The True Doctrine of Womanhood

God knows males and females are innately equal. “The women’s issue” is not an issue because God and his anointed servants do not see and respect this obvious equality between men and women. Instead, the problem arises from a godless society lacking an eternal perspective, failing miserably to comprehend eternal truths.

Some who have adopted the world’s view contend equality for women means God’s sons and daughters must share the same roles and duties in order to be perfectly equal. The most obvious example we see today is men and women marching shoulder to shoulder into war. In a society where heterosexual marriage is no longer considered by many to be a desirable state, where children are often viewed as an economic burden because the family farm gave way to jobs in the big city, and where lifestyle options abound outside the home and hearth of yesteryear, it is little wonder such philosophies have gained popularity among us today.

However, while the restoration of eternal truth clearly confirms males and females have the same worth, it also reveals the innate power of the sexes lies in the wonderfully different characteristics the male and female join together. Each unique half complements the whole, and only in this God-given dichotomy properly joined together can mankind continue its progression. Man and woman are not only two equal parts of one whole, they are uniquely and necessarily different parts of one grand whole. We do not want them to be the same, we do not need them to be the same.



To the contrary, in marriage they must be different. One must be male and one must be female. They cannot both be males or females. Changing the laws and taking public opinion polls, attempting to be "politically correct" will never change the true doctrine associated with women.

The male part is necessary to manufacture the seed. If there is no seed there is no life. This morning when I wished Patsy a Happy Mothers Day, her response was, "I couldn't have done it without you." And she is right. The dirty little secret among every man since Adam is that we get great pleasure in our role as men in creating children. Women, and here's the true doctrine, do all the heavy lifting. That said, there is no life without both a male and a female contribution.

The power of the seeds is the fountain of life. However, the seed must be processed or it quickly dies. The male does not have the capacity to process the seed he manufactures. He is incomplete. By himself he is not whole. He must be connected, sealed together in partnership with his other half who has the unique capacity to manufacture an egg and then process the growth of the embryo to maturity.

By himself the male cannot process the seed to produce a living soul. No matter how many male parts we might add to the whole, the whole would forever remain incomplete and impotent to bring to pass the godly work of creating life. There is no place in eternal life, God’s life, for a single male or a single female who insists upon his or her right to act alone. 

The male needs, absolutely requires, a partnership with someone different than him -- one who has unique capacity he does not have. He needs the other half, a female half, with her singular attributes. He will never be whole without her. She will never be whole without him.

Some among us who are challenged with homosexual tendencies may not fully understand the eternal implications of this fundamental precept. The Church has one singular mission -- to be an instrument in bringing to pass God’s stated work and glory, the immortality and eternal life of men and women. The Church is to assist men and women in reaching their full potential to become as God is. Because of the revealed truth inherent in the Restoration doctrines, "God" has been revealed as an exalted couple possessing the power of procreation and the mission of the Church is to help God’s children become the same. The Church has no other legitimate mission even when it appears to be completely out of step with the exigencies of modern society’s agenda.

Homosexuality is simply not an option in the attainment of parenthood. It divides and subtracts from the achievement of the full divine potential of God’s sons and daughters. While adoptive homosexual parents may be caring and nurturing parents and are increasingly recognized as a legal definition of “family,” there is no power of the seeds in the homosexual relationship. It is a lethal perversion, a fatal distortion of those tender feelings and intimate acts calculated to bond the male and female parts together heterosexually in producing eternal lives.

To expect the Church to embrace, condone or even tolerate homosexuality amounts to requiring the Church to desert its divinely mandated mission and to deny the realities of revealed eternal truth. The Church cannot do so and remain the instrument of God it was prepared to be in administering the priesthood keys that unlock the gates of eternal lives.

Parley P. Pratt

Parley P. Pratt said:

All persons who attain to the resurrection, and to salvation, without these eternal ordinances, or sealing covenants, will remain in a single state, in their saved condition, without the joys of eternal union with the other sex, and consequently without a crown, without a kingdom, without the power to increase.

Hence, they are angels, and are not gods; and are ministering spirits, or servants, in the employ and under the direction of The Royal Family of heaven -- the princes, kings and priests of eternity. (Key To The Science of Theology, 9th ed. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1965], 169-70).

In the war of words and false doctrine that engulfs us every day over homosexuality, arguments abound whether homosexual tendencies are genetic, environmental or learned behavior. While it spices debate, the answer eternally is not really relevant. Homosexual partnerships are sexually impotent. The homosexual state is as incapable in the performance of the exalted work of God as the single state. Only an eternal heterosexual union with its two different parts has omnipotent potential.

There should be no debate in the Church about the need to value and cherish our homosexually challenged brothers and sisters as individual children of God, and to advance their happiness and well-being to the highest degree possible. But none of that changes the eternal implications of their fiercely held sexual preference. They are free to choose, free to act. Choosing an alternative lifestyle here and now is always an option under the principle of moral agency. But we must not fail to help them clearly see the eternally limiting ramifications of their short-sighted choice.

As recently as last month in General Conference, President Boyd K. Packer reminded us: "Tolerance is a virtue, but like all virtues, when exaggerated, it transforms itself into a vice. We need to be careful of the “tolerance trap” so that we are not swallowed up in it. The permissiveness afforded by the weakening of the laws of the land to tolerate legalized acts of immorality does not reduce the serious spiritual consequence that is the result of the violation of God’s law of chastity."

Recognizing the two parts must be different, males and females must cherish our different natures to perform our unique tasks for the benefit and blessing of the whole. While the powers resident in the different natures and capacities of the sexes are not the same, neither are they superior or inferior to each other. They are equally necessary and valuable.

Some fail to understand the term different does not imply the meaning unequal. Different does not mean unequal. Different capacities are not unequal capacities. Different roles and duties are not necessarily unequal roles and duties. Different missions and responsibilities are not necessarily unequal missions and responsibilities. Some do not comprehend this important principle with regard to the sexes.

Total and absolute equality can and does exist within the dichotomy of the marriage covenant.

What Were You Thinking? You Elected Obama!

Let me say it one more time. My basic inclination is to maintain a positive outlook on life. I resist any and all attempts by others to paint me into the corner of "victimhood." However, after the results of this last presidential election I feel like I was violated. I've never been mugged on Mean Street, USA, but this came awfully close when I imagine what it might feel like.

I feel like my generation owes an apology to my children and grandchildren and generations of my progeny not yet born. Even though it will do little to change the outcome, I offer my apology for what it's worth. I didn't donate much money to anyone in this election cycle, but my preferences are well-known on these pages and easily discerned. My preferred candidate, Mitt Romney, lost, but America lost more. We will never know what might have been by walking past Romney, perhaps the best qualified candidate for president we will ever see in America.

President Barack Obama

The electorate, however, has spoken. I know the majority picked Barack Hussein Obama. I also realize I no longer can be considered part of the majority. I didn't get what I wanted in this election (that happens routinely now). But to you who voted for Obama, I wonder if you only got what you THOUGHT you wanted.

By voting for Obama there is an increasing chance you have helped to destroy this nation. Layoffs are mounting in just the last week. The cruel realities of the excessive taxation associated with Obamacare have now begun to take their toll. Just today we learned three Hostess plants that make Twinkies were forced to close. The unions, warned of what would happen, went out on strike. Over 600 jobs were lost. The list of closures will continue. We've also heard from Papa John's and others, and there will be more. They will cut back on the hours worked by their remaining employees in order to avoid having to insure them under Obamacare. Elections DO have consequences.

Let me explain further about what happened during Obama's first four years to help you understand what you've done by re-electing him. During his first four years, Obama effectively nationalized the housing industry and slowed recovery by intervening. Then he gobbled up the automobile industry and crowned the unions while eliminating secured creditors. Next was the medical industry, almost 20 percent of our economy, by enacting Obamacare. You can label all this any way you choose, but the most accurate label I can put on it is socialism. If his first term is the preamble, his second term will accelerate the nationalism of the airlines, oil and gas and power. Already, we have seen the impact of Obama's policies on the coal industry. By taxing the end users to generate electricity, he's killed their markets and coal miners are losing their jobs. It would be safe to assume we will see more borrowed and tax money "invested" by our government into untested and unproven “green” industries.

The exit polling reveals that single women voted overwhelmingly for Obama. I confess I was baffled by the birth control question that arose during the primary debates. I couldn't imagine where that came from. In the general election we learned the strategy. Obama targeted women to garner votes solely based upon free government access to reproductive decisions by mandating that health care providers (then later the insurance companies) give out free birth control pills and provide abortions no matter where women and their infants were in their gestation development. It was all couched in "freedom of choice" language, or a woman's "right to choose."

That's such a compelling benefit - birth control on the front end (have sex indiscriminately) and abortion on demand (kill that growing fetus if you choose not to give birth). It's a failsafe world for women now - freedom to avoid pregnancy and freedom to terminate it when they ignore the first choice. Note the abuse of the words "free" and "freedom." Do you know, or have you ever spoken to someone who had an abortion, regardless of the cause of the pregnancy? Lost in all the discussion about "choice" and "freedom" is this: abortion is "akin" if not "equated" to murder.

Let's talk about immigration next. You may not know it, but by voting for Obama, you have virtually assured an ever-expanding definition of amnesty. Why? To further strengthen the voter base among Hispanics. Along with it will come legitimacy to those who entered America illegally.

Here's the rest of the story on what your federal government will be doing. It will assure huge payments for housing, subsistence, medical care, and free secondary education at the public expense. The reasoning is flawed, but it's simple - by handing out all those government sponsored goodies illegals will be embraced and will vote for the socialist regime that dispenses them.

What about drug laws? One would expect another four-year Obama term to further relax enforcement on drug laws with lighter penalties, while increasing regulations on legitimate businesses. Sixty new regulations have been put into place in the last thirty days. Expect significantly more relaxed drug laws and far less severe punishments for drug use. In the aftermath, watch for a huge expenditure on government drug treatment centers and increasing costs to feed and house the rapidly growing numbers of non-productive citizens.

Is that really what YOU voted for? My guess is you didn't really care much because if you don't pay taxes why would you be worried about how taxes are spent?

Don't be too surprised if God continues to disappear from our public expression and our devalued currency and coin. If you don't care about or believe in God, you won't be too concerned. The concept of separation of church and state (NOT Constitutional) will be cemented into our national fabric if it isn't already. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion by the state, not the free and open dialogue and expression of religion in the public square. We've seen the secularists raising objections to our use of the name Jesus Christ associated with Christmas. What will another four or eight or twelve years bring in the way of "progress" on this front?

How about foreign policy? There's already a creeping suspicion about Obama's ethnic origins and hence his loyalties. He's bowed before the Saudi princes, the Japanese hierarchy and others in the Muslim world. His tendency is to ignore the global reality of radical Islamic terrorists. He would like us to believe that silliness all ended with the assassination of Osama bin Laden. One could easily envision increasing accommodation of radical Islam with ongoing disregard for Christianity. Did anyone sense how evident that was during the last four years? What will another four produce? Is that what you wanted by voting for Obama?

Here's what your vote for Obama really means, and the one most troubling to me. My guess is that at least two, perhaps three, Supreme Court Justices will retire during the next four years. If you wanted a more "progressive" interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, then your vote for Obama all but assures it. Many lower court judges will also be replaced with more and more liberal progressive confirmations than ever before. My suspicion is that that morality will no longer be the ideal, rather the baseline will be the socialist ideals.

I read only this morning that forty states, powered by Tea Party activists, are mounting petition drives to secede from the Union.

Here's what your vote also signals - a severe dilution through taxation of the Second Amendment. Since you probably don't know what it is, it covers the right to bear arms. All that is required is taxation on ammunition to kill the marketplace. In the last week, it's the fear of that reality prompting a surge among our fellow citizens to buy up guns and ammunition while they still can at a reasonable price.

Do you believe Obama's tendency to either ignore or bypass the Constitution will be accelerated in his second term? Bet on it. His use of executive orders to enforce his policies rather than taking them to Congress to enact legislation will increase because he has a divided Congress.

There are also troubling signs the U.N. will exert more control over our sovereign rights as Americans. There may be arms reduction treaties and Internet taxes designed to be enforced by the U.N. The discussions are already underway. Does it concern you that Obama picked up endorsements for his second term from Putin, Castro, Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? What does that mean to you if you voted for Obama? Is that really the America you envisioned with your vote?

I wonder if we are not now fully enslaved by socialism. Have we reached the tipping point? Can we never again muster enough votes to turn back the surging tide? Since we are now north of $16 Trillion in debt as a nation, rather than firing up the cylinders of the American economic engine, we have fouled the pistons perhaps beyond repair. I would have favored a "mechanic" like Mitt Romney to look under the hood, rather than a guy who confessed he never got past seventh-grade math. He said on Letterman, "I don't really keep track of what the national debt is." This from the one president in our history who added more debt in four years than all the presidents in our history for a similar period.  Ignorance is no excuse, Mr. President.

I've said it before, but if you CONFISCATED all the total private wealth in America it would not begin to reduce the national debt. I nursed the notion throughout this election cycle that with Romney and Ryan on the job we could extend the time before our financial collapse as a nation.

Now all bets are off. Is that too pessimistic? I'm sorry about that too.

My hope now resides in unforeseen EVENTS I cannot predict. Historically, presidential second terms have been unsuccessful, typically because the truth about what has been concealed in the first term has a tendency to rise and administrations become embroiled in them to a point they are not sustainable. Beware of the Benghazi debacle - the worst of it is yet to come. The resignation of David Petraeus as CIA Chief is only the tip of that iceberg.

This will go down as the most expensive presidential campaign in history. What was accomplished by the combined expenditure of over $6 Billion? We bought ourselves the status quo - gridlock in Washington.

We've been here before, and we'll likely be here again. Wait for the pendulum to swing back again. It will.

What Happened to the Middle Class?

An article caught my eye this morning that updates the statistical findings available to us back in the 90s when we wrote Power and Covenants: Men, Women and Priesthood.

In the post the author, Jeremy Egerer, asserts the emergence of families with dual incomes has all but assured two demographic realities in our American society -- 1) the middle class is not improving economically, and 2) the lower wage earner class is shrinking as jobs for which they might be suited are disappearing.

Egerer is a newly-minted Christian conservative writer, having defected from the self-described ranks of "radical liberalism," making his insights particularly valid, it would seem, having bridged the gap of logic at long last.

Egerer reminds us that when Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, he noted the wages of the lowest classes were oftentimes determined by the lowest their employers could pay. Now, however, present population acknowledges that employers could not pay their workers less than would maintain a family of four (Book I, chapter VIII). Back in those days, if employers were to pay less that the minimum required for sustainability, then populations would shrink until competition over labor would force the wages of even the lowest classes higher. Western societies are generally monogamous in terms of marital structure, and historically the poorest working class was once able, even without minimum wage regulations, to afford families of five and greater. If this were not the case, then wealthy families would have been primarily responsible for the present population. However, that's not a likely scenario, considering even Smith acknowledged that wealthier women were less inclined toward childbearing.

Significantly, Smith noted wages could fall below this natural sustainability floor. If a household were to have a second source of income, the worker was likely to compete for employment at a lower price than his neighbors, bringing wages below standards of maintenance. Today, that second income is provided either when welfare payments are received from the state or when two breadwinners exist in the same home. The natural result of either circumstance is that the once-sustainable wages of the single employment are compromised, and though two breadwinners now occupy one household, their wealth is not greatly augmented.

The U.S. Census Bureau confirms this reality with its newly-released 2010 study on household income demographics. In the class warfare nonsense one hears from the left in an effort to protect the struggling lower classes who are oppressed (as they would have us believe), the lower class is least likely to be dual-income families, while those in wealthier middle-class categories are a minimum of close to four times more likely to have dual incomes. Compared with the bracket with the highest percentage of dual income households, the lowest quintile is somewhere around eleven times less likely to have a second income.  If this is the case, then poverty and the number of incomes are absolutely correlated.

Rejecting the mantra of the leftists and the socialists, Egerer concludes:

"The wise know another method of restoring household stability, and it is a restoration of the traditional, biblical nuclear family.  It will do little good to have both parents live in the same home if they refuse to subscribe to the natural roles provided by the God of nature. How the husband and wife manage themselves -- the man laboring as the breadwinner and the giver of law, the woman laboring with equal nobility to raise her children and ensure the propagation of heritage -- is as important as marriage itself. This is not to say that women should never seek maximum productivity, as even the Bible praises the woman who, above and beyond her duty to her household, operates a business from her home. But her income must remain in most cases a responsibility secondary to both the care of her children and the economic liberty of the family. This structure is intended by God. And if mankind is not wise enough to heed His call, as shown above, it will be enforced by the iron hand of nature." (Emphasis mine).

All Egerer has done here is affirm what Scott Strong and I were writing about twenty-five years ago:

"Recognizing the two parts [male and female] must be different, males and females should cherish our different natures to perform our unique tasks for the benefit and blessing of the whole. While the powers resident in the different natures and capacities of the sexes are not the same, neither are they superior or inferior to each other. They are equally necessary and valuable.

"Some fail to understand the term different does not imply the meaning unequal. Different does not mean unequal. Different capacities are not unequal capacities. Different roles and duties are not necessarily unequal roles and duties. Different missions and responsibilities are not necessarily unequal missions and responsibilities. Some do not comprehend this important principle with regard to the sexes.

"Total and absolute equality can and does exist within the dichotomy of the marriage covenant."

President Spencer W. Kimball

We cited President Spencer W. Kimball:

"Many of the social restraints which in the past have helped to reinforce and to shore up the family are dissolving and disappearing. The time will come when only those who believe deeply and actively in the family will be able to preserve their families in the midst of the gathering evil around us." (Ensign, October 1980, 4).

"We speak not by way of alarm but by way of gentle counsel. Let us go back to the basics and follow the fundamentals. Thus we will experience a spiritual resurgence in our lives which will help us through these tempestuous times." (Ensign, May 1981, 80).

As fallen mortals we have an innate desire to “want it all,” even when all the choices seem so “good.” The good news is we have more choices as men and women than ever before.

Sometimes forgotten from our pre-mortal experience is the reality we came to earth to make choices here, as we did there. If we will follow President Kimball’s counsel and go back to the basics, we will rediscover the truths about men and women, eternal marriage and the pure absolute equality of the sexes. Such truths will anchor our vision of becoming eternal couples dwelling in celestial glory and creating worlds without end. The realization of such lofty aims is only the result of today’s choices. Those eternal choices have everything to do with our respective but equal roles.

Only slightly off topic (bear with me), I heard many say this morning in our high priests' group, "Some people don't have a choice about whether or not they will work on Sunday, because that's what their jobs require them to do." Steve Young was cited as the example of a Mormon whose job (NFL football analyst) requires him to work on Sunday. Before that his job as quarterback required him to work on Sunday. Therefore, the reasoning proceeded among otherwise intelligent and seasoned high priests, he doesn't have a choice. REALLY?

No one even offered the obvious: Steve Young made a choice in his employment. No one forced him to take a job that required Sunday work. He made a choice. Don't condemn him for the choice he made. Similarly, no one compels you to do what you do.

Remember this, it is important: We all have moral agency to choose. It is a God-given endowment to each of us. The government of the United States of America is founded upon this key principle of freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness. We do that by choosing from among the vast array of alternatives. A key purpose of mortality is to learn to make choices, and to accept gladly the consequences of those choices, knowing we are accountable before Almighty God. 

Is there no other way?

There is no other way.

Align your choices with "the natural roles provided by the God of nature."

It is statistically obvious our society has not chosen well, but just because they haven't and they don't is no excuse for you to follow them over the cliff, is it? Our alignment determines our trajectory when our choices take flight toward their intended target.

So choose well. The harvest will be worth all the sacrifice.