Missionaries and Gayness

[Vort]

7 hours ago, mikbone said:

7 hours ago, popatr said:

By the way, what kind of doctor are you?

Bones

[popatr]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I mostly agree with your post, @popatr, except:

When sex gets mixed up in "things that are taboo and that you shouldn't do but want to", that's corruption right there, corruption of what should be most sacred. That's some dark, wicked stuff, of the sort I have prayed to God to protect my children from.

I think I agree with you so I've probably said something poorly and given a false impression.

In that context, when I spoke of doing something I shouldn't do but want to do: I'm not talking about bizarre activity that I think God would actually disapprove of.  I'm only speaking of (short sighted) prudence and self interest.  If I get my wife pregnant I'm signing up both of us for some significant challenges.

So I think even in the most undefiled sex drive there is an element of risk seeking, a desire to throw caution to the wind and just do it.

I propose that this good/natural part of sex drive is easily corrupted into search for taboo and abandon of God's will.

[askandanswer]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, I’m aware that there’s a long-standing discussion about whether men and women can/should ever really be “just friends” with each other,

Given the frequency with which it is discussed, its almost a long standard discussion.

[The Folk Prophet]

7 hours ago, popatr said:

I think I agree with you so I've probably said something poorly and given a false impression.

In that context, when I spoke of doing something I shouldn't do but want to do: I'm not talking about bizarre activity that I think God would actually disapprove of.  I'm only speaking of (short sighted) prudence and self interest.  If I get my wife pregnant I'm signing up both of us for some significant challenges.

So I think even in the most undefiled sex drive there is an element of risk seeking, a desire to throw caution to the wind and just do it.

I propose that this good/natural part of sex drive is easily corrupted into search for taboo and abandon of God's will.

What a fascinating post.

As I think on it, I cannot help but wonder if maybe there's some negative cultural persuasion mixed into the logic. That's not to say I don't understand.

I believe the position of the church on this has been pretty stable for its history...we get married and then we let the children come. Or as another quote I recall stated (I cannot remember attribution here), "We believe in family planning. We plan to have families."

It's a strange...and yet natural and perfectly reasonable...idea to view the idea of having children as a result of sexual congress with one's spouse as a "risk". Like I said, I get it...but.... It's like saying you run the risk of the church growing from doing missionary work.

The implied suggestion is that we ought to consider refraining from having relations with our spouses in order to limit the risk of too many pregnancies. Clearly, so the world would think. But I cannot help but think that we ought not be thinking this way, generally.

Edited April 5, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[popatr]

53 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What a fascinating post.

As I think on it, I cannot help but wonder if maybe there's some negative cultural persuasion mixed into the logic. That's not to say I don't understand.

I believe the position of the church on this has been pretty stable for its history...we get married and then we let the children come. Or as another quote I recall stated (I cannot remember attribution here), "We believe in family planning. We plan to have families."

It's a strange...and yet natural and perfectly reasonable...idea to view the idea of having children as a result of sexual congress with one's spouse as a "risk". Like I said, I get it...but.... It's like saying you run the risk of the church growing from doing missionary work.

The implied suggestion is that we ought to consider refraining from having relations with our spouses in order to limit the risk of too many pregnancies. Clearly, so the world would think. But I cannot help but think that we ought not be thinking this way, generally.

I concede that perhaps those with the strongest faith may not feel nervous about kids and that's a good thing.  Maybe there is no element of risk-seeking in their drive.  I'm thinking about it.

Even in the church we are losing ground, delaying marriage and suppressing children.

Edited April 5, 2023 by popatr

[LDSGator]

27 minutes ago, popatr said:

Even in the church we are losing ground, delaying marriage and suppressing children.

One of the biggest social changes in history is the shrinking of families. It’s very clear that the moment women had the option to have fewer babies, even religious ones decided to do so. 

[Vort]

On 4/5/2023 at 7:39 AM, LDSGator said:

One of the biggest social changes in history is the shrinking of families. It’s very clear that the moment women had the option to have fewer babies, even religious ones decided to do so. 

Perhaps as a group, but with countless individual exceptions. I believe it would be more correctly characterized not as "deciding to have fewer children" but instead as "following prevailing societal norms". As the societal norm for number of children per woman or marriage fell, that trend affected the Saints. I suspect it's not as much a conscious choice to limit children as a subconscious, perhaps almost unconscious, striving to maintain that societal norm.

This impulse explains a great many things, such as people's deep reluctance to homeschool, even after issues of finance and dedication are taken care of. People say, "Well, it's just such a big thing", but that's tissue-thin and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Surely having children in the first place is a vastly bigger and more life-changing deal than homeschooling, but people still have children. It is exactly the existence of the societal norm that makes people nervous about deviating from it.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Vort

[LDSGator]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

believe it would be more correctly characterized not as "deciding to have fewer children" but instead as "following prevailing societal norms

Whatever you want to characterize it or call it, the bottom line is that people are having fewer children, and having them much later in life.
 

Yes, there are exceptions. There were also exceptions in the past when families had 4-10 kids-I’m sure some families stopped at two or three back then too. 
 

But for the first time in 200,000 years, women have a choice about how many kids they want and the majority seem to be choosing to have fewer than before. 

Edited April 5, 2023 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

But for the first time in 200,000 

Just to correct myself, the pill and other BC methods have been around for several generations, so I was wrong here.

[Vort]

58 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Just to correct myself, the pill and other BC methods have been around for several generations, so I was wrong here.

Your point is still well-taken. The rise of oral contraception has been a curse on humankind, an opinion I arrived at only within the last ten or twenty years, at most. Like everyone else, I have been brainwashed by our society, and I suffer from the disease of presentism at about the same rate as everyone else. (The difference is that I recognize it, while most seem not to see it at all.)

Strange how things look different from another perspective. For a score or more generations, we have believed women to be the fairer sex, not merely in appearance but somehow in spiritual fortitude. Poems have been written about the moral superiority of the "weaker" sex. Our prophet and current Church president has openly opined that women are simply more spiritual by nature than men. Yet now we see that, when sex and pregnancy are dissociated and women are given the opportunity to whore themselves (their term, btw) without consequence of pregnancy, or at least with the sure ability to terminate the unborn child's life so as to avoid parental consequences, the average woman is pretty much as promiscuous as a man, if not moreso. It's a fascinating (if revolting) social experiment playing out before our eyes. I am astounded at young collegiate women eagerly jumping at their great opportunity to destroy their own spiritual acumen by seizing their "whore phase" (pronounced "hoe faze") and proudly jumping their "body count" (i.e. how many different men they have had sex with) into the dozens or hundreds.

Satan laughs and his angels rejoice. God save my sons from such dregs of this filthy and promiscuous generation, the corrupt product of evil times diligently cultivated by their foolish, amoral parents.

The vast majority of people, male and female alike, are swept along with the tide of society. I don't except myself from this rule, though I hope I put up more than a feeble struggle to swim against the current. Such are our times. And we should rejoice in our lives and opportunities and teach our children to do so. In this, I think we ought not to emulate the attitude of Nephi's brother Jacob in proclaiming ourselves lonesome and solemn, mourning out our days.

Edited April 5, 2023 by Vort

[LDSGator]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

 

Strange how things look different from another perspective. For a score or more generations, we have believed women to be the fairer sex, not merely in appearance but somehow in spiritual fortitude. Poems have been written about the moral superiority of the "weaker" sex. Our prophet and current Church president has openly opined that women are simply more spiritual by nature than men. 

Well, if it makes you feel better I remember many, many  lectures growing up about how men are filth and women are more virtuous and noble. Then, the same church wondered why men left the pews in record numbers or were confused why catholic youth didn’t want to join the priesthood. 

Think hard guys. Think real hard. 

Edited April 5, 2023 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

When I heard that growing up Catholic I thought it was so downright stupid that it was actually funny. Telling young men how awful they are then, with a complete straight face, talking about the joy of holy orders and how only men can be priests.
 

The irony was not lost on us. 

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by LDSGator

[popatr]

34 minutes ago, Vort said:

Your point is still well-taken. The rise of oral contraception has been a curse on humankind, an opinion I arrived at only within the last ten or twenty years, at most. Like everyone else, I have been brainwashed by our society, and I suffer from the disease of presentism at about the same rate as everyone else. (The difference is that I recognize it, while most seem not to see it at all.)

Strange how things look different from another perspective. For a score or more generations, we have believed women to be the fairer sex, not merely in appearance but somehow in spiritual fortitude. Poems have been written about the moral superiority of the "weaker" sex. Our prophet and current Church president has openly opined that women are simply more spiritual by nature than men. Yet now we see that, when sex and pregnancy are dissociated and women are given the opportunity to whore themselves (their term, btw) without consequence of pregnancy, or at least with the sure ability to terminate the unborn child's life so as to avoid parental consequences, the average woman is pretty much as promiscuous as a man, if not moreso. It's a fascinating (if revolting) social experiment playing out before our eyes. I am astounded at young collegiate women eagerly jumping at their great opportunity to destroy their own spiritual acumen by seizing their "whore phase" (pronounced "hoe faze") and proudly jumping their "body count" (i.e. how many different men they have had sex with) into the dozens or hundreds.

Satan laughs and his angels rejoice. God save my sons from such dregs of this filthy and promiscuous generation, the corrupt product of evil times diligently cultivated by their foolish, amoral parents.

The vast majority of people, male and female alike, are swept along with the tide of society. I don't except myself from this rule, though I hope I put up more than a feeble struggle to swim against the current. Such are our times. And we should rejoice in our lives and opportunities and teach our children to do so. In this, I think we ought not to emulate the attitude of Nephi's brother Joseph in proclaiming ourselves lonesome and solemn, mourning out our days.

Well we are quite far afield from the OP now, but

I'm afraid women have passed men in wickedness.

Men as a group are slightly less sure it's ok to kill babies. https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx

The scriptures hint that this happens sometimes.  "Can a woman forget her child that she not have compassion on the fruit of her womb?  yea, she may"

Edited April 5, 2023 by popatr

[The Folk Prophet]

33 minutes ago, popatr said:

I'm afraid women have passed men in wickedness.

Not even close.

[Guest Godless]

6 hours ago, popatr said:

Even in the church we are losing ground, delaying marriage and suppressing children.

5 hours ago, LDSGator said:

One of the biggest social changes in history is the shrinking of families. It’s very clear that the moment women had the option to have fewer babies, even religious ones decided to do so. 

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Perhaps as a group, but with countless individual exceptions. I believe it would be more correctly characterized not as "deciding to have fewer children" but instead as "following prevailing societal norms". As the societal norm for number of children per woman or marriage fell, that trend affected the Saints. I suspect it's not as much a conscious choice to limit children as a subconscious, perhaps almost unconscious, striving to maintain that societal norm.

There's an important element missing from this equation: economics. My parents were able to raise 5 kids and buy a house in the 90s on a $50k/yr Air Force salary and my mom's periodic part-time jobs. That financial dynamic simply doesn't exist anymore. 

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, Godless said:

There's an important element missing from this equation: economics. My parents were able to raise 5 kids and buy a house in the 90s on a $50k/yr Air Force salary and my mom's periodic part-time jobs. That financial dynamic simply doesn't exist anymore. 

I have two siblings with 10 kids each. 

[LDSGator]

36 minutes ago, Godless said:

There's an important element missing from this equation: economics. My parents were able to raise 5 kids and buy a house in the 90s on a $50k/yr Air Force salary and my mom's periodic part-time jobs. That financial dynamic simply doesn't exist anymore. 

I agree that’s part of it. But the bigger part is the invention of quick and easy contraception. I’m not talking about their morality-just that they exist and often used.  Now women have a very easy way to not get pregnant-just hop on the pill. 

[LDSGator]

33 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I have two siblings with 10 kids each. 

One of grandmothers had 12, and the other had five. Even back in the 50’s in Irish Catholic, pre Vatican II circles that was seen as sort of big. Obviously talking about the one who had 12.  
 

Interestingly enough, my other grandmother told my wife recently that of the pill was invented in the 50’s, her family size would have been much smaller. 

Edited April 5, 2023 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

33 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I have two siblings with 10 kids each. 

Are they (your siblings) roughly Gen X? I know a family my age that has 6. 

Edited April 5, 2023 by LDSGator

[mikbone]

There is a family in my ward that has 11 children.

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Are they (your siblings) roughly Gen X?

My younger bro with 10 is 44. I guess that's Gen X. My older sister (53) is definitely Gen X.

14 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

One of grandmothers had 12, and the other had five. Even back in the 50’s in Irish Catholic, pre Vatican II circles that was seen as sort of big. Obviously talking about the one who had 12.  
 

Interestingly enough, my other grandmother told my wife recently that of the pill was invented in the 50’s, her family size would have been much smaller. 

The reason my two siblings have so many kids is for one reason and one reason alone. They wanted to.

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The reason my two siblings have so many kids is for one reason and one reason alone. They wanted to.

Great. Very happy for them. 

 

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

My younger bro with 10 is 44. I guess that's Gen X. My older sister (53) is definitely Gen X.

18 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Near my age. Too young for Gen X and too old for millennials. 

[popatr]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

There's an important element missing from this equation: economics. My parents were able to raise 5 kids and buy a house in the 90s on a $50k/yr Air Force salary and my mom's periodic part-time jobs. That financial dynamic simply doesn't exist anymore. 

I think it's true that economics are more hostile towards large families with a stay at home mom, than it used to be.

But why?

I think I know one of the most important reasons: because women started leaving homes and entering the workspace.  It's hard to excuse the cause the of the problem because the problem causes the cause; if you know what I mean.

Edited April 5, 2023 by popatr

[LDSGator]

12 minutes ago, popatr said:

But why

I think it’s more simple than that. Many, many women, for their own reasons, just don’t want to have large families. So now that many have the choice, they take it.
 

If someone else wants to have a large family, great. To each their own. 

Edited April 5, 2023 by LDSGator

[popatr]

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I think it’s more simple than that. Many, many women, for their own reasons, just don’t want to be baby factories. So now that many have the choice, they take it.
 

If someone else wants to have a large family, great. To each their own. 

That's exactly the same thing I said if you read between the lines