The Churchâ??s Changing Position On Birth Control

[Analytics]

Ensign, May 1971

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strongly encourages married couples to have children. It is against birth control. In a letter from the First Presidency to bishops and stake presidents, dated April 14, 1969, the Churchâ??s philosophy is expressed: â??We seriously regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity.

â??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.â?

Gospel Topics Now

Children are one of the greatest blessings in life, and their birth into loving and nurturing families is central to Godâ??s purposes for humanity. When husband and wife are physically able, they have the privilege and responsibility to bring children into the world and to nurture them. The decision of how many children to have and when to have them is a private matter for the husband and wife.

In 1969, the First Presidency said it was against church teachings to limit or delay the conception of children. Now how many kids to have and when to have them is a private matter that the church doesnâ??t teach about. This change in position is probably a big reason for the big decrease in the churchâ??s birth rate.

From a secular perspective, it would seem that the church is slowly getting with the times and recognizing that there can be economic, psychological, environmental, spiritual and physical drawbacks to having too many kids.

But from a religious perspective, what is the explanation? Was the first presidencyâ??s former position mere opinion that happened to be wrong? Or is the former opinion correct, but they are now caving to the worldly ethic that family planning is a personal thing? Or are both opinions right for their times, and we are in a transitional period of easing into a time when the earth is fully replenished (i.e. maximum sustainable population level)?

[BCSpace]

No doubt some Church leaders 30 and 40 years ago thought any use of birth control meant selfishly limiting the size of the family. But can you see anything in the references you gave that actually says anything against the use of birth control devices or pills etc. or is it simply against selfishly limiting the size of you're family?

Since I see the latter, I'd have to say there really hasn't been a changing position at all. It's remained the same.

[thesometimesaint]

In the Special Collection section of the Harold B. Lee Library at BYU there are papers from early one Apostle(Don't remember who off hand) that anything less than 13 children is a serious sin. Needless to say few in the Church today would follow that.

[Analytics]

No doubt some Church leaders 30 and 40 years ago thought any use of birth control meant selfishly limiting the size of the family. But can you see anything in the references you gave that actually says anything against the use of birth control devices or pills etc. or is it simply against selfishly limiting the size of you're family?

Since I see the latter, I'd have to say there really hasn't been a changing position at all. It's remained the same.

From the 1969 position,

it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children.

"Artificially curtaining or preventing the birth of children" means using birth control pills or devices to limit or delay having children, does it not?

[ttribe]

Honestly, I think this is more a reflection of two things - 1) the fact that it is not as economically and emotionally feasible for couples to have as large of families under the current circumstances; and 2) a recognition of the fact the Church could further move down the path of "teaching [the membership] correct principles, and let[ting] then govern themselves."

[katherine the great]

Having a child with an incurable disease, a child who just had surgery, a child who is in college, a child going on a mission next week, a child getting braces and a high maintenance teenaged daughter, I feel like birth control is one of my best friends!

[ttribe]

Having a child with an incurable disease, a child who just had surgery, a child who is in college, a child going on a mission next week, a child getting braces and a high maintenance teenaged daughter, I feel like birth control is one of my best friends!

Which speaks to #1 on my list of two. Thanks for the confirmation! BTW, I have three children...having some difficulty imagining a fourth right now (even though I ADORE the three I have).

[AmazingDisgrace]

Here's a quote that specifically mentions the pill:

Many good people, being influenced by the bold spirit of the times, are now seeking surgery for the wife or the husband so they may avoid pregnancies and comply with the strident voice demanding a reduction of children. It was never easy to bear and rear children, but easy things do not make for growth and development. But loud, blatant voices today shout â??fewer childrenâ?? and offer the Pill, drugs, surgery, and even ugly abortion to accomplish that. Strange the proponents of depopulating the world seem never to have thought of continence!

Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Report, April 1971, p. 7

This one condemns any contraceptives, unless the parents have health problems:

When the husband and wife are healthy, and free from inherited weaknesses and diseases that might be transmitted with injury to their offspring the use of contraceptives is to be condemned.

David O. McKay, Conference Report, October 1943, p. 30

This one is pretty forceful, but I can see how it could be interpreted not to apply to couples who have already had a sufficient number of children.

We declare it is a grievous sin before God to adopt restrictive measures in disobedience to God's divine command from the beginning of time to â??multiply and replenish the earth.â?? Surely those who project such measures to prevent life or to destroy life before or after birth will reap the whirlwind of God's retribution, for God will not be mocked.

Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, October 1972, p. 63

[LDSMusic483]

I had an interview with a member of the Seventy on my mission, and he actually talked about this a little (it was after a long day, he seemed tired, and just started going off on random subjects. Very interesting for me anyway!). He said that in general, the brethren were still against using birth control in prohibiting having children, but that there was nothing wrong in using it to plan your family. Obviously curtailing children for the reasons of income, careers, etc is not something the church will ever be for, but realizing that it may not be towards the families well being to have a new baby every year or so. That would not be good for the emotional or physical well-being of the mother (unless she's supermom). So the church, I believe, instead of wanting to make it seem as though women who may not be able to emotionally/physically cope with that much babymaking were not following the council of the church, has now made it possible for the decision to come to them from the Lord who knows all situations.

[No Touch]

Not to sound like I'm giving a "worldly answer", but it is a different world we live in. Someone cannot by force of their will, just work things out no matter how many kids they have, and I think Church leaders of more recent times have probably been exposed to families in which the parents were to some extent irresponsible, in that they have not been able to provide for and care for their children properly, and in many ways defeating that purpose of being fruitful and bringing up souls in the Church, as such an upbringing can be a huge factor in leading someone away from the Church. Just my opinion I guess, but I think that while people should see larger families and more children as a blessing, I believe that they also need to be honest and realistic about their ability to also be self reliant while being responsible for so many children.

[cjcampbell]

In the Special Collection section of the Harold B. Lee Library at BYU there are papers from early one Apostle(Don't remember who off hand) that anything less than 13 children is a serious sin. Needless to say few in the Church today would follow that.

We would have loved to have had more children. We had two. I guess we will have to be satisfied with the blessings we have been given.

No, I do not think the earth is close to being filled or 'replenished.' In fact, you could fit the entire population of the world into Texas and part of Oklahoma and the population density would be no greater than it was in my neighborhood in Sammamish, Washington. The neo-Mathusians will never quit, though, will they? They have been predicting imminent disaster from over-population for nearly two centuries now. Perhaps someday they will be right. But somehow I doubt it.

[katherine the great]

Not to sound like I'm giving a "worldly answer", but it is a different world we live in. Someone cannot by force of their will, just work things out no matter how many kids they have, and I think Church leaders of more recent times have probably been exposed to families in which the parents were to some extent irresponsible, in that they have not been able to provide for and care for their children properly, and in many ways defeating that purpose of being fruitful and bringing up souls in the Church, as such an upbringing can be a huge factor in leading someone away from the Church. Just my opinion I guess, but I think that while people should see larger families and more children as a blessing, I believe that they also need to be honest and realistic about their ability to also be self reliant while being responsible for so many children.

I don't think it is even as much a matter of being irresponsible as it is a matter of how unbelievably expensive children are. It costs at least $10,000.00 just to give birth and gets exponentially more expensive from there. It's not the good old days any more! Even for the frugal minded, medical care alone is completely out of control. My daughter has type one Diabetes and her medical expenses run us at least $300.00 a month and that is with insurance--after the deductible is met! I'm not even factoring in the times she has had to be hospitalized.

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

Yes, as has been shown the counsel(my example) was different many years ago. But so what? We believe in counsel to meet the times.

[bluebell]

I don't think it is even as much a matter of being irresponsible as it is a matter of how unbelievably expensive children are. It costs at least $10,000.00 just to give birth and gets exponentially more expensive from there. It's not the good old days any more! Even for the frugal minded, medical care alone is completely out of control. My daughter has type one Diabetes and her medical expenses run us at least $300.00 a month and that is with insurance--after the deductible is met! I'm not even factoring in the times she has had to be hospitalized.

I agree with Katherine-raising children in this day and age is lot more expensive then it used to be and that alone limits the number of children each family can have.

[why me]

This is a one of the bugbears that catholics have against mormons. In the Catholic faith, birth control is a sin and they judge the lds faith accordingly. In the past, birth control was very much not encouraged in the lds faith and any woman using birth control was not living the gospel. This goes back until the early 80's.

But then, things began to change rather quickly. Now, birth control is not encouraged but understood by the GA's. To my mind, it all goes to the lds idea of the preexistence. Having contraception does not prevent life. That spirit from the preexistence will find a home on earth. Whereas, in the catholic faith, it is a quite different understanding of where we were before coming to earth.

[LDSToronto]

Obviously curtailing children for the reasons of income, careers, etc is not something the church will ever be for, but realizing that it may not be towards the families well being to have a new baby every year or so.

I wish I could remember the exact quote and talk in General Conference (maybe priesthood session), but I recall President Hinckley (I think it was him) talking about how, when we bring children into the world, we are fiscally responsible for them. I don't think he went as far as saying not to have children based on income, but it was phrased in a way that made me think that he was at least insinuating that you should not have more children than you can afford.

I've tried finding the quote but can't seem to turn it up.

H.

[thesometimesaint]

LDSToronto:

1. By time you can "afford" to get married it wouldn't be any fun.

2. Repeat for having children.

[LDSToronto]

LDSToronto:

1. By time you can "afford" to get married it wouldn't be any fun.

2. Repeat for having children.

Hey, I'm not saying, I'm just saying. I don't think financially responsible means the same thing as wealthy, or even comfortable. I'm on your side - I'm glad I got married early - I'll barely be in my 40's when my oldest is on his mission, and the next is getting ready. I want to be young when the kids move out so I can enjoy some of what I've built...

H.

[LeSellers]

I agree with Katherine-raising children in this day and age is lot more expensive then it used to be and that alone limits the number of children each family can have.

It has always been expensive to raise children.

The difference between now, when people assume it is more expensive, and then, when children were considered a blessing, and well worth any expense, is perception and expectations.

In modern western society (I was about to write "culture", but modern society has the same sort of culture as a petri dish), we have expectations that are far, far higher than did our forebears. We expect to have a house with one child in each room plus a guest bedroom; a two-car, attached garage; three or more bathrooms. We expect to have a college "education" irrespective of whether it actually makes any economic sense (a Master's degree for a job that pays $20,000 is not a rational choice), five television sets in the house of four people, and six motor vehicles when only three drive (can't live without a pickup truck, used twice a month to haul a bag of concrete mix). If I exaggerate, it is only for emphasis, but I do not exaggerate by much, if at all. "Fashion", by definition, a style so odious we are forced to change it twice a year, is more important than freedom (financial or any other), one's popularity defines his self-worth, and one buys popularity only at The GAP, Nordstom, or Nieman-Marcus. Anyone without a cell phone is weird, and if he has only one, he's ostracized. Women who think that unless they own twenty pair of shoes, they are not shod at all, bear children who think that twenty is enough for this week, but what about next? Hand-me-downs, once the mainstay of second and fifth children, are a sure sign of mental deficiency, so each child gets his own new shoes, his own new shirts, his own new jeans (with professionally pre-torn holes in the knees).

We live beyond our means, we buy the superfluous. When we have no more money, we charge the ridiculous. Then we whine that having children is too expensive nowadays.

Poppycock!!

The only thing that really limits a family's size is the number of seats in a sports car. Oh, I really meant a minivan. Our daughters have both had to limit their families to six children because no one makes a production vehicle with more than 8 seats, at least none with fewer than 15. (Okeh, it's not exactly true, but one of our sons-in-law is dedicated to Japanese brands, alas.)

Lehi

[rpn]

I think the counsel is the same. But I think there is a better understanding that these types of issues have not been definitely decided by scripture and therefore the scriptural principles need to be taught and members left to apply it and be held accountable for doing so to the Lord (as opposed to some leader). I further think the change is an acknowledgment that the church is a worldwide church and some countries have laws about how many children a family can have.

[LDSToronto]

It has always been expensive to raise children.

The difference between now, when people assume it is more expensive, and then, when children were considered a blessing, and well worth any expense, is perception and expectations.

We live beyond our means, we buy the superfluous. When we have no more money, we charge the ridiculous. Then we whine that having children is too expensive nowadays.

Well, that's one person's opinion. But there are some realities that you need to face. First, people work further away from their homes nowadays because affordable homes are not to be found in major cities. Even still, near a major centre, two incomes are almost requisite to own a modest home. That is what life is like in some parts. I live an hour from my employer, and still have paid more than $300K for a modest home. Nothing fancy. Closer and I can double and triple that price for *less* house. In the past ten years, house prices have risen faster than my income.

Because I work so far away, and because of housing, my wife also works, and she needs a vehicle as well. I have two TV's - one connected to the antenna, the other a tiny thing used for DVD's only. One boy in music, both boys in scouts, daughter in nothing but church stuff. Socking a bit away for retirement, for kids education, and then some money leftover to be comfortable. Work pays for my cell phone, and my wife's cell phone, none of our kids have cell phones or the sundry gadgets that others their age have.

Things these days are just more expensive in certain areas. I wouldn't have more kids because I can't afford a bigger house, I can't afford to clothe anymore than three of them, or feed more than three of them, or truck three of them around anymore than I do.

No complaints, of course, but to say that the economic conditions are the same as they were 45 years ago, or even 25 years ago, is a seriously misinformed statement.

H.

[katherine the great]

It has always been expensive to raise children.

The difference between now, when people assume it is more expensive, and then, when children were considered a blessing, and well worth any expense, is perception and expectations.

In modern western society (I was about to write "culture", but modern society has the same sort of culture as a petri dish), we have expectations that are far, far higher than did our forebears. We expect to have a house with one child in each room plus a guest bedroom; a two-car, attached garage; three or more bathrooms. We expect to have a college "education" irrespective of whether it actually makes any economic sense (a Master's degree for a job that pays $20,000 is not a rational choice), five television sets in the house of four people, and six motor vehicles when only three drive (can't live without a pickup truck, used twice a month to haul a bag of concrete mix). If I exaggerate, it is only for emphasis, but I do not exaggerate by much, if at all. "Fashion", by definition, a style so odious we are forced to change it twice a year, is more important than freedom (financial or any other), one's popularity defines his self-worth, and one buys popularity only at The GAP, Nordstom, or Nieman-Marcus. Anyone without a cell phone is weird, and if he has only one, he's ostracized. Women who think that unless they own twenty pair of shoes, they are not shod at all, bear children who think that twenty is enough for this week, but what about next? Hand-me-downs, once the mainstay of second and fifth children, are a sure sign of mental deficiency, so each child gets his own new shoes, his own new shirts, his own new jeans (with professionally pre-torn holes in the knees).

We live beyond our means, we buy the superfluous. When we have no more money, we charge the ridiculous. Then we whine that having children is too expensive nowadays.

Poppycock!!

The only thing that really limits a family's size is the number of seats in a sports car. Oh, I really meant a minivan. Our daughters have both had to limit their families to six children because no one makes a production vehicle with more than 8 seats, at least none with fewer than 15. (Okeh, it's not exactly true, but one of our sons-in-law is dedicated to Japanese brands, alas.)

Lehi

You're the only one I've heard whining on this thread.

[katherine the great]

Well, that's one person's opinion. But there are some realities that you need to face. First, people work further away from their homes nowadays because affordable homes are not to be found in major cities. Even still, near a major centre, two incomes are almost requisite to own a modest home. That is what life is like in some parts. I live an hour from my employer, and still have paid more than $300K for a modest home. Nothing fancy. Closer and I can double and triple that price for *less* house. In the past ten years, house prices have risen faster than my income.

Because I work so far away, and because of housing, my wife also works, and she needs a vehicle as well. I have two TV's - one connected to the antenna, the other a tiny thing used for DVD's only. One boy in music, both boys in scouts, daughter in nothing but church stuff. Socking a bit away for retirement, for kids education, and then some money leftover to be comfortable. Work pays for my cell phone, and my wife's cell phone, none of our kids have cell phones or the sundry gadgets that others their age have.

Things these days are just more expensive in certain areas. I wouldn't have more kids because I can't afford a bigger house, I can't afford to clothe anymore than three of them, or feed more than three of them, or truck three of them around anymore than I do.

No complaints, of course, but to say that the economic conditions are the same as they were 45 years ago, or even 25 years ago, is a seriously misinformed statement.

H.

You can't hide. LeSellers sees all.

[John Larsen]

With advances in modern medicine and prenatal care, a couple married in their senior year at BYU could easily have 20-25 children before menopause. This doctrine simply has no place in the modern world. Some are fortunate as to practice no birth control and have a manageable family size, but it would be highly irresponsible for these individuals to suggest a universal policy.

[thesometimesaint]

John Larson:

Not without polygamy.