Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by gkearney »

Darren;

Which Old testament injections are we to follow and which ones no longer are applicable to us. Why should this rule from Deuteronomy 22:5 be given any more consideration than say any of these:

Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Leviticus 19:19

Ye shall not round the corners of your heads. Leviticus 19:27

All that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus 9:10

Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother’s milk. Exodus 23:19

(and a whole host of other Kosher dietary laws)

When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything also on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean, and everything on which she sits shall be unclean. Leviticus 15: 19-20.

When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Deuteronomy 25:11-12

You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed. Leviticus 20:15 NLT
No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. Deuteronomy 23:1 NRSV

Whosoever … hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken … He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries. Leviticus 21:17-23 KJV

You would seem to be cherry picking the scriptures here demanding obedience to one scriptural instruction while ignoring others that perhaps do not suit your agenda.

User avatar
Darren
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2720
Location: Leading the lost tribes of Israel to Zion
Contact:

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by Darren »

Seems that the culture or tradition "agenda" is in the hands of the women of the Church. For the men, we just get to watch. And if the sister missionaries are to be an example to the Culture, we are soon to see much more pants wearing.

Modest-fashion Sites Unite Jews, Muslims and Mormons

American-born ModLi founder and CEO Nava Brief-Fried attributed the sudden interest that overwhelmed the site to an article about it that appeared that February day in the Deseret News, a Salt Lake City-based publication owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as Mormons. According to church tradition, women are supposed to wear skirts and dresses, rather than pants.

The article, under the headline “Jewish woman launches modest online marketplace for women around the world,” was shared more than 17,000 times on social media by Deseret News readers.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/cult ... m-1.728859

Testimony from Susan

Women are to dress in modest apparel. Modest means not extreme or bold, and not morally loose. Those can apply to pants, yes; but when I have on a pair of pants, I don't feel that my body is covered. Pants are form-fitting, thus exposing my body. That's just how I feel. The illustration that Cathy Corle uses is two pictures of the same woman. The first one has her in a nice dress. She asked a group of ladies what they noticed about this woman, and they answered her face. Then she showed them the picture of the same woman in a pair of jeans and asked what they noticed. They said their eyes were immediately drawn to the crotch area! That drove home to me that clothes can emphasize the body or the face; I'd rather have folks, especially men, notice my face and not my body. Again, this is my feeling.

http://www.momof9splace.com/susantestimony.html

Image
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yLR7MAAoyS4/ ... 6-2016.jpg
“The dress of a woman has a powerful impact upon the minds and passions of men. If it is too low or too high or too tight, it may prompt improper thoughts, even in the mind of a young man who is striving to be pure.”- Elder Tad R. Callister
God Bless,
Darren

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by Ezra »

Sunain wrote:
Darren wrote:Young Men Should Marry Before Their 23rd Birthday
Young Women Should Marry Before Their 21st Birthday

Monday, April 11, 2016 By Douglas Wilson
Sirocco wrote:Jeez I'm 27 and nowhere near married lol
'Bested' you there, I'm 34 and single. I can't imagine myself getting married in my early 20's. It's even harder now for people in their 20's to get married.
The financial hardships are to great these days. Couple that with very few to little worthy and eligible people to marry compounds the issue we see these days of lower marriage rates and people getting married at later ages.

Yes, the apostles have said to have faith but the Lord has said to wise. The banks are wolves ready to prey on the young and foolish. Families cost enormous amounts of money, more so than ever before in history.
Matthew 10:16 - Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents,
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/10.16?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There is an upcoming debt crisis on the horizon. President Hinckley warned about it almost 2 decades ago. It will be worse than when the banks foreclosed on mortgages because they will be scraping for every last penny this time.
...I am troubled by the huge consumer installment debt which hangs over the people of the nation, including our own people.
To the Boys and to the Men - Gordon B. Hinckley - President of the Church
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm deeply disappointed by the policies and culture of the church that places single adults as 'not truly' adults because they aren't married. It is a despicable, hurtful and unkind mentality that has zero bearing on an individuals mental or physical capacity as an adult member of society and as a member of the church. Only in the church does this attitude exist to create a second class member. Unlike the LGBT members who are also facing a similar issue these days, single members of the church aren't breaking any commandments by not getting married when the church thinks they should get married. God has said to multiply and replenish the earth but there are so many more conditions required to honestly and sincerely fulfill that eternal commitment.
D&C 9:8 - But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... 8?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
For people like me, study and research is a time consuming process because I want to understand a topic or idea to the fullest before acting. Being pressured into something too quickly or not being fully prepared is a recipe for disaster, hence the astronomical divorce rates. Marriage should not be subjected to being a statistic in a church report. Far too often, especially in missionary work, an emphasis on higher statistics is put in place. People's eternal well being is not a statistic to be trifled with.

I have yet to see any church or news article actually ask singles if they want to be married. I'm guessing that that statistic would be in the high 90% percentile. Why are single adults foregoing marriage till almost 30's now? It's because it takes that amount of time now to be established enough to be a family. The requirements to establish a family have significantly changed this century. Education (college or university), well paying job, suitable accommodation for a family, ect. All of which requires a lot of money which also takes time to get enough capital to support a family. The way the apostles speak these days makes it seem like we should all be living in poverty but so long as were married, everything is fine.

If the church is so worried about statistics, how about they survey young married members and see how much debt, student debt, what their living conditions are, if they have food storage, if they have an emergency fund, if their children are participating in extra curricular activities, if they are on some kind of welfare support, how much money they think they need in their area of the world they would need to support a family, are they living above or below the poverty line, ect.

People should marry when they are ready and have found a worth companion not in someone's or the church's expected timeline. If that time is in their 30's, so be it. The Lord will bless us all but he expects us to think and act rationally for our circumstances. Circumstances have changed in this world and are continuing to do so.
Nearly a third of millennials live with their parents, slightly more than the share of their age group who live with a spouse or partner. For this age group, the researchers say, this is the first time that living at home has overtaken living with a spouse since the U.S. Census began keeping track in 1880.

As recently as 2000, nearly 43 percent of young adults, ages 18 to 34, were married or living with a partner. By 2014, that proportion was just 31.6 percent.

In 2000, only 23 percent of young adults were living with parents. In 2014, the figure reached 32.1 percent.

Clearly we have a major problem.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/arch ... -the-1950s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2008 - Financial Crisis has forced people to do what they have to live. No one want's to live with their parents at those ages but it's become one of the only financially responsible ways to provide for themselves.
Could it be possible that previous generations of Americans actually knew what they were doing?
No, they are the reason we are in this situation now with the debt. They were irresponsible and are trying to shift the blame onto millennials.
Could it be possible that it would be a good thing to teach our young people to value marriage and family?
Ask any member of the church if they value marriage and a family. 99.9% of them will say family and marriage are their highest priority because of its of eternal consequences.
Could it be possible that we are actually designed to get married and have children at a relatively younger age?
No. It maybe easier at a younger age but science is also helping with fertility issues. Look no further than Abraham and Sarah.
Genesis 21:5 - And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/21.5?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If you care so much about the things of the world you are correct it does take some time.

If your living within your means. Then no it does not.

My wife and I lived in a yurt (glorified tent) for the first 4 years of being married while we saved.

Payed cash for house on 20 acres. Fixed it up and sold it 2 years later and bought 125 acre lake front farm in cash.

Been here a few year now. The entire process took 6 years though. I could have done the same thing right out of high school. And at 24 could have been debt free owner of a farm close to being retired. I'm 37. And close to being retired.

What stopped me from doing this earlier in life. I cared too much for the things of the world.
I wanted cool trucks and toys. I wanted nice things. I wanted to travel and play.
I wish I would have started to be unworldly sooner. I would be retired.

It's not hard to be debt free. It makes life really easy. My currently yearly exspences are around 5k We try to grow all our own food. Have cows for milk and meat. Chickens for eggs. Big garden. We have 3 kids.

5k going out and more coming in. It's easy to retire early.

Most people have too worldly of desires to ever be debt free.

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by Sirocco »

I can't have farm animals in an apartment lol

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by Ezra »

Sirocco wrote:I can't have farm animals in an apartment lol
So your about to be evicted? You animal.

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by Sirocco »

Ezra wrote:
Sirocco wrote:I can't have farm animals in an apartment lol
So your about to be evicted? You animal.
I just put hats on everything, tell everyone it's Newfies :))

User avatar
Darren
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2720
Location: Leading the lost tribes of Israel to Zion
Contact:

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by Darren »

I’ve Been Pantsed
Image

You have heard about us having to wear pants?

It´s to protect us from diseases spread by mosquitoes but the elders are getting sick just as much as sisters and they wear pants. They´re huge and I feel frumpy in them, but it´s an act of faith in following the prophet.

And yes, I still don´t like pants shopping. I had to buy dress pants two sizes too big. I´m doing it to be obedient to the prophets who have practically mandated it but it´s a struggle.

The heat is one thing, but the presentation as well. I´m living history, folks. The first sister missionaries in pants!
https://hermanamorse.wordpress.com/

millerlangford
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 5

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by millerlangford »

Instead of young women preparing for marriage they are preparing for missions and are not pReparing to be a wife and mother! I had a lot of sister missionaries over at my house for dinner. I never met one who knew how to be a housewife! In fact they all acted like it was the most incredible amazing thing that I made my own bread and stayed home with my four kids and kept myhouse clean! I don't see anything wrong the idea that a woman has her place and a man has his! So these sisters get off their missions and have four or seven kids are they training them up in the fear of the Lord? Feeding them healthy nutritious meals and keeping a clean happy home? Because it is a rare woman who is a good housewife anymore!! That's old fashioned.. we have women's rights now! So therefore women are out getting jobs putting their kids in daycare and feeding them microwave dinners when they get home which is causing all sorts of health problems in their families! Back to the point though. I agree with the fact that it was not a revelation from the Lord for sisters to go on missions! If it is then why didn't it start out "thus sayeth the Lord" like all revelations do!

millerlangford
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 5

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by millerlangford »

Another rthought is that no job mission or anything is more fulfilling than being a good homemaker and housewife! Any woman can have children and let the television and dayycare raise them and throwing junk in the microwave for dinner! I am talking about cooking healthy meals from scratch and training up your children so that you actually enjoy them!! Sadly though it is a lost art!!

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by Sirocco »

millerlangford wrote:Another rthought is that no job mission or anything is more fulfilling than being a good homemaker and housewife! Any woman can have children and let the television and dayycare raise them and throwing junk in the microwave for dinner! I am talking about cooking healthy meals from scratch and training up your children so that you actually enjoy them!! Sadly though it is a lost art!!
Most of the women I know have no clue how to cook, I couldn't not know how to cook.
Celebrity chef's taught this guy how to cook :))

User avatar
Darren
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2720
Location: Leading the lost tribes of Israel to Zion
Contact:

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by Darren »

millerlangford wrote:Another rthought is that no job mission or anything is more fulfilling than being a good homemaker and housewife! Any woman can have children and let the television and dayycare raise them and throwing junk in the microwave for dinner! I am talking about cooking healthy meals from scratch and training up your children so that you actually enjoy them!! Sadly though it is a lost art!!
My wife is now 48 with our youngest child now going into collage. Looking back we had a good experience, with my wife being a stay at home mom all of those years, and managing even recently with as little as $30k or so a year of household income. We home schooled our kids, made or fixed everything from scratch, firewood to heat the house. No lost arts here.

And then to see the Millennial Generation opting for Extended Adolescence rather than the lifestyle of independence.

I think that this is where the serge of Sisters opting to serve missions is coming from, rather than connecting to their heritage of womanhood at those early ages and towards a role of being newly weds.

There are the blessing of Missionary Work traditionally the duty of the Priesthood
Then there are the blessings of Womanhood
Something to think about, granted this is from a NON/Anti Mormon perspective, but what does it say about the duty and responsibility of Womanhood compared to the False Culture of Babylon that has been seeping into the Church.

God Bless,
Darren

User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by gkearney »

Darren, please hear me out. You seem to want to place all the responsibility here on the young women. For young women to marry there has to be young men willing to marry them. You constantly make it sound as if these girls are knocking back bevy of marriage prospects to serve missions. Something that is simply not the case. The young men have a responsibility here at least as great, if not greater than the young women do.

User avatar
Darren
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2720
Location: Leading the lost tribes of Israel to Zion
Contact:

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by Darren »

gkearney wrote:Darren, please hear me out. You seem to want to place all the responsibility here on the young women. For young women to marry there has to be young men willing to marry them. You constantly make it sound as if these girls are knocking back bevy of marriage prospects to serve missions. Something that is simply not the case. The young men have a responsibility here at least as great, if not greater than the young women do.
I blame the whole "Culture," not just any one demographic. The Mormon Culture, following behind the American Culture, following behind the Culture of Babylon is where blame falls.

I hold the leaders of our Church blameless, just as President Benson put the Church under condemnation for not becoming a Book of Mormon Culture, I hold blame and see condemnation coming upon a "Culture" that apparently has no clue how to save the constitution of the people, for themselves, their families and communities.

There is a Millenniums old culture that some of us hold to, the same culture that Martin Luther called "The Christian State." Which is the same culture restored by Joseph Smith, Jr., but hardly lived.

If we would reintroduce the Christian State of Joseph Smith and of the that constitution culture before him, then the Mormon Culture would perhaps again be the Culture of Zion.

We have failed our youth in great numbers and the condition of their lives are a symptom of the problem. Any doubt?

God Bless,
Darren

User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by gkearney »

Darren;

YOur words however are always phased to place to onus on the young women, generally. Even the title of this thread does this. The sister are "forgoing marriage" as if the young men were lined up at the Temple doors waiting for brides that never show up.

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by Sirocco »

gkearney wrote:Darren;

YOur words however are always phased to place to onus on the young women, generally. Even the title of this thread does this. The sister are "forgoing marriage" as if the young men were lined up at the Temple doors waiting for brides that never show up.
A week or so ago, and I should dig it up, I posted an article on some thread of which I remember not this moment, that women quite outnumbered men in the LDS church.
One comment said their YSA (that's the name for it right) gathering thing had 5 men to 30 or so women.
Cut out the ones who are no good, more interested in video games, who's jobs are underwhelming, what do they have left?

Speaking as a millennial and more of a "worldly" person, people my age (I'm 27) don't seem to get married, I mean I don't know anyone who's ever gotten married, besides a few cousins I barely know and they're much more successful then me.
I think only successful people get married otherwise it is an extreme liability.
I worked hard to get what I have, and I have a long way to go until I get to where I want to be but I am on a good track.
I couldn't risk it all getting married, I'd loose everything.
It's always walking on egg shells with women my age, got to be nice, but not too nice, got to do this, know when to be a gentlemen but know when they want feminism and all that.
Not worth it. None of it is worth it.
I have no use to them, been told my whole life women don't need me, I had no role, (and indeed all men) and then they wonder why men stopped caring?
At this point I am the last choice to women who have had rocky pasts, lousy boyfriends and slept with all together too many people, and while I don't want to seem like a jerk, I don't want to be someone's last resort.
I like to think I have a tad more to offer then that.
Dating and relationships have stopped being at all positive, my "juvenile" hobbies won't ruin me or take my money.
I think, in terms of a lot of millennials, companionship is dead.
They don't know how to love anyone but themselves and have nothing to offer anyone.

User avatar
russdm
captain of 50
Posts: 72
Location: Chilling with Darth Vader

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by russdm »

Self Erased
Last edited by russdm on October 30th, 2016, 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Darren
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2720
Location: Leading the lost tribes of Israel to Zion
Contact:

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by Darren »

Zika Virus update:

Sister Bell and I had a conversation with President and Sister Poncio after the Baptism about the Zika Virus. We have had a large number of missionaries get a virus that lasts about 7 days. It includes a low grade fever, muscle and joint pain and a rash. Sister Bell sent a note to Elder Lynn, our Area Doctor in Guatemala, asking him about this virus. He wrote back that these symptoms are very typical of the Zika Virus. Sister Bell read up on Zika and found that although the researchers don’t know everything about the virus, they have found the Zika virus in men for up to 6 months after getting the virus. With the concern about birth defects in new borns, we wanted President and Sister Poncio to know about this and talk to the missionaries who will be leaving next week. Some have had it. He will encourage them all have complete physicals when they get home, testing for Zika, among other things.

http://sandmbell.blogspot.com/2016/08/m ... l-day.html

God Bless,
Darren

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by TrueIntent »

Sirocco wrote:
gkearney wrote:Darren;

YOur words however are always phased to place to onus on the young women, generally. Even the title of this thread does this. The sister are "forgoing marriage" as if the young men were lined up at the Temple doors waiting for brides that never show up.
A week or so ago, and I should dig it up, I posted an article on some thread of which I remember not this moment, that women quite outnumbered men in the LDS church.
One comment said their YSA (that's the name for it right) gathering thing had 5 men to 30 or so women.
Cut out the ones who are no good, more interested in video games, who's jobs are underwhelming, what do they have left?
Here is the article.....it looks to me like we have huge numbers of LDS single women compared to men!

http://utahvalley360.com/2015/08/28/uta ... e-numbers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mormon dilemma

A study by Trinity College’s American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) between 1990 and 2008 found there are 150 Mormon women to every 100 Mormon men.
The bad news for women is that gap continues to widen. Birger wrote:

“The Utah LDS Church was in fact 52 percent female as recently as 1990. Since 1990, however, the Mormon gender gap in Utah has widened dramatically — from a gender ratio of 52:48 female to male in 1990 to 60:40 female to male in 2008, according to a study coauthored by ARIS researchers Rick Phillips, Ryan Cragun and Barry Kosmin. In other words, the LDS Church in Utah now has three women for every two men.”

With a supposed 50 percent oversupply of women, ARIS dug deeper, accrediting a higher rate of male apostasy for the demographic difference.

Brian Willoughby, who studies young and emerging adult dating relationships and marriage, is an assistant professor for the School of Family Life at LDS-owned Brigham Young University. He says the higher rate of apostasy from the Church is something he’s observed in his studies, but there are even more unique cultural changes affecting the singles scene.

User avatar
Darren
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2720
Location: Leading the lost tribes of Israel to Zion
Contact:

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by Darren »

Image

I wonder how many more young men would stay active in the church and how many young men would develop heterosexual tendencies over homosexual tendencies if the young women were encouraged to focus on a personal mission of taking one of those young men as their mission in life instead of focusing on all of the things the young women can do besides marriage and family life and then expect the young men to be waiting to call on them from some higher plateau than themselves, at a point on the young women's own schedule.

God Bless,
Darren

diligentdave
captain of 10
Posts: 14

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by diligentdave »

Darren,

Although apparently I registered on ldsfreedom a long time ago (not recalling having done that in the past few years), still, I just barely tumbled upon your thread on this subject (via searching the internet on a related topic).

Let me begin by saying that I am, and have always been, a member of the Church who has tried to live the gospel as it was taught to me.

Now, I DO "...believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and (I) believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

(Articles of Faith 1:9)

So, I am not (myself) against 'change' per se; even as revealed from time to time by (LDS) Church authorities.

I have a "take" on why the Church may have changed it's policies regarding the age of when (young) missionaries can serve. It comes via my in depth study, which began some years ago, as to why the entire world is, and has been in (for at least close to a decade) in an economic depression.

Now, I know, many will say that it was/is a 'mere' economic recession. And, that we got out of it (for some years). However, my hard look at evidence, both from when it all began to now, lead me to believe it (the economic depression) we began in (apparent circa 2006-2009) both, has never fully, really left us (worldwide; and even in the U.S.); and, will get far deeper (going downward) than now is apparent. (Many people sense this. It is as if they are waiting for the [second} shoe to drop—sensing that the consequences of the 2nd shoe drop will reveal that our situation is far worse than is currently otherwise apparent).

And, I believe that the two main underlying causes for the economic depression we have been in (for around a decade); [and that I believe will again, reveal itself to be/become far, far, far worse than we now see or sense], are these—

1) Sub-replacement birth rates; and—

2) Socialism

It is helpful for a serious student of this/these related subjects to realized that these two underlying causes, combined with other factors, are very much intertwined.

Recently (within the past 1-1/2 years), I came to realize that the Lord had one of his prophets foretell socialism would be a factor in our time.

First of all, though, let me tell you how I came to realize this. I was reading, again, writings of one (Claude) Frederic Bastiat, a Frenchman who was a contemporary (but only in France) of Joseph Smith. Even though I was made aware of Frederic Bastiat back in the 1960's, via one of his writings called THE LAW, which was distributed by The John Birch Society (yes, that old, ultra right wing organization), back then. My father got a copy of it, and I read it back then; then again, some time early in adulthood. And, I have revisited that work (THE LAW) from time to time since (I am now in my 60's).

Anyway, around 1-1/2 years ago, I had just re-perused Bastiat again, when, a couple of days later, I was re-reading 2 Nephi 13:5, where the first part says—

And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbor... —2 Nephi 13:5

While Bastiat preferes using the phrase "legal plunder", he also uses the synonymous word "oppression" a few times when speaking of what socialism is, and does.

After all, these verses, taken from Isaiah 3:5, are addressing political conditions, as well as cultural ones too (just before and just after).

We know that Isaiah was speaking of "our day", because Nephi included them in his record; and Mormon did too (knowing we would become the ultimate audience of these scriptures)—both of them having been shown our time—

Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.
—Mormon 8:35

(If someone has a 'better fit' for this expression given at the first part of verse 5 in both 2 Nephi 13 and Isaiah 3, I'd like to see it! - I have a close friend who is well versed in the scriptures, but who, while at variance with this interpretation — linking this/these verse/s to SOCIALISM — but only because he believes that CAPITALISM oppresses us more — not seeing that 'CAPITALISM' as he is referring to it is the same as the old 'MERCANTILISM' that Adam Smith spoke of, and against, in THE WEALTH OF NATIONS [1776] tome he wrote— which is nothing less than SOCIALISM used for CAPITALISTS/MONOPOLISTS and OLIGARCHISTS. I usually see SOCIALISM more in Social Security, MediCare and MedicAid in the U.S. - but recent legislation passed by the Utah legislature, whereby the likes of Facebook were enticed to put a facility here—because they were given major tax breaks by them—thus, a privilege allowed for a large entity is typically denied for little companies—including my own)!

Also, since Bernie Madoff was arrested almost eight years ago (in December 2008), and shortly thereafter, sent to prison for a scheme/scam that bilked investors out of $18 billion, the "last investors" being screwed—as is typical in pyramid and Ponzi schemes, I came to realize that SOCIALISM, especially as practiced in Social Security, MediCare and MedicAid is only different in two respects from Madoff's scam—

1) the government sponsors those SOCIALISM programs, and

2) the government can and does force 'contributions' paid, where Madoff's scam could only elicit voluntary 'contributions'.

Pyramid and Ponzi schemes/scams have long been made illegal, because they defraud people. But, because government in general decides what is 'legal' and what is 'illegal' (sometimes basing this on morality; and other times basing it on what politicians consider is expedient for them and their designs, their own interests), and this includes the SPECIAL INTEREST/S of their supporting constituency/ies, government can (and has and does) legislate that what is illegal for 'others' (private entities, like that of Bernie Madoff) to be legal for them to do (ALL FORMS of socialism, including, in the U.S., Social Security, MediCare, MedicAid, and all other forms of favoring 'special interests' of all types, including commercial entities wanting 'favors', seniors, veterans, different trades, etc).

Now, back to sub-replacement birth rates—

When the U.S. census was taken in 1800, the rate at which women were giving birth to children then was close to 9 children per woman per lifetime. In modern terms, this is called the Total Fertility Rate, or TFR. Gradually, over the 19th century (1800's), the TFR drifted downward. Around 1910, the TFR in the U.S. began to plummet downward. And, whatever was or were the initial underlying cause/s and/or reason/s, a number of factors 'helped' to contrbute to and even increase this downward dwindling of birth rates—and hence, births.

World War I was a big contributor, with all the mostly young men who died in the war.

In 1918, an even bigger factor than just the war itself, laid waste to things. The 'Spanish Flu' Pandemic (meaning, it pretty much penetrated much of the entire world, by at least one estimate, killed over 75 million people worldwide! And most of its victims were in their prime child bearing years (from 16 to 40 years old).

I believe that because so many people, especially 'young people', rebelled against the man-made law of Prohibition, they also rebelled against the God-given principle of chastity—leading to fewer marriages, and hence, also, to fewer babies being born.

The 'Roaring Twenties' boomed in business (like when the Nephites and Lamanites did "traffic much traffic", though they, too, were well on their way downward morally), with all the new technology bringing automobiles and electric appliances, consumer debt increased, leading likely, I suppose, to ever more women working outside the home to help pay off this consumer debt.

In 1924, a major anti-immigration law went into effect in the U.S. (just as now, immigrants were/are blamed for a nation's economic problems, including being accused of 'stealing jobs' from 'native Americans' — NOT the 'original native Americans', to be sure)!

By 1926, birth rates had declined enough so that demand for housing began to decline in the U.S. in this year.

Of course, as is often the case, the mad pursuit of money, leading to financial 'bubbles', like those on Wall Street (in the stock markets), among other price bubbles, led to an economic or financial crash.

In early 1929, demand for housing in the U.S. plummeted. On October 29, BLACK TUESDAY, the stock market crashed. Like Newton's (or God's) gravity, everything that went up, sooner or later, had to come down. That 'gravity' would continue a decline on Wall Street, such that from the 'highs' the U.S. stock market reached in 1929, shrunk so much that by 1933, stock values were worth a mere 1/10th of what they had been four years before (1929)! And, BTW, the U.S. stock market's values did not rise to the 1929 highs it had reached, AGAIN, until 1954, the year after I was born (a full quarter of a century)!

Of course, once one is in an economic depression, one generally tries to delay and prevent having children. So, what I believe led to a great extent, the Great Depression, declining birth rates, leading to declining market financial demand—gets pushed down even further after things have crashed!

After World War II, there was what became called, the "Baby Boom". From 1946 to 1964, birth rates returned, somewhat, to something closer to what they had been in the last 'normal' time (1900 - 1910). Still, the 'baby boom' years did not see a birth rate as HIGH as it was from 1900 - 1910. (Although, I've never heard of 1900-1910 being called a 'baby boom' — and that is because the birth rates then were a bit lower than they had been BEFORE)!

The 'baby boom' (of 1946 to 1964) is so, NOT because the birth rate got to be so high. But rather, because both before and after, birth rates got to be so low!

I compare the 'baby boom' years to a long skinny pig inside a much longer, and much skinnier python. Where the long skinny pig is looks 'fat', not because it necessarily is. But because on either side of where it appears to be 'fat', it is much, much skinnier!

Hence, it is a so-called 'baby boom'. So called, because it is like a number of books looking high—not forcibly because they are, but because on either side of the books, the 'book ends' are much LOWER!

As Nicholas Eberstadt (PhD Harvard) put it in the documentary DEMOGRAPHIC WINTER
in 2006), "The reason the world has experienced a population explosion over the past
century, is not because human beings suddenly started breeding like rabbits, it’s because
they finally stopped dying like flies. What's really driven up human numbers has been a
health explosion.

Just 2 years ago, I discovered that the United States' last year of having a 'surplus birth rate' was in 1970. I was a sophomore in high school, back then. Ever since then, the U.S. (and much of the world), has been in a MAJOR Birth Dearth!

Yes, population numbers seem still to climb. However, TODAY, throughout the whole world, FAR FEWER BABIES ARE BORN than were born, say, 30, 40, even in many cases, 50 years ago!

EVEN AMONG (SUPPOSEDLY) FECUND MORMONS, it is apparent from the statistics that the Church puts out (in every April General Conference for the previous calendar year), that LATTER-DAY SAINTS have (likely) been having children at a SUB-REPLACEMENT BIRTH RATE for the PAST QUARTER OF A CENTURY (25 YEARS)!!!

Hence, in my opinion, with such low (and declining) birth rate numbers for SO LONG, the Church perhaps had little choice (since it has 'long' and 'loudly' has been 'largely' mute on the '*FIRST COMMANDMENT'— since the years that President Kimball and President Benson were Church Presidents) on the issue of 'multiplying and replenishing', what else could pragmatic leaders do, but try to 'harvest' more missions from a larger pool.

Having long been told by President Hinckley (him not distinguishing between genders) for members to "...get as much education as you can...", Federal Student Loans were maxed until they became mortgages, And with feminism foisted upon all, and girls growing up were told by (mostly) female school teachers to choose a profession (rather than a 'non-paying occupation', such as a wife, including as a mother and 'housewife'), then the rising generation acceded to their admonitions. And, with girls doing so well in primary (elementary) and secondary schools; and anti-maile, anti-majority (read 'white') measures moved, the majority of college and university students became 'co-eds'!

At least one observer of this change in situation has given his evidence for why this has contributed so much to casual sex and unmarried co-habitation among college students, because of the higher proportion of female students to male ones. This, he contends, having pushed their 'supply' above that of males, has created a situation in which college attending females, wanting to 'mate with males' at a numerical disadvantage in the dating market. Many males, he contends, takes advantage of the desire of college co-eds to mate with males to their misadvantage, dating primarily those who will "put out" versus those who will 'not'. And, as my father-in-law has long put it, (for the males), the subsequent declining marriage rates are the result of the philosophy of "Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?" Hence, 'bulls' move from one 'kine' (cow) to another, without 'buying' anything, while 'taking all'!

Mormon co-eds, in terms of the number/s of them attending college and university, shows them to be in a majority, versus their erstwhile 'lesser' brethren who attend colleges and universities in far lesser numbers. And, what woman wants to "marry down"? Hence, an at least partial explanation for the disparity in 'good' (or 'worthy?') Mormon males available (for marriage) to (at least 'practicing 'feminist'') females.

My son, who returned from serving a mission about a year ago, is having difficulty in finding a serious young Mormon women among those in his singles' ward (one that is ready, and wants to get married NOW). Most want to 'play' (at least 'the field'), and put off making a decision now, and settling down to married life.

I would agree with Darren that because so many (now adult) members made different choices than they were admonished to (to get married, even younger, and have more children), Dare I suggest anything about some leading 'brethren' in this regard?

And hey, don't get me wrong. Those who try to have children, and can't, or can't have as many as they would like to (but not for lack of trying), I do not fault at all. In fact, I judge no one. (I allow God, and the people who do this to 'judge' themselves).

But one wonders that God will justify those who could have more, and didn't or don't.

One statistic to me is startling *(which I am giving a couple of paragraphs down)! Last year (2015), the number of 'New Children of Record' was exactly 114,550. This statistic, changed from the name ('Children of Record'), and from an adjustment used previously when figuring it, is lower than it was in 1982, when (LDS) Church membership first went above 5 million members.

While the Church does NOT believe in infant baptism, still, it counts those babies 'named and blessed' in Church AS members. Until 2007 (as reported in the following calendar year), the 'Children of Record' number represented the number of new babies "named and blessed" LESS those who had been named and blessed nine years previously, but who had NOT been baptized by the time they reached 9 years old. The numbers given in April 2009 General Conference (for 2008), and since then, the NEW CHILDREN OF RECORD # represents ONLY those babies named and blessed, with no adjustment made.

The numbers for 2008 (as reported in 2009) for this category (New Children of Record) jumped NEARLY 30,000 in one year. However, even though it did, it did NOT reach the (rounded) 124,000 Children of Record reported for 1982!

*THE STARTLING FIGURE for me is this— IF as many children had been born in 2015 proportionate to the membership of the Church as were born in 1982, the number of New Children of Record would have been just below 500,000! Compare that number with the ACTUAL number of just 114,550, and you can see that for every five babies born to Church members in 1982, there is only about 1 baby born NOW!!!

This gives us a startling reply to the rhetorical question posed by the hymn, "Shall The Youth of Zion Falter?" In sheer numbers, Yes, they HAVE faltered (GREATLY)! But of course, this is their PARENTS' fault, and not the 'youth' themselves! Have I hereby "judged" them? Look at the numbers, and judge yourselves YOURSELVES!

Four is NOT the "NEW Eight", it is (and always will be) the old "Four"!

Interestingly, President (or maybe some would say, "just 'Elder') Benson said—

“The world teaches birth control. Tragically, many
of our sisters subscribe to its pills and practices when
they could easily provide earthly tabernacles for
more of our Father’s children. We know that every
spirit assigned to this earth will come, whether
through us or someone else. There are couples in
the Church who think they are getting along just
fine with their limited families but who will someday
suffer the pains of remorse when they meet the spirits
that might have been part of their posterity. The
first commandment given to man was to multiply
and replenish the earth with children. That
commandment has never been altered, modified,
or cancelled. The Lord did not say to multiply and
replenish the earth if it is convenient, or if you are
wealthy, or after you have gotten your schooling, or
when there is peace on earth, OR UNTIL YOU HAVE
FOUR CHILDREN. (dd: Emphasis added is mine)

Both myself and my wife come from somewhat more fecund (fertile) Mormon families. My parents had eight children. My spouse's parents had 12 (to be sure, my father-in-law had his first two children by a wife who ran off with another man. My mother-in-law, who died just last year (at the age of 95), married at age 28, and gave birth to her first child at age 29 (I was my mother's sixth child, and she gave birth to me at age 29). My mother-in-law then gave birth to 7 babies in her 30's, to my wife, at age 40, and to her 'baby' sister at age 42 (she had 10 children in about 13-1/2 years, starting rather late; but finishing, in numbers, anyway, rather strong)!

The AVERAGE number of children per sibling in my family was five (5). On my wife's side, it was 5.25. Both of us have one sibling each who did not have children. STILL, these numbers were our AVERAGE.

Since both my spouse and I are among the younger children of our parents, we have many nieces and nephews in their 40's and 30's. Still, the HIGHEST number of babies anyone has had on MY side of the family of our children's generation is FIVE (5). On my wife's side, two have had SIX (6), with one more due this fall with her SIXTH. NONE on either sides of our families have had MORE!

Hence, 'FOUR' is the maximum number most ANYONE has (even in the Church) much anymore! And MANY purposely stop after just 2 or 3! Some, even at 1!

In my opinion, members of the Church (not completely different than their parents' and grandparents' generation, at least in what they have taught the current generation), it seems to me, TRUST IN THE ARM OF FLESH (which is mostly their OWN arm or effort-or those of the world); and too few rely mostly or solely trust in the arm of God.

Our Nephi-like soliloquy might go something like this—

"I will go and do the things which the Lord commands, AFTER I have finished my schooling, for I know that I must be "trained for (a professional) 'ministry'", so I can "prosper in the land", and THEN I will do what the Lord commandeth me, for I know that if I pay a larger amount of tithing, because I first got my degrees, I will probably be forgiven of anything in which I may have offended my maker (during my indiscretionate 'youth', including getting married later, and/or having not many, if any, children)!

I hear this is the advice my son-in-laws and daughter-in-law imbibed from their parents and Church leaders. (AFter all, how many times did President Hinckley reiterate his 'education' mantra, without putting it in total context of the gospel, and commandments from God)?

Was it so or not, that much of what the Savior castigated the generation of his mortal ministry for was "keeping the commandments" and traditions (practices) of men OVER keeping the commandments of God? Haven't we done that? Don't we still do that NOW?

Are we not civilizationally, if not personally, "killing" ourselves 'by degrees' (even college and university degrees)?

Perhaps the Church's 'Perpetual Education Fund' might do well to help those who live in the 'First World' (like the U.S., and Europe), and NOT just those in 3re World nations! How many DECADES do, will most Americans (including many Latter-Day Saints/Mormons) have to work at paying back the student loan debt they accumulated getting degrees?

No man, or woman, is an island. Both what we do (which INCLUDES what we DON'T do), affects NOT ONLY ourselves, individually, but our families, our society, our civilization, including our posterity, if we ever have much or any, not only NOW, or even in the NEAR TERM, but in the FUTURE, for as far as the mortal mind can imagine!

diligentdave
captain of 10
Posts: 14

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by diligentdave »

I would add to the VERY LENGTHY post I made just before this, that I believe that women going out to work, and preparing for that by getting college degrees, and advanced college degrees, is the MAIN contributor to the decline of Mormon marriages, especially at a younger age. I have known nieces who delayed getting married, because they wanted to finish their college or university degree first. I have seen that elsewhere. My 'baby sister', I think, greatly diminished her chances at getting married, because she was pursuing her college/university degrees, and thereby supplanted at least in the eyes of potential suitors, her 'suitability' for what THEY wanted (a wife, a mother for their children), was greatly diminished.

I always thought (when I went to college) that girls/women going there were doing (or should) do so more to meet young men who could provide well for them; rather than doing the whole 'back up' plan of preparing themselves for a full-time career, largely outside of the home.

Is it not our pursuit for 'filthy lucre', and for the 'praise of men' (even if some be wo-men), that we do this? Doesn't Maslow have more sway on us than Moses? Don't we 'serve idols' in working to pay for the things money can buy, including paying off pricey, exorbitant, seemingly never-ending student loans?

And, when women take these loans out for themselves, does it not prevent them from having babies, and staying home to have many of them?

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by TrueIntent »

diligentdave wrote:I would add to the VERY LENGTHY post I made just before this, that I believe that women going out to work, and preparing for that by getting college degrees, and advanced college degrees, is the MAIN contributor to the decline of Mormon marriages, especially at a younger age. I have known nieces who delayed getting married, because they wanted to finish their college or university degree first. I have seen that elsewhere. My 'baby sister', I think, greatly diminished her chances at getting married, because she was pursuing her college/university degrees, and thereby supplanted at least in the eyes of potential suitors, her 'suitability' for what THEY wanted (a wife, a mother for their children), was greatly diminished.

I always thought (when I went to college) that girls/women going there were doing (or should) do so more to meet young men who could provide well for them; rather than doing the whole 'back up' plan of preparing themselves for a full-time career, largely outside of the home.

Is it not our pursuit for 'filthy lucre', and for the 'praise of men' (even if some be wo-men), that we do this? Doesn't Maslow have more sway on us than Moses? Don't we 'serve idols' in working to pay for the things money can buy, including paying off pricey, exorbitant, seemingly never-ending student loans?

And, when women take these loans out for themselves, does it not prevent them from having babies, and staying home to have many of them?
Diligent Dave, I agree...yes pursuing an education or job as a woman in the LDS faith may dimish your chances of marriage because that becomes your focus rather than marriage. However, from a woman's perspective, one reason women in the church are pursuing their education and getting jobs is because.....what happens to a women who has no education or job expertise in the church, gets marrived young, has babies, and then 20 years down the road ends up divorced OR stuck in an awful marriage BECAUSE she followed marching orders and got married young without an education????? She's screwed. She can't provide for herself or her children so she stays in a miserable marriage or faces life in the real world and can barely make ends meet.
I think women should educate themselves.....too many men have taken advantage of the fact that a "woman can't leave" because she has financial won't make it at 50 years old in the workforce. It's a very awful feeling. I know many women who have experienced this. That is why women are getting their education.

That's why my dad encouraged me to, because he was cheating on my mother, but he loved his daughters, and wanted to make sure they could take care of themselves if they needed too...so they wouldn't feel dependent on a man and stay in a horrible situation....it happened to his own mother. His grandmother was widowed at a young age and forced to leave three young children at home while she went back to work so she could provide. Women, by pursing an education and career are making the playing field a little more equal in a bad marriage situation....or just to be prepared..shouldn't we be prepared? Another scenario, my best friend growing up, her dad was in a car accident that made him a vegetable. His wife took care of him at home and the kids for the next 12 years. She had no education....but her daughters all made sure they got theirs. You never know what life may throw at you.

Let me give you an ideal situation! Both women and men should Educate themselves or pursue some sort of skill or trade that they love, if they both choose to do so....and they should support each other in this....because u never know if you might end up widowed, divorced or caring for children and your vegetable husband.....BUT, in my situation....after getting my education, both my spouse and I, supported my decision to be a stay at home wife and mom. There was no unrighteous dominion in this. I have equal access to money...it's mine just as much as it is his...,and we have a life insurance policy just in case I were to lose him...he wants me taken care of.....this is a mutual thing....also, we work on ourselves as a couple....the times I have wanted to pursue a career instead of being a mother the most, were the times when I was most insecure that i might end up divorced broke and single like my mother did......so in my marriage, as we have learned to love each other....I don't worry about that because I know me and my husband are good...and there won't be a divorce.

A secure marriage allows him to pursue some of his business pursuits without fear that I would walk if we lost some money, etc.....and it allows me to be a stay at home mom without fear I will one day be divorced....I don't need to maintain a career....that's not my backup plan....the only backup plan I would need is a life insurance policy if I was widowed...make sense?

I would also like to add that I believe if a mom wants to pursue a career....and she and her spouse are on the same page...she should do that....some women suck at cooking, cleaning, and even parenting, but are pretty good at bringing home the bacon. But like I said, marry someone who is OK with that. Also make sure that's what's best for your kids.

I think in the church we spend too much time telling women what they can and can not do....life told me to get my education just in case....but it also told me to be a mother and wife. Marry someone who will support what life tells you to do. Many women have been screwed by following the marching order to get married, have babies, and HOPE that your man treats you good. How many women in the church are still in unhappy marriages in their elderly years????? Same for men too. I'm just saying that if a man wants to leave,..he typically has the work experience to live, while my 55 year old mother had to start from scratch.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by TrueIntent »

TrueIntent wrote:
diligentdave wrote:I would add to the VERY LENGTHY post I made just before this, that I believe that women going out to work, and preparing for that by getting college degrees, and advanced college degrees, is the MAIN contributor to the decline of Mormon marriages, especially at a younger age. I have known nieces who delayed getting married, because they wanted to finish their college or university degree first. I have seen that elsewhere. My 'baby sister', I think, greatly diminished her chances at getting married, because she was pursuing her college/university degrees, and thereby supplanted at least in the eyes of potential suitors, her 'suitability' for what THEY wanted (a wife, a mother for their children), was greatly diminished.

I always thought (when I went to college) that girls/women going there were doing (or should) do so more to meet young men who could provide well for them; rather than doing the whole 'back up' plan of preparing themselves for a full-time career, largely outside of the home.

Is it not our pursuit for 'filthy lucre', and for the 'praise of men' (even if some be wo-men), that we do this? Doesn't Maslow have more sway on us than Moses? Don't we 'serve idols' in working to pay for the things money can buy, including paying off pricey, exorbitant, seemingly never-ending student loans?

And, when women take these loans out for themselves, does it not prevent them from having babies, and staying home to have many of them?
Diligent Dave, I agree...yes pursuing an education or job as a woman in the LDS faith may dimish your chances of marriage because that becomes your focus rather than marriage. However, from a woman's perspective, one reason women in the church are pursuing their education and getting jobs is because.....what happens to a women who has no education or job expertise in the church, gets marrived young, has babies, and then 20 years down the road ends up divorced OR stuck in an awful marriage BECAUSE she followed marching orders and got married young without an education????? She's screwed. She can't provide for herself or her children so she stays in a miserable marriage or faces life in the real world and can barely make ends meet.
I think women should educate themselves.....too many men have taken advantage of the fact that a "woman can't leave" because she has financial won't make it at 50 years old in the workforce. It's a very awful feeling. I know many women who have experienced this. That is why women are getting their education.

That's why my dad encouraged me to, because he was cheating on my mother, but he loved his daughters, and wanted to make sure they could take care of themselves if they needed too...so they wouldn't feel dependent on a man and stay in a horrible situation....it happened to his own mother. His grandmother was widowed at a young age and forced to leave three young children at home while she went back to work so she could provide. Women, by pursing an education and career are making the playing field a little more equal in a bad marriage situation....or just to be prepared..shouldn't we be prepared? Another scenario, my best friend growing up, her dad was in a car accident that made him a vegetable. His wife took care of him at home and the kids for the next 12 years. She had no education....but her daughters all made sure they got theirs. You never know what life may throw at you.

Let me give you an ideal situation! Both women and men should Educate themselves or pursue some sort of skill or trade that they love, if they both choose to do so....and they should support each other in this....because u never know if you might end up widowed, divorced or caring for children and your vegetable husband.....BUT, in my situation....after getting my education, both my spouse and I, supported my decision to be a stay at home wife and mom. There was no unrighteous dominion in this. I have equal access to money...it's mine just as much as it is his...,and we have a life insurance policy just in case I were to lose him...he wants me taken care of.....this is a mutual thing....also, we work on ourselves as a couple....the times I have wanted to pursue a career instead of being a mother the most, were the times when I was most insecure that i might end up divorced broke and single like my mother did......so in my marriage, as we have learned to love each other....I don't worry about that because I know me and my husband are good...and there won't be a divorce.

A secure marriage allows him to pursue some of his business pursuits without fear that I would walk if we lost some money, etc.....and it allows me to be a stay at home mom without fear I will one day be divorced....I don't need to maintain a career....that's not my backup plan....the only backup plan I would need is a life insurance policy if I was widowed...make sense?

I would also like to add that I believe if a mom wants to pursue a career....and she and her spouse are on the same page...she should do that....some women suck at cooking, cleaning, and even parenting, but are pretty good at bringing home the bacon. But like I said, marry someone who is OK with that. Also make sure that's what's best for your kids.

I think in the church we spend too much time telling women what they can and can not do....life told me to get my education just in case....but it also told me to be a mother and wife. Marry someone who will support what life tells you to do. Many women have been screwed by following the marching order to get married, have babies, and HOPE that your man treats you good. How many women in the church are still in unhappy marriages in their elderly years????? Same for men too. I'm just saying that if a man wants to leave,..he typically has the work experience to live, while my 55 year old mother had to start from scratch.
I had an epiphany....On a side note...we keep criticizing the women for not being good housewives, cooks, mothers, housekeepers etc.....how many of the men are actually great providers, husbands, and fathers? Let's put this in perspective on a grading scale. An A+ wife, housekeeper, mother and cooks...should have an a+ husband, father, and provider.....right? How many men are A+ at all those things??? And as provider...I don't just mean you cover the bills, but you make an excess, provide for retirement....do you mow the lawn???? Take out the trash????

I'm not defending women who are lazy...I'm just making a point. You want to attract an A+ wife.....well you better know how to carry on a conversation, treat her like a lady, play with the kids, help around the house, and provide adequately for her needs and wants emotionally and temporally......or just hire a maid and nanny. Often we attract what we are. :-)

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by Sirocco »

I got a lot of milk for free, not that I wanted it more then true love and commitment but I am not made of stone, since I lack education, I am really not an option for marriage. I do have a job, but it's nothing special lol.
A part of me wishes I could have children, but mental illnesses make me worry that they'd be at a huge disadvantage and that I'd never be able to provide for them.

diligentdave
captain of 10
Posts: 14

Re: Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

Post by diligentdave »

@true intent

Funny thing I've observed so very often, is that when we make Plan B, because we have seen Plan A fail, it has generally tended to make Plan B the scenario everyone takes. More women, I believe, will seek a divorce, when they are not dependent upon a man to provide for them, than they might do otherwise.

As a parent of 7 daughters, I am most concerned (always have been) of whether they are provided for sufficiently, and whether or not their marriage will (or won't) stay intact. But with divorce laws and divorce rulings as they long have been (with 'no fault' divorce laws having diluted marriage so that the "ties that bind" are so tenuous and needlessly fragile), marriage has come to mean less and less. Because of 'no fault' divorce laws, I am perhaps even more concerned for my sons (those "taken to the cleaner" via divorce court, are legion).

The phrase "the ties that bind" use to be used in talking about what both the husband and wife got out of marriage. With the institution statutorily greatly weakened (Ronald Reagan signed in the first 'no fault' divorce laws in the nation, as the governor of California), I know many who use how divorce can be abused by anyone and everyone, to justify not getting married at all (that only works until 'common law' marriage kicks into gear, after a certain period of time).

You talked about not taking marching orders, and doing what you were told. Who says (in the Church) that we should get married. Is it not God? Where the scripture says, "In the beginning, marriage was ordained of God unto man", I believe it is saying that he commanded it. The "Be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth" covenant and command God gives is fully within the covenant of marriage.

So, when you say, "I will not follow 'marching orders' until I'm prepared for Plan B", are you not saying, in effect, "I will NOT go and do the things which the Lord commandeth, for I know that he foolishly giveth commandments that men will break, and from which women will have to suffer?" Where is the faith, not in man, but in God? Has no one, especially the "saints", this faith? Does no one take and make careful preparations to greatly improve and increase the chances of 'Plan A' (which is God's plan) to work out right? Teaching children correct principles. Helping them to improve and increase with the power of discernment, so that they might improve the odds when choosing a mate? I find very few mothers who drill their children for years, like my mother did myself and my siblings. Seven of eight of us have married, and there have not only been no divorces—I don't know of any of my siblings or their spouses who have even hinted at considering divorce EVER!

Of my wife's nine fully biological siblings, other than her brother who is a practicing homosexual—again, I don't think any of them have even ever contemplated divorce!

But when women leave home to work, they are not at home both to keep an eye on their children, not just to prevent physical harm—but especially to try to prevent spiritual harm. It is SO VERY IMPORTANT. But, like we trust our children to almost anyone, we 'contract' out the care of our little children, especially, often to mostly or complete strangers—daycare. It is not wise to do this. I wouldn't even want my 'good' LDS ward members necessarily watching and caring for my children most of the time. My children are too important, too precious, to 'farm them out' for spiritual care, especially!

Are you NOT saying "I will trust in the arm of God, I will trust in my own arm; in what I can do to take care of myself when my marriage fails", instead of trusting in God, which means, does it not, in what he has commanded? (In French, ordained is translated as 'ordonner', which means 'commands'). So, when it says that "marriage is ordained of God", it is saying it is "commanded of/by God" (for mankind to do)!

Why would you take advice from an adulterous father? Why not try to find a man who is not duplicitous as your father was/is?

Also, I see where we have all these 'safety nets', the "ties that bind" are so greatly diminished, and made unimportant, that women won't support their husbands by "hearkening" unto them, if you know at all what I mean. Even Church leaders have long shown contempt and disrespect for all husbands. And, often, it is the local leaders, (bishops and stake presidents), that I have seen, who contribute sometimes greatly to circumventing family priesthood authority.

Some wives, I know of, do not duly consider their husband's requests. Not demands, but requests. They often disregard and ignore them.

Why? Well, in part, because there are so many 'safety nets' to catch those whose families 'break up', the culture has taught them that complying with what their husband requests to be very much optional. Even among Mormons, doing so is equated to 'slavery', when nothing of the kind is attempted by most men, most husbands. But, where "being easy to be entreated" is disdained. We are taught not to "speak ill" of Church leaders. However, when it comes to spouses, and to husbands often in particular, he/they are largely 'fair game' to criticize and second guess—even, and sometimes especially by, both General and congregational priesthood authorities! Reverencing one's spouse is almost invariably addressed as far as men towards their wives. But passive/active dissent and resistance by wives for things that husbands respectfully request (and I'm not speaking of any unusual or 'kinky' requests or demands whatsoever), can be and sometimes are completely ignored—and women know that they can largely get away with most of it!

On what you are saying about providing, I'm gathering you're suggesting that if a wife feels she is receiving a 'B', 'C', 'D' or lower provider, that she should perhaps return the 'favor' commensurately? Or at least, not feel badly about doing less than her best in being a 'helpmate' to/for her husband?

I have a cousin, now deceased, who is well known in 'Mormondom'. He did much good. One story from his young adult years was that an employer he worked for was welching on an increase in pay he promised to this cousin of mine for his performance. He went to our grandfather, who perceived my cousin had something 'eating' him. This cousin finally conveyed that problem. Our grandfather thoughtfully, and wisely, counseled my cousin to still always give his very best effort. He said, "You're employer may not know you're not giving your best effort; but both you and God will know you're not", and then, basically, our grandfather told him that doing so would bother and hurt my cousin more in the end to do so, than it would hurt or 'give just desserts' to his employer.

My grandfather's counsel was prescient and providential. One thing this cousin of mine never had a problem doing (though he had financial struggles early on), was not providing sufficiently for his family.

A wife who gives a less than 'A' effort for a perceived less than 'A' husband (as a provider), is only shooting herself in the foot; and hurting her whole family. For truly, what we send out, will return to us likewise.

Most men I know of, work hard and do their best to provide for their wives and children. Whether they succeed always in accomplishing what this particular cousin of mine did, I'm sure, rarely happens. (He provided well for his family financially, but emotionally, many problems resulted from him not being at home much).

So, if you want an 'A' or even an 'A+' provider, financially—you may be blessed according to your desires. But, you may also be 'cursed' according to your desires.

I've never made anywhere near the money that cousin made. But, again, I don't have among my children, the emotional and other problems that at least some of his children do. I've been home much more for my children. I've always thought that the scripture that says, "What will a man give in exchange for his soul?" could likewise have the word "family" equated with his "soul". What would you (or are you) 'giving up' in exchange for your family? Another paycheck?

One of my sisters worked outside the home when one of her children was a teenager. That child had to get married, and now is divorced—has relations with a man while neither one of them is married—and most of the raising of my sister's grandchildren by this child are now being done by this sister of mine.

Her family didn't need the extra money, necessarily, that my sister made outside the home. Nowhere near as much as her child needed her, at least, to keep track of that child's "comings and goings", and help keep that child from engaging in activities that it should not have, and developing a like for alcohol, which still is an addiction for that child now.

It's interesting the Faustian 'bargains' we sometimes make, more so we "feel fulfiled" in a Maslowian way, than in caring sufficiently for those in our charge.

Post Reply