If a boy wanted to come into my home and join my daughters while they showered and used the bathroom I would respond with violent force if necessary to prevent it. I would give my own life or take his to prevent that if necessary.
There is an idea that is lost to us, and in fact it is offensive to us now. It was found in Bruce R McConkies writings and in Spencer W Kimball’s writings and seemed to have been commonly known in better days. The idea was that a person doesn’t have virtue in its right and proper sense if they value their life more than they value their virtue. When we read Spencer W Kimball’s words “It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle” some of us are offended.
But this is not an obligation for girls alone. It is better for a man to die having defended his wife’s or daughter’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.
We live in a day when moral atrocities of the sort Mormon wrote about are at our door.
If we are men, then we will not let a boy sneak into the shower with our daughter without being willing to give our own life, or being willing to take the life of the perpetrator to prevent it.
If we let big bureaucracy government bring this about in our schools and other places, and then sit down and allow it we will not have those children in the resurrection. Temple or no, our covenant then lies shattered, and our children will belong to another man in the resurrection.
We may wisely choose far less violent options, by simply keeping our children in school at home and teaching them there if necessary. But let us be clear that the prize of mortality is a body and its ability to procreate, and when the price of virtue becomes death then we do not hesitate to pay it, even if it is our own life we pay with. We gained a body to test our virtue, we willingly sacrifice our body to prove our virtue.
If the cost of virtue be blood, we gladly pay that price.
If we are at a store, and our wives and daughters are in the restroom, and a man seeks to enter with them, what price would we pay to prevent it? Are we such cogs that we let him pass? Had he simply offered to pay us money to go in there, what amount would we accept? I am afraid that many of us have become such cogs to an evil government that, while we would not accept $100,000 to let him in, we would not risk being convicted of misbehavior, or even risk being tossed out of the store to prevent it.
We would not accept a million dollars to let a boy enter the showers of our home while our daughters are there. But we are no longer men, but cogs to a government made up of the most despicable men the country can scavenge, and I fear many of us would gladly send our daughters off to experience that away from our own home rather than simply keep them home for school in private.
We are more willing to let our daughters be violated than to violate laws, even when those laws are no laws at all but chains forged of bureaucracy meant to enslave us.
We would rather have our daughters be prey to perverts than to buck against our yoke of bondage.
The day we send our girls off to school knowing that boys can enter their locker rooms and their bathrooms is the day we forfeit our eternal right to them. If we allow them to go where perverted men and boys can prey on them, we forfeit our divine right to family. Then we no longer deserve daughters. Then we no longer deserve wives. For then we are no longer men. And god will give his dear ones to others, for we would not pay the price.