I am not going to continually mention that these are my own thoughts and come from the view of my own perception. These may not mesh with your thoughts on how things work or a proper worldview, but my work is to express them and hope that they may be useful to others. I make no effort to avoid offense and trust the reader to find whatever value can be contrived from what I write here.

As I write, I think of my own children and, if there is to be an audience of this work at all, I picture them as that audience. If readers feel that they are being treated as relative children in this text, that is likely not a mistaken impression.

Although elements of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ as espoused by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints find many parallel concepts here, this work should not be construed as an approved text of that organization nor an accurate description of their doctrine. I may use the Church framework, but I don’t feel compelled to apply the flesh of this work in a way that Church leadership may consider to be orthodox. Again, this work is my own perception and mine alone.

The Family Described

It is almost painful to feel like I have to spend any time on telling others what constitutes a family. My grandparents and their forebears simply knew this and didn’t have to be told at all. It is like wood - you might have had a problem being all scientific about it, but you knew wood when you saw it, could distinguish it from other materials, and was hard pressed to be tricked when someone slapped some wood-looking veneer on other things and tried to convince you it really was wood. In the case of wood, most people can’t be tricked, but it is sad to say that most people are quite willing to call all sorts of things a family.

Here is the definition of a family: a married couple and their children, included any children adopted.

It seems terribly simple because it really is simple, but over time, it has become very important for many people with a variety of agendas to redefine every aspect of that definition usually for social gain or tax benefit, to put it bluntly.

Women as Daughters of God

I have very little to say to women. They are the daughters of God and should always be treated in that way. I have no illusions that God will be kind to anyone who dishonors his daughters. If women are less than wonderful, I place the blame predominantly on men and their treatment of women, driving them to the attitudes that they currently possess. It will be God that deals with women and it is man’s place to give them special privilege and to free them from obligations beyond their own wants and desires.

Women procure the circumstances they desire through the careful selection of a husband - if they want love, they should marry one who adores them; if they want control, they should marry one who will dote on her; if they want wealth, they should marry a man with a calculation that this is what he can provide.

Woman as Fire

A woman is at her heart a fire - at her best, she cooks the raw material of her husband’s nature and distill out what good is there. At her worst, a woman destroys and lays waste for generations those she influences. She chooses the collection of raw materials that a man is and it is a sad situation if she wanted gold and chose to marry an admixture of a man with little gold in him. Too many women put their trust in the foolish promises of alchemy.

The thought of a woman wanting the life of a man is a miscalculation of their natures. Why would a living fire want to become a pile of rock?

Men as Husbands of their Wives

A man’s primary obligation to God is to protect and provide for the needs and wants of his daughters.

Marrying the Boss’s Daughter

God is the boss. This earth upon which you live now is his company training camp. If you want a piece of the company, you have to marry his daughter to get it (ever read Grimm’s fairy tales - that is the prize - half the kingdom and a daughter!). Treat his daughter well and you will be on the boss’s good list - treat her poorly and prepare to face his wrath.

Sons of God or Sons of Someone Else?

It isn’t useful for men to think of themselves as the sons of God by nature. That is almost a status and men are not deserving of such a title (yet). “Son of God” is more a rank that is earned by devotion to Him, obedience to his edicts, and doing assigned duties. You can think of it best like joining your Father's company, where you start in the mail-room and your blood relation has no bearing on anything except perhaps after-hours disappointment from your heritage.

The only thing more taxing than actually being God's son is behaving in a way that embarrasses Him.

Who do you follow? Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, Mohammed? That is more your father than anyone else. Whose is the refining to which you submit? You are the son of that person.

Unconditional Love

This is a bylaw of modern times and why everyone is dissatisfied and predominantly angry at other people: everyone demands unconditional love. And in that statement, you see that such a thing is a fool's quest and bitterly disappointing to any that balance their life's sanity on it.

Stop being silly. You cannot give others unconditional love and you certainly won't ever receive it, from God (read the Bible more closely) or anyone else. It is an irrational expectation and holding out for this will tear a hole in your soul.

The conditions of "Unconditional" Love

I love this article. It really lays out the conditions of what most people think of “unconditional” love. It is a most tortured ride through re-definition, but it encapsulates the irrationality of therapeutic sorts.

https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/understanding-unconditional-love

It is like redefining “impossible” into something possible and saying you are a bad person if you don't slaughter yourself into being this new version of “possible”. It is difficult to respect a person who throws glitter, says how wonderful things might be, and then castigates most people for not meeting (obviously conditional) (truly) impossible standards. It truly sounds like a justification for never-ending therapy.

Loving someone “no matter what” leads them to never really improving, which is very much against what parents and God want for you. So many children hate their parents (and God) these days and it is over the issue of improvement over time. Love doesn't make you a better person; working to be better, while knowing that others may still not choose to love you, are more likely to bring the love one relishes.

A More Accurate Term

Instead of calling what our selfish children want unconditional love, a better description should be “phantasmic love”, which is desirable at fist blush but illusionary. It can't exist in reality, because no one can long tolerate such an intolerable situation or person, who makes wild demands to which no one can live to fulfill. Even God himself will cast the nasty into hell and walk off, and He is far more “loving” than you will ever be.