The generational curse brought on by birth control

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

Do you have a reference for that change?

The current General Handbook, section 38.6.4, “Birth Control,” says:

“The decision about how many children to have and when to have them is extremely personal and private. It should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.”
 

the last sentence is important to note.  Seems to me that it has been explicitly stated that your judgement of others on this topic is the actual sin? 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

Do you have a reference for that change?

Do you want to know when it was changed or just evidence it was?

The latter:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/birth-control?lang=eng

Quote

The decision of how many children to have and when to have them is a private matter for a husband and wife….

Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple. Elective abortion as a method of birth control, however, is contrary to the commandments of God.

Added:  oops, should have turned the page, lol

Edited Sunday at 07:44 PM by Calm

[TheTanakas]

On 8/23/2026 at 1:43 PM, MustardSeed said:

The current General Handbook, section 38.6.4, “Birth Control,” says:

“The decision about how many children to have and when to have them is extremely personal and private. It should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.”
 

the last sentence is important to note.  Seems to me that it has been explicitly stated that your judgement of others on this topic is the actual sin? 

Not my judgment, but those in these teachings:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strongly encourages married couples to 
have children. It is against birth control ... We seriously regret that there should exist a
sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of 
their children".

"Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would 
be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially 
to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth 
control will reap disappointment by and by" (May 1971 Ensign).

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

Not my judgment, but those in these teachings:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strongly encourages married couples to 
have children. It is against birth control ... We seriously regret that there should exist a
sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of 
their children".

"Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would 
be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially 
to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth 
control will reap disappointment by and by" (May 1971 Ensign).

How far back in history with much revelation in between you allow yourself to go to require yourself and others to follow the dictates of leadership, which is often taken out of context of cultural realities? Do you stop at 1970? Because there is PLENTY of directives over miriads of topics since creation of earth that havecsince been overruled by current leadership. 
where is your faith in present leadership? 

Edited yesterday at 06:33 PM by MustardSeed

[Notatbm]

On 7/20/2026 at 2:07 PM, Amulek said:

I have seen too many wealthy, well-meaning parents who have given their children every opportunity except the opportunity to really develop a close relationship with their mom and dad. They had the best schools, activities, vacations, and material comforts, but very little meaningful time with the people they wanted most. No amount of money can replace a parent's consistent presence, attention, and genuine interest in who their children are becoming.

To me, the limiting factor isn't just whether you can provide for more children – it's whether each child can receive the time, love, guidance, and individual relationship they deserve.

 

Same can be said of parents in long term high demand callings in the church. My father was either in a bishopric, a stake presidency or the actual stake president literally from the time I was born till well after I graduated high school. 
 

due to the endless meetings and endless Sundays I literally do not know tha man as he was never around. I am very sure I have sat with him in church less than ten times in my entire life. 
 

not his fault- just being obedient. I have had my own opportunities long ago for a few high demand callings. I just said no and told them yea I pretty much had an absentee father who regarded every church meeting as more important than his kids. I will not subject my kids to that. 
 

I was in the military and deployed all the time. I still spent (no exaggeration) at least 100x more time with my kids than my father spent with us. It wasn’t even close. 

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, Notatbm said:

Same can be said of parents in long term high demand callings in the church. My father was either in a bishopric, a stake presidency or the actual stake president literally from the time I was born till well after I graduated high school. 
 

due to the endless meetings and endless Sundays I literally do not know tha man as he was never around. I am very sure I have sat with him in church less than ten times in my entire life. 
 

not his fault- just being obedient. I have had my own opportunities long ago for a few high demand callings. I just said no and told them yea I pretty much had an absentee father who regarded every church meeting as more important than his kids. I will not subject my kids to that. 
 

I was in the military and deployed all the time. I still spent (no exaggeration) at least 100x more time with my kids than my father spent with us. It wasn’t even close. 

My husband had the same attitude. Family first over callings.  
Now that our kids are grown and gone, he is very committed and devoted to his calling in the young men’s. He’s made a huge difference and a lot of their lives. Many of them if not, most of them are autistic and it is a very challenging class, but he has made a tremendous difference in their lives. It’s been good for me to be exposed to something other than what I was raised with, where church took the priority over family in every way.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

Same can be said of parents in long term high demand callings in the church. My father was either in a bishopric, a stake presidency or the actual stake president literally from the time I was born till well after I graduated high school. 

due to the endless meetings and endless Sundays I literally do not know tha man as he was never around. I am very sure I have sat with him in church less than ten times in my entire life. 

not his fault- just being obedient. I have had my own opportunities long ago for a few high demand callings. I just said no and told them yea I pretty much had an absentee father who regarded every church meeting as more important than his kids. I will not subject my kids to that. 

My father also served in the bishopric throughout my entire childhood. He never sat with us in the pews on Sundays, but he was at the building on Wednesday nights (along with my mother, who was the YW President); he was present at stake dances, took me to Priesthood sessions of conference (and ice cream afterwards), home teaching assignments, service projects, and more.

Outside of church, he taught me how to fight, handle money, work hard, drive a car, etc., all while still managing to take me fishing and shooting with some degree of regularity (read: much more than most anyone else I have ever met). He would come to all of my band performances - even though he kind of hated football games and would sometimes leave after halftime - and, by and large, be a constant part of my life. 

When I was first called to serve in a bishopric myself, my Stake President made it clear to me - like, in no uncertain terms clear - that my family was my number one priority.

Based on my experience growing up, I had never assumed otherwise. But I have heard from others who, like yourself, weren't as fortunate. 

I'm not sure how much of that was a Church / cultural thing and not the individual person, but to the extent that it may have been the former, my sense is that it's something the Church has moved away from over the years.

 

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Amulek said:

But I have heard from others who, like yourself, weren't as fortunate. 

I'm not sure how much of that was a Church / cultural thing and not the individual person, but to the extent that it may have been the former, my sense is that it's something the Church has moved away from over the years.

Given the greater cultural attitudes of the past towards how men should be involved with their families (providers primarily, people were surprised even shocked when they found out my dad did meals, dishes, even changed diapers and we lived in northern California, lol) and the heavy emphasis on families and the lack of a drinking culture in the Church, I would be surprised if we were worse than the surrounding population.  Church would be a substitute for excessive work, hanging out with the boys, social clubs, etc rather in addition to from what I saw and heard.  I wonder if there were studies comparing the two.  I would hope we were better, but Dad being above or too incompetent for the caregiving of kids (even now a guy is often looked at as being wonderful and noteworthy if they are the caregiver, gets compliments , etc while the mom doing the same exact thing is expected and ignored) was a pretty widespread cultural attitude, so who knows.  

Edited yesterday at 08:23 PM by Calm

[Notatbm]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

My father also served in the bishopric throughout my entire childhood. He never sat with us in the pews on Sundays, but he was at the building on Wednesday nights (along with my mother, who was the YW President); he was present at stake dances, took me to Priesthood sessions of conference (and ice cream afterwards), home teaching assignments, service projects, and more.

Outside of church, he taught me how to fight, handle money, work hard, drive a car, etc., all while still managing to take me fishing and shooting with some degree of regularity (read: much more than most anyone else I have ever met). He would come to all of my band performances - even though he kind of hated football games and would sometimes leave after halftime - and, by and large, be a constant part of my life. 

When I was first called to serve in a bishopric myself, my Stake President made it clear to me - like, in no uncertain terms clear - that my family was my number one priority.

Based on my experience growing up, I had never assumed otherwise. But I have heard from others who, like yourself, weren't as fortunate. 

I'm not sure how much of that was a Church / cultural thing and not the individual person, but to the extent that it may have been the former, my sense is that it's something the Church has moved away from over the years.

 

This was in 80s so going forward I do not know how anything has/ has not changed. I do know that three nights during the week he had meetings at the stake center ( HC and church courts etc) fri and or sat was stake and ward temple nights so he and my mother would be gone both nights. Sunday gone all day. Our stake was over 40 miles across back then ( now it’s about five) so he had to travel to the three wards out in the boonies twice a month. We had twelve wards till we split ( that was about five years worth and then we ended up with nine wards) so he really never visited our ward. I was too young while he was in bishopric so I don’t remember that. Once in stake presidency he disappeared. Never had time to go to my ball games, swim meets, scout courts of honor ( except for Eagle) etc. we rarely went hunting or fishing since they HAD to go to temple nights and on sat when he usually was home part of the day we spent all time either at church farm, working in our garden or participating in some wards service project EVERY SINGLE WEEK.
 

Anyway everyone’s experience is different and mine largely drives my contempt for nearly all things church. Funny thing is even that wasn’t enough until it was shown and proven the church has been dishonest with its history, hides stuff, has no real discernment (salamander letter fiasco) and submits fraudulent government paperwork. Those last few things finally pushed me over the edge. 

Edited 23 hours ago by Notatbm

[Notatbm]

I’m did a google ai question about stake president workload in 1980s. Interesting response and it is nearly identical to my experience:

 

Serving as an LDS (Mormon) stake president in the 1980s required a heavy time commitment that frequently strained family life, though the church implemented structural changes during that decade to reduce burdens on local leaders. [1, 2]

A stake president is an unpaid, local volunteer leader who oversees multiple congregations, known as wards.

 

The Time Demands

• Endless Meetings: Leaders spent weeknights and entire Sundays in counseling sessions, leadership training, and disciplinary meetings.
• Full-Time Jobs: Because the position is a lay ministry, presidents had to balance these heavy church duties with a regular 40-hour work week and raising their own children.
• Personal Sacrifices: Many spouses and children of 1980s leaders recall missing vacations, dinners, and weekend events because the president was attending to church members in crisis.

 

Church Reforms in the Era

Recognizing the heavy toll on families, the leadership in Salt Lake City adjusted several programs during this period:

• Consolidated Sunday Schedule: In 1980, the church introduced the three-hour "block" meeting. This replaced a fragmented schedule that previously required members and leaders to drive to the church building multiple times on Sunday. [1]
• Fewer Conferences: In 1979, regional stake conferences were reduced from four times a year down to two to save time and travel expenses for families.[1]

 

Differing Perspectives

Experiences varied widely from one family to another: [1]

• Strained Relationships: Some family members felt neglected, noting that the intense church workload took priority over home life.
• Spiritual Focus: Other families viewed the calling as a shared sacrifice, believing that the service brought spiritual protection and blessings to their home despite the absence.

 

If you are researching a specific region or looking for personal accounts from that era, let me know what additional details or perspectives you would like to explore

 

Phoenix Arizona area

 

In the Phoenix, Arizona metro area (including the historically high-LDS communities of Mesa, Tempe, and Chandler), the strain on 1980s stake presidents was uniquely intensified by an unprecedented population and construction boom. [1, 2]

During this decade, Arizona’s LDS population grew by an explosive 40 percent (jumping from roughly 172,000 to 241,000 members). For local stake presidents, this transformed an already demanding volunteer calling into a chaotic, time-consuming second job that directly encroached on family life. [1]

 

Why Phoenix Area Leaders Faced Extravagant Time Demands

• Constant Boundary Realignment Meetings: As thousands of people moved into the Valley, stakes and wards grew too large and had to be divided continuously (e.g., the creation of the Glendale Arizona North Stake in 1981). Stake presidents spent late weeknights pouring over maps, analyzing demographic numbers, and interviewing dozens of members to staff entirely new congregations. [1, 2, 3]
• The "Building Boom" Workload: Because new chapels were springing up across the Phoenix grid, stake presidents had to oversee massive local fundraising and construction efforts. Before modern centralization, local leaders bore heavy logistical burdens for real estate acquisition and building dedication. [1]
• Managing the Influx of Converts: The Southwest was a primary target for missionary growth. Stake presidents had to handle a heavy load of temple recommend interviews, baptism confirmations, and leadership training for brand-new members who were unfamiliar with how the church operated. [1, 2]
• Geographic Spread: Long before modern freeways connected the entire Valley, driving from a stake center in Phoenix to a ward in a growing suburb meant hours in the car on arterial roads, eating further into family dinners and weekend time. [1]

 

Local Family Dynamics

• The "Mesa vs. Outlier" Disconnect: In heavily LDS enclaves like Mesa, a stake president's family at least had a dense community support network of neighbors, school teachers, and politicians who shared their faith. In the newer, sprawling boundaries of West Phoenix or Glendale, the families of stake presidents often felt more isolated, navigating the father's near-total absence without a massive LDS neighborhood support structure. [1, 2, 4]
• The "Widow of the Church" Phenomenon: Wives of Valley stake presidents in this era frequently ran large households entirely on their own, managing scorching Arizona summers, youth sports, and family logistics solo while their husbands were sequestered in air-conditioned stake offices for leadership meetings.

[Amulek]

20 hours ago, Notatbm said:

This was in 80s so going forward I do not know how anything has/ has not changed.

My dad’s time in the bishopric was a little later than your dad’s experience (i.e., late ’80s and throughout the ’90s), so that may account for some of the difference.

 

20 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Anyway everyone’s experience is different and mine largely drives my contempt for nearly all things church. Funny thing is even that wasn’t enough until it was shown and proven the church has been dishonest with its history, hides stuff, has no real discernment (salamander letter fiasco) and submits fraudulent government paperwork. Those last few things finally pushed me over the edge. 

I don't really agree with the characterization that the Church has been “dishonest” about its history, but that may partly be a consequence of our different experiences as well.

I grew up LDS in the Bible Belt, so I was exposed to anti-Mormon literature and arguments against the Church from a fairly young age. That caused me to seek out information about Church history and controversial issues more than the average member did at the time. As a result, a lot of the things that people today describe as shocking discoveries simply weren't discoveries for me.

That's not to say I think the Church has always done a particularly good job of making all of that information accessible to the average member. It clearly hasn't. I think the Church has improved considerably in that regard over the years, particularly with things like the Joseph Smith Papers, the Gospel Topics Essays, Saints, and the amount of historical material now available through the Church's own websites. 

So I'm perfectly comfortable with the criticism that the Church used to present some parts of its history in a simplified, correlated, or less-than-comprehensive way, and that it could have done a better job making some of the messier parts more accessible. I just don't think that is synonymous with being “dishonest” about its history. Perhaps because I encountered many of these issues earlier than most, I don't experience the Church's increased transparency today as an admission that the previous story was a lie. I just see it more as the Church becoming much better at making the fuller and more complicated history readily available to ordinary members.