Sunday, January 16, 2011

Divorce Figures are Misleading

I was looking through the old documents on my computer and came across an article on divorce.

Holy Matrimony
In Era of Divorce, Mormon Temple Weddings Are Built to Last
LA TImes Saturday, April 8, 2000

He states the following after speaking of Born Againer's statistics_

"The picture isn't rosier for other Christians or Jews. The survey showed their divorce rates about the same as the national average."

The problem with these statistics is that those people with no religious ideas are unlikely to get married until the relationship has established itself. In other words it has already survived years of initial struggle. Therefore they shouldn't be getting divorced at the same rate as those who marry before starting to live together.

Weighing in this factor the statistics for those calling themselves "Christians" and Jews is far better than for those who aren't.

God (in the Law given to Moses) made it that people who have sex together (even once) were to marry and never divorce (Deut 23:28-29). So God sees these people as married. Considering the amount of people who just live together without marrying formally, and the amount of break-ups from those relationships, the real "divorce" rate is far higher. And considering that pre-marital sex is more likely to occur with non-religious people, the rate of real divorce among them is far higher still.

I must say on the other side though, that the amount of divorces among people who have gone to the temple isn't as good as the figures sound. The article goes on to say _

"There is a ray of marital hope, however. And that comes from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--specifically, from those Mormons who marry in a temple. While other Mormons divorce at the usual rate, only 6% of those who undergo the demanding temple marriage, break up, according to Brigham Young University professor Daniel K. Judd."

Sounds impressive, doesn't it? But I can't say that all is well in Zion, because this logic is flawed also. I know 4 people in my family that are still married in the temple but are legally divorced! 2 of them have re-married and their ex-spouses are still alive.

I could have a dozen temple marriages still valid and yet have a dozen legal divorces.

We'd need to start following God's directions in regard to marriage if we want great divorce figures. We need to revise our thinking. So here is some blunt advice that you will probably hate me for giving.

Women need conversation much more than we men do, even when you are tired. Women get stressed easily (as they run more on emotions); have patience and give them time to unwind using conversation. If your wife snaps at you, just say to yourself, "it must be that time of the month" (even if you know it isn't). Men can tend to feel that all is well when there are few arguments happening, where once there were more. This may not be the good sign you think it is. This often means that she is holding it all inside and is giving up (particularly where it is accompanied by less general conversation). Take her out and talk to her more, while you still have a wife.

That probably sounds good to the women. But now its your turn.

God declared man the RULER of the home (Gen 3:16, Moses 4:22), not a figurehead. Anyone telling you differently to God has got themselves confused. Women, you aren't men, stop trying to pretend you are one. You don't need a career other than learning to become mothers, wives and carers. Houses etc can be bought WHEN finances allow, not because you want one. Women, men don't believe that giving flowers and remembering dates means you love someone, so if they don't do these things all the time it doesn't mean they don't love you. Men also are entitled to a good break (often done by unwinding watching sport).


kh said...

May I add something to what you said. Latter-day saints need to slow down the courting time frame. I know of several very unhappy people who rushed into a relationship and a now paying the price for such haste. Ideally people should become best friends first before they "choose" to fall in love. We are responsible for all of our thoughts, desires and emotions as well as our actions and words. Agency reigns supreme in the universe. People do not fall in love at first sight. Mutual physical interest maybe spontaneous, but real "love" requires knowledge, time and righteous desire, not to mention a lot of hard work and patience. I would recommend that every engaged to be married in the temple couple should go through 6 weeks of marriage counseling to work on real life commuication skills before the marriage takes place. Men and women speak very different languages. After years of marriage I am still learning what my wife is "trying" to say to me. We may have Noah Webster's dictionary but it would be nice to have Mrs. Noah Webster's version on hand as well. President Hickley once said that the key to communication is to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. I find myself parroting back to my wife what she just said to me and then telling her what I thought she meant and then asking her if my "understanding" had been correct. This technique has helped a lot in our communications. Thanks again for the post.

Doug Towers said...


Some interesting thoughts there.

I refer to being "in love" as a "romantic expectation." And as you say it is a chosen activity. People fall out of love all the time. It is just that most people don't want to fall out of love, so they don't, at a time they probably should.

I agree with you on the dreadful communications problems. Sometimes though perhaps we blame gender when it is just people.

I remember my wife read from that book called "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus." I could feel that guy in there gritting his teeth and saying, "she is from anohter planet, that's what it is, she is from another planet." It didn't surprise me at all that they got divorced. Another expert bites the dust.

Thank God (literally) for the Holy Ghost. We need him when it comes to kids and spouses (among other things).

yeti said...

I am wondering if they really are as misleading as we would like to think. I have heard that couples who live together before marraige actually are more likely to end up getting divorces than those who doo not. If this is true (and I can not quote my source) then it might take away from your arguement that those without the Judeo-christian sexual standard who are "trying it on" before getting married are creating dillusionally lower divorce rate than what is actual.
But really, they are no standard to which to compare ourselves. if we think that just being better than society is good enough, I think we missed the message of the Sermon on the Mount. Especally this "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven"

Doug Towers said...


If that which you have heard is correct it would take a bit of the wind out of my sails. But we still have the issue of real divorce (ie. separations) rates in those who live together and never get married. Those are definetly far higher.

I have to say, "amen, sister," to your later comment.

yeti said...

I cannot say that I see the connection between men being rulers and women not needing/wanting careers outside of the home. (maybe there isn't one) is woman staying at home a cultural trend which you think ought to be continued, or a biblical principle? Also, you mention the man's need to rest and take a break. what about the womens?

yeti said...

I remembered what I said here was from what I read in a paper which my roommate wrote, I quote her, and provide you with her reference at which I did not look

"Among the secular world though, there is a common misconception that premarital sex will have positive effects on a marriage. Studies indicate however, that there are many negative effects on marriage when engaging in premarital sex. Number one, rather than creating the likelihood of a more successful marriage, premarital sex and/or cohabitation raises the occurrence of divorce"

Bakker, C. and J. Cox. The Benefits of Chastity Before Marriage. Forever Families. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from

Doug Towers said...


There wasn't a connection between those points. It was a connection between women trying to be men and careers for women.

In regard women and work I have no objection to women working where there is full employment for fathers and young men who will have that role one day.

The only stipulation that I would make is that mothers should stay at home rather than giving out their children for someone else to raise. Also that women should seek marriage and motherhood as a first priority. This is based on Scripture and that which the Holy Ghost and Heavenly Father have told me. I see the wisdom in this.

As to the woman's need to take a rest I was including that in the unwiding by sitting down talking.

In regard to the referrence you gave, it no longer exists.

While I don't doubt the truth of the idea that people having sex before marraige are more likely to divorce, I would be interested to see evidence that those living together successfully for years have a higher rate of divorce if they marry. I'm not saying either way to its truth.

yeti said...

Fair enough. I guess all women are different. Rest for me more often looks like time alone, than time in conversation. I realised that when I was busy I retreated from my roommates and wanted to be alone. Do you ever think that it is alright for the man to stay at home and for the wife to go out and work?
I am a little confused about this "In regard women and work I have no objection to women working where there is full employment for fathers and young men who will have that role one day."
are you saying that women can work as long as they are not taking away jobs from men? I reckon unmarried women need to work.
Try this link instead:

Doug Towers said...


Thanks for the alternate link. Some interesting thoughts.

In regard women and work. The situation of how necessary it is for them to obtain income has to be considered in this. Some countries have no social security system. Thereby creating no real options.

But in western society options do exist to varying degrees. So that which I am saying is posing that reasonable options exist.

If a man is unable to work, then provided it doesn't interfere with a woman's calling to produce offspring, she may obtain work (where full employment to men exists).

I agree with you that unmarried women should be occupied in a productive way. But that doesn't mean that they should be taking jobs from men. There are many opportunities for service within the community.

For example many women need counselling by someone who ISN'T trained in such (that way the person may actually get better, rather than worse).

There was a statement made on a British series "Yes, Prime Minister" that said, "social problems have been shown to increase in direct proportion to the increase in social workers in that area."

So if there are a lot of trained social workers in your area there is a place for untrained women to help out.

The opportunities are as wide as the imagination.

yeti said...

my first thought it that untrained social work doesn't pay and unmarried woman need to eat. However, upon further investigation I realised that I myself am an untrained social worker... and I eat. Mostly because I found an organisation that will "pay" me for the work I do with youth. I being a bit of a reactionist see the need for men to be untrained social workers and working with our youth and children. There seems to be a lack of fathering these days. many children would value from having a male role model.

Doug Towers said...


I did say, "that which I am saying is posing that reasonable options exist."

I meant if a woman had some other source of income such as a benefit or family support with a partical benefit.

Where I am, single women don't really need to obtain employment. Unemployment benefit is available. They will be asked to do volenteer work in such cases.

Yet even in that case one female not obtaining work will only leave a position to be filled by another female. It needs to be a community thing.

In regard male role models. Not only is there a lack of good male role models. There is just a lack of males for the children full stop. Divorce is rampant.

When I talk to women about their separation most give one of the two following reasons or both. 1. He wasn't romantic enough. 2. He wasn't understanding enough.

I remember when living in a low income area years ago. I was walking down a particular street when this boy came up and began talking to me as I was walking along. He said that men came and went and he didn't have a father there. He asked me if I minded if he called me, "Dad?" Of course I said that was fine. But in almost no time I had around 25 kids walking along with me, calling me Dad. One guy came out and looked very angry about it. So I had to tell them to cease.

Women have to stop thinking about themselves and think of their children, when making these decisions. It is a very me, me, world.

Women generally go into marriage with the idea that their life won't really change, but they will have this extra appendage that needed to be filled anyway. They don't approach marriage prepared to change. They just think of changing the man. He's supposed to bring them happiness.

Only following Christ can bring that inner happiness through righteous living and service to others. So the man is doomed to fail in providing this happiness.

I'm certainly not posing that men don't go into marriage with unrealistic ideas at times. But because men don't have great dreams about marriage they don't have wild expectations outside the bedroom. Not that women don't have those either.

People have forgotten what marriage is for: Being fruitful and multiplying.

yeti said...

You say "It needs to be a community thing."
I think often rather than one woman working, and the other not, a lot more balance could be found if they both worked part time. I think often we (most everyine in society) works too much. I think that there could be more balance if every one just worked a little bit less, and perhaps bought a little bit less. (I know, this might not be so good for the economy, but maybe there is something wrong with our economy if it relys on excessive consumerism)
I once was told by a man who does some pre-maratial counselling that he will tell men that marraige problems are always their fault because they are required to love their wife as Christ loves the church, and no man can quite do that fully. Because Christ's love is so great. Well, I think he said that half as a joke, and half to make a point.

Doug Towers said...


Consumerism is required so that businesses can survive. These businesses not only support the owner but all the staff.

This is why children are good for the economy. Children constantly need new clothers as they grow. School books and sporting equipment etc.

Where I am there is a lot of what you mention about part time work.

While I totally agree with the counseller you quote, I have to see as an obvious factor that the wife must promote such a love. If I were married to a woman who bad mouthed everyone, or spent all day doing her finger nails, or watching TV, how would I have some great love for her. A woman can only get from a man the love she puts out and deserves.

I see inside people. I see their weaknesses and their strengths (my spirit inside learnt this before coming to earth, obviously). On some rare occassions I come across very beautiful women (or girls). These I feel a great love for as my sisters. And sometimes I sense a great love back from them. These types of females I could greatly love and respect as a wife also. If you love a person deep down it is easy to fall in love with them where such is appropriate (ie. she is single, of an appropriate age, a good church member and romantically interested in me).

So while you say he was half making a point, I'd tend to say that he was making half a point.

yeti said...

I think that Christ loves us regardless as to if we deserve it.

I don't know if humans can love so deeply like that, but maby with God's help we can. It may not be easy, but it may be able to happen.

Doug Towers said...


Yes, I strive toward that love. It is true as John said that we come to love him because he loved us first. We learn real love from feeling that real love.

I wouldn't want a wife who loved me as much as either Jesus Christ or Heavenly Father loves me, because I couldn't give back that much love. But it certainly would be a growing experience. And one day I hope to have that much love in me.

Anonymous said...

Actually, there is no such thing as a valid divorce & remarriage that will last into the eternities, unless the 1st marriage was a 'forced' marriage like many are for women throughout the world or in many religions.

And the man is in no way the ruler over the wife. He is there to serve her every wish & totally submit to her in all things, if he ever wants to prove to her that he is worthy of her love, presence, submission & service in return.

Husbands & wives are both equal 'rulers','presiders' & 'heads' over the family. They are co-presidents. Each with equal voice & veto power in any & all decisions. The woman is actually the 1st & foremost ruler of the children & home. For God gives the children exclusively to her 1st, for 9 whole months, so she can judge whether the man is still safe & worthy to co-preside with her over that child or children. If not she can chose to leave him & raise the children alone & in safety & peace, with God's help, until the husband repents & is safe to be reunited with.

No righteous person would divorce their spouse & remarry, if they entered the marriage with consent. They would have unconditional true love for their spouse no matter what that spouse ever did.

It is impossible to divorce & date or remarry someone else and still have the former sealing remain valid. For only true love for the 1st spouse keeps the sealing & marriage valid.

To remarry someone else, even in the temple, is unfaithfulness to the 1st spouse & marriage & thus they lose the sealing,right & claim to that spouse, even if it's not done officially yet.

It is impossible for any remarriage to be valid or eternal, even if it happened in the temple, unless the 1st marriage was not by consent, as previously stated, which is rare in the U.S. Most remarriages are adultery according to Christ & the Prophets, even if they happen in the temple.

For it takes true love to make a marriage or sealing valid, & if a person didn't have true love for their 1st spouse, whether that 1st spouse is deceased or just divorced from them, then it's impossible for a person to have true love for a 2nd, 3rd spouse, etc.

True Love is just that, it remains faithful to their one & only spouse forever & ever, & never gives up on a wicked or abandoning spouse. They wait until the next life if necessary to be reunited with them after the wicked spouse finally repents.

It is impossible to be sealed to more than one person, no matter how many times some leaders may allow a man to be sealed in the temple.

There is no plural marriage in heaven or in the Millennium or ever in the history of world. Plural marriage or polygamy is a vile whoredom, as Joseph Smith taught over & over, but few listened to him. Most men desired to live & believe in whoredoms like polygamy instead & abuse women, as is the natural inclination of most all men.

The sacredness of marriage has been completely lost today, ever since the death of Joseph Smith. Brigham Young started allowing adulterous divorce & remarriage in the Church & thus today Adultery is rampant & accepted as ok throughout the Church by most all leaders & members.

Everyone in the church, except a few, have become corrupted & deceived to support or do evil, like adulterous divorce & remarriage in the temple. While still believing themselves to be righteous & sealed to multiple women or validly remarried.

Doug Towers said...


Thanks for sharing your feelings.

You have said _

"Actually, there is no such thing as a valid divorce & remarriage that will last into the eternities, unless the 1st marriage was a 'forced' marriage like many are for women throughout the world or in many religions."

Have you ever actually lived in these regions you speak with such authority about? We hear so much nonsense in this regard. Have you ever spoken to these women or the men who lived there about what really happens?

Forced marriages very rarely occur in regions where arranged marriages happen. You have listened to the propaganda. And that is how the rest of what you are saying sounds.

Let me tell you what really happens in that which seems that way to many Westerners. Families get together when the children are young and propose the idea of marriage unions. Or, particularly if the person is wealthy, the parents may be keen on their daughter's security and try to align her with an older man with money.

When she grows up she may get a crush for the boy down the road instead. What then happens is that when it comes time for the marriage or meeting on the matter she runs off to her aunty's place until it is established that she isn't too pleased with the idea.

Eventually she comes home and discussion (which can be long in some cases) occurs. Either finally the parents will give up or the daughter will give up. But either way it requires her consent eventually. There may be some extremely rare exceptions to this.

It must be always remembered to never just believe a girl's version of events, as she may just be looking for sympathy. Girls do these things. That is reality.

Doug Towers said...


You say _

"And the man is in no way the ruler over the wife."

Also you qualify this _

"Husbands & wives are both equal 'rulers','presiders' & 'heads' over the family."

And yet having just informed us of this proposed equal rulership, you then go on to say _

"The woman is actually the 1st & foremost ruler of the children & home."

So now you've pushed the man off the throne altogether. You see what happens when you start following Satan's ideas? It goes from bad to worse.

You have told me that man isn't the ruler of the home and yet God clearly tells us he is the sole ruler over the woman.

"... your husband ... shall rule over you." Gen 3:16 (see also Moses 4:22)

So you've gone all the way from God's statement of the man being the sole ruler to the woman being the sole ruler. Did Emma Smith teach you this stuff of women ruling, and claiming her husband taught the same?

You have said _

"& if a person didn't have true love for their 1st spouse, whether that 1st spouse is deceased or just divorced from them, then it's impossible for a person to have true love for a 2nd, 3rd spouse, etc."

Where have you spent your life?

My mother divorced her first husband when I was one year old. Around 23 years later she married a man she loved and they went to the temple.

I loved my wife to some degree (she is deceased), but absolutely nothing like how powerfully I love several women today. I have found a whole new level of spiritual love far beyond my previous temple marriage. When I say that I love them I am not talking about sex (as you seem to think that is what plural marriage is about) as I haven't had sex with any of them.

You've said _

"It is impossible to be sealed to more than one person, no matter how many times some leaders may allow a man to be sealed in the temple."

True temple sealings take place in the heart. And so what you are telling me is that your heart is so small that it cannot accomadate more than love for one person. So how are you going to be sealed to your parents, for example? And what of your children. I know what you are going to tell me, "that is different," you will say.

In other words you are actually saying that your love for your wife isn't real love at all, but just infatuation. You are romantically infatuated with your wife. Infatuation produces a synthetic copy of love. That is not love.

Love comes from deep down in the spirit. It pines to be with this other spirit that you feel within the other person. This spirit uplifts you. You can't get close enough to her. It is a spiritual experience. It doesn't matter to you what she looks like outside. She could be 100 years old and in a wheel chair and you would feel exactly the same.

Is your love truly like that? Answer yourself.

Anonymous said...

Only God knows the heart & true feelings of a girl, & if she was pressured or threatened to marry a certain man. If she gave her unpressured consent, then she will probably have to stand by her marriage decision in the eternities, assuming she &/or her husband are worthy of 'eternal marriage'.

But if a girl didn't really want to marry the guy & was pressured into it, God may let her out of it if she wants.

The correct translation if you study it, is Adam should 'rule with' Eve, not rule over' her.

As long as the husband is righteous & safe, then he deserves the right to 'rule with' his wife over the children that God gives to her. If not, & most men aren't righteous & safe, then the woman is the one God gave the children to exclusively to make that decision for, & she may then need to leave & raise the child or children as best she can on her own & the man will be accountable for their sufferings.

God, in the pre-mortal world, has already decided to give women the right to preside & rule over their children, by letting the woman be the one who bears the children, though some women do not stay worthy of that right & privilege here on earth.

But men must prove worthy here on earth of that right to rule with their wife over the children by proving his righteousness & true love & complete faithfulness & respect for his wife and her complete equality in all things. No woman is obligated to stay with a man who thinks he rules over her or tries to.

Unfortunately most women do not usually have enough self-worth, to expect men to have the respect for them that they should, & thus women have often allowed men to abuse & control them throughout history, when they could have & should have tried to stand up to it. Thus, many men now believe they have the right to rule over women, for women have not taught men how to respect their true equality, in the home, church or society.

But righteous women expect respect from all men & do not allow men to abuse & control them or rule over them in any way. But they do allow their husband to 'rule with' them if he is worthy to.

As far as divorce or remarriage is concerned, to love our spouse deeply & more than anyone else, is completely our choice & has nothing to do with our spouse.

So if we choose to divorce our spouse or fall in love with others more than our spouse, whether they are living or not, that is our choice, but it does not mean we couldn't have stayed true to the 1st & loved them even more than anyone else on earth.

True love is very rare, especially for a man to have for his wife. God & Joseph Smith said such true love comes more naturally for a woman though, but of course not all women have true love for their husband either.

Those who love only 'one' spouse don't have small hearts, they actually understand & possess true love, which is a private, exclusive & focused love.

I believe it is impossible to truly love more than one spouse. Just like it is impossible to love more than one God. We are commanded to give our whole heart & soul to God & our spouse forever & there is nothing else to give to or share with a 2nd spouse or person if we truly keep that commandment & our marriage covenants.

Plus, we have given ourselves to our spouse & don't even have the right or ability to give ourself or heart to anyone else, for we belong totally to our spouse for all eternity.

But one must actually possess true love to understand it. As long as we don't have true love for our 1st spouse, these things will never make sense to us.

Yes, love for our children is a little different than love for a spouse. We are not commanded to give our children our whole heart & soul like we do to a spouse. We don't agree to totally submit to the counsel & wishes of our children like we are commanded to do to our wife or husband.

Anonymous said...

When we have 'feelings of desire' for or are 'in love' with another woman other than our 1st wife, or for a man other than our 1st husband, we prove that we are not righteous nor do we have the faithful 'true love' that we vowed to have forever & that Christ has taught us to have in marriage

Such feelings for another person are even usually adultery, especially if our 1st spouse is still alive. For there is no such thing as divorce in a valid marriage(consented to). The person is still married in God's eyes to their 1st spouse, no matter how much they may believe otherwise.

But even if our 1st spouse is deceased, Christ's apostles taught to not remarry, for true love is completely faithful & does not ever date or remarry or have friendships with or feelings for other people of the opposite sex. They wait to be reunited with their spouse in heaven as their spouse is waiting faithfully for them.

For when a spouse possesses 'true love' they don't share their heart or body with anyone else in that way. They are true & faithful to their 1st spouse, divorced or deceased. For they know someday they will join their spouse again if they have such true love.

Those who remarry after the death of their spouse can only have that relationship for this life, for they lost their exaltation because they broke their vows to have 'true love' for their 1st spouse, because they dated & married the 2nd spouse.

Only those who prove they can maintain & forever possess 'true exclusive love' for their 1st spouse can earn 'eternal marriage' (exaltation).

There is no polygamy in heaven & so those who remarry after their spouse dies, only waste their time & heartache on something that cannot be eternal & even condemns them to the Terrestrial Kingdom at best, to be single forever, for they failed to have true love for their 1st spouse & remain faithful to them as they promised. But if their 1st spouse was righteous enough he or she can save them anyway despite their unfaithfulness by marrying another. The unfaithful spouse will repent in Spirit Prison & pay for their unfaithfulness but then make it all up to the 1st spouse throughtout eternity.

But as a Prophet once said, the sacredness of marriage is entirely gone today. It seems no one believes in having the true love of Christ for their spouse anymore, except a rare few.

Doug Towers said...


Instead of you telling us what God does and doesn't want, why don't you go and talk to him? Have him take you up to an exceedingly high mountain and teach you something. Then instead of you saying God does want this and might want that, you can actually talk about what HE has told you.

You go on and on about things without a cracker of backing.

You have said _

"The correct translation if you study it, is Adam should 'rule with' Eve, not rule over' her."

No, that is not what it says in Hebrew at all. It says, "...Your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule you."

Nothing about ruling with. The implication is obvious, and that is why they have included the word "over." Yet I notice that you haven't even began to attempt to explain all those other references I gave you. So I'm still waiting. Explain away.

You've claimed that the reason why God has a child in the mother's womb for 9 months is that this gives the mother time to decide whether she wishes to dump her husband or not. So Adam wasn't assured of the marriage covenant when Eve promised to raise his children in an environment that had two parents for a balanced upbringing. He could have been having sex with a female who then dumps him, but he can't try to get his life back and move on to a less dilly wife. So I could marry a girl and have sacred sex with her and have her run off. A doctrine of Devils indeed. What gutter did you pick this stuff up in? GOD told Adam and Eve to procreate together. Nothing about her being able to run off if she chooses.

For your information the reason why many animals and humans have a baby in the womb to grow is so that the spirit can learn to use the brain to control the body functions. This cannot be bestowed by magic. Nor can it be learnt in a day. It isn't so the human or animal mother can run away from her spouse.

Have you ever lived in a family with only one parent? Have you ever seen streets where mothers exist as single parents? Have you found out how these children with no father feel? If you had I would hope you wouldn't say anything so stupid.

You aren't really very old are you? Or you must have spent your life in a secluded monastery. You are preaching some very atrocious things and implying to be saying these things in God's place.

You have come to teach against polygamy without any scriptural proof. Then you are giving these anti-scriptural doctrines.

Doug Towers said...


You have said _

"I believe it is impossible to truly love more than one spouse. Just like it is impossible to love more than one God."

Well I'm glad you started out with, "I believe." I love two Gods. Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. And I love each one separately for some different and some mixed reasons. I love Heavenly Father for the wonderful and caring Father he has been to all of us, including to Jesus Christ. For all that effort to teach me in the pre-existence. I love the feelings of love that flow from him as he explains the reasons he does things. I love Jesus Christ for the wonderful brother he has been to me. For the fact that he atoned for each of my individual sins individually. For the fact that he loves all my brothers and sisters who came here - he made a resurrection possible. For the fact that when I was in the mire he came and helped me out.

And, yes, I love several women for the wonderful and pure love that is in them. How can you not love love? And they are full of love.

Your argument in regard children is reasonable. But I have been prepared to give my life for my children. Admittedly I had my wife's concerns in mind in the matter also. But my love is also for my children. My love is like a reflector. If there is great love in the person then I feel great love back. Consequently I have enormous love for Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. My love for any of the women that I greatly love is lesser for that reason. If I had a child who's inner love was greater than these women then my love for that child would be greater.

You have said _

"Unfortunately most women do not usually have enough self-worth, to expect men to have the respect for them that they should, & thus women have often allowed men to abuse & control them throughout history."

What evidence do you have of people writing at the time that supports your feminist ideas?

Let me give you a little bit of information. Firstly you could quote that women weren't allowed to run businesses centuries ago at one stage. Have you found records explaining why men didn't want women to own businesses centuries ago? No, I'll bet you haven't. If a person in those days forfeited to pay their debts owing they were placed in jail. No declaring bankruptcy and walking away. Men don't like having to put women in jail. Women don't like going to jail. Are you starting to understand yet?

Women wanted the vote. Yet women getting the vote of itself didn't change anything. Women's Lib still had to turn up around a hundred years later claiming they've been suppressed. Women run back to the kitchen after hard wars because they don't want to pretend they are men anymore. Men get killed. Woman's Lib in one sort or another has always raised its ugly head whenever long periods of peace have existed and retreated back to the kitchen when its unsafe. If you did a mission you must have walked around with your eyes closed. Men are either suppressed by women's mouth or the man beats the wife, in almost every home. It is one or the other. And let me tell you that in the majority of cases it is the man who is suppressed by the woman's mouth. Suppressed women? Phooey.

What bothers me the most is that so many women are caught up in this rubbish and it destroys their lives.

If you don't start backing up what you are saying with chapter and verse I will do what I have never had to do in all the years I've been running this site, and delete any unsupported comments you post. You are teaching communist/feminist propaganda that I oppose with all my being. I'm sorry it has to come to this. But your stuff is just Satanic Women's Lib nonsense and I don't want you preaching it here like it is from God and fact. Your comments are welcome otherwise.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry but I don't have the time or desire to go do all that homework for you. I merely stated some truths in order to peak yours or anyone else's curiosity, interest & thinking.

I would encourage 'you' to look up all those references & study it out on your own, for that's the only way you can come to understand the truth.

For no matter how many quotes & scriptures I might hand you on a silver platter, it will never convince you if you don't have the desire to dig it all up for yourself.

Good luck in your study, but I must warn you, the truth is very shocking, but wonderful at the same time.

If you want to 'cast out' my words, that's your choice, for I didn't expect you to keep them up for long, for I realize they are very hard to read & accept.

Doug Towers said...


You haven't got the time to demonstrate Scriptures backing up your comments that Moses, Abraham and so many of the great prophets were really evil sinners? How interesting!

Well I'll live with what you consider my ill-informed view that these were great men and you can live with yours, that you say you got from Joseph Smith; but have provided no actual quotes or actual references.