See M. Burrows, "Levirate Marriage in Israel," JBL 59 (1940): 23-33.

17 tn Heb "would not be his," that is, legally speaking. Under the levirate system the child would be legally considered the child of his deceased brother.

M.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Maureen+Nov 2 2005, 02:15 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Fiannan@Nov 2 2005, 07:59 AM

Maureen asked a while back:

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!

Here's one:

""[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him." "

How's that for a quote from a church leader? Oh wait, Maureen, this wasn't a Mormon leader -- it was the founder of YOUR church MARTIN LUTHER!

Lutherans don't see Martin Luther as a prophet. They see a man who changed religious and doctrinal thought according to scripture (or the interpretation of scripture). His own opinions about mankind, what is right and wrong are really just his opinions. Martin Luther was also anti-Semitic and both Lutheran denominations (Missouri Synod and Evangelical) have rejected his writings on anti-Semitism.

M.

←

Hey Maureen,

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

[Fiannan]

Maureen, to say that Onan was slain for not following the marriage law would be akin to saying the sin of abortion does not involve taking a human life but rather allowing someone you are not married to to penetrate your vagina.

Traditionally Christians and Jews have seen the sin of Onan as involving contracpetion (not reproducing with his dead brother's wife). Some have extended this onto masterbation but only as it is a substitute for regular sex -- which holds the possibility of reproduction.

I could care lass about "more modern" interpretations of this scripture as most Protestants have done their best to offer the world a version of Christianity that is one of the best endorsements to convert to Islam -- as Islam seems to at least stand for more of the original teachings of God than much of what passes for Christianity today.

Please show me what churches in the Christian world prior to the 1930s supported family limitation (what we would see it as today -- 0, 1 or two kids max). My contention is that God's word never changed, only man's attempt to water it down with the philosophies of man (humanism). In Europe and some of America you already see the attempt to water down marriage to justify two men getting married -- and many liberal "Christian" leaders in Europe think they should be given church weddings! I guess once you start compromising on the purposes of sex, marriage in general and any number of commandments it's okay to just go to any number of trendy philosophies and incorporate them into religion.

[Maureen]

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.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Nov 2 2005, 11:39 PM

Maureen, to say that Onan was slain for not following the marriage law would be akin to saying the sin of abortion does not involve taking a human life but rather allowing someone you are not married to to penetrate your vagina.

I disagree, your analogy is wierd.

Traditionally Christians and Jews have seen the sin of Onan as involving contracpetion (not reproducing with his dead brother's wife).  Some have extended this onto masterbation but only as it is a substitute for regular sex -- which holds the possibility of reproduction.

Then they would be wrong.

Please show me what churches in the Christian world prior to the 1930s supported family limitation (what we would see it as today -- 0, 1 or two kids max)...

I know of no churches that have supported family limitation. I only know of the Catholics and Mormons who promote large families - but that doesn't mean that those who do not promote a large family dynamic promote a limitation of family. Most Protestant churches I believe feel that family size is a personal issue, the church organization itself does not feel it is necessary to make rules regarding family size.

M.

[Fiannan]

You know nothing of the Comstock Laws, do you? Here is your religious heritage -- one that current Protestants for the most part ignore:

In the 1910's and 1920's, the entire social order–religion, law, politics, medicine, and the media–was arrayed against the idea and practice of birth control. This opposition began in 1873 when an overwhelmingly Protestant Congress passed, and a Protestant president signed into law, a bill that became known as the Comstock Law, named after its main proponent, Anthony Comstock. The U.S. Congress classified obscene writing, along with drugs, and devices and articles that prevented conception or caused abortion, under the same net of criminality and forbade their importation or mailing.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%...aret_sanger.htm

I don't know but if birth control was made illegal by Protestants then doesn't that imply that Protestants were in favor of large families?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Nov 3 2005, 10:36 AM

You know nothing of the Comstock Laws, do you?  Here is your religious heritage -- one that current Protestants for the most part ignore:...

Can you show me how the Comstock Laws were connected to any christian organization. To me it seems they were an act of government.

I don't know but if birth control was made illegal by Protestants then doesn't that imply that Protestants were in favor of large families?

I'm not sure what you mean by illegal - I'm not sure that any church had any authority it what could be made illegal. It appears that Margaret Sanger had christian church opponents. But as you can see, the attitude towards birth control in society and church organizations has changed. Christian churches in the past had their own rationalization why blacks should be discriminated against, doesn't mean they were right.

I think I'm at a loss as to why you think the attitude toward birth control in the past with the Christian church has anything to do with what Christians believe is good and right regarding family size now.

M.

[Fiannan]

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.

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. 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).

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).