The Churchâ??s Changing Position On Birth Control

[LDSToronto]

No, I said that one cannot be multiplying unless he has at least three children. But there are many reasons a couple may not have three (or any other number of children.

You might want to consider that one of our sons married a woman who cannot have children irrespective of how badly she wants them (and she does). It is not her choice, but it is the fact. I am not accusing them of not multiplying.

Then clear things up, Lehi: If a couple decides to have zero, one, or two children, and are capable of having more, are they

1) Multiplying and replenishing?

2) Breaking a commandment?

3) Sinners?

Simple yes/no will suffice. Just clear it up.

H.

[bluebell]

Indeed, but not every time that the deed is done is a child conceived, even when all things are normal. God has a reasoning and a purpose for the children He sends, when He sends them, and to whom they are sent.

I agree, to a point.

Yes, God is ultimately in control, but to believe that every time a child is born it is God's will is to negate the agency of the people having sex and the ability of people to choose contrary to the will of God.

It also implies that when someone has a baby and then tortures it for fun, for example (i just read a horrible example of this the other day) that it was God's will taht the child be born into that situation, since if it wasn't His will, the child would not have been conceived.

I don't agree with that line of reasoning.

[Log]

Yes, God is ultimately in control, but to believe that every time a child is born it is God's will is to negate the agency of the people having sex and the ability of people to choose contrary to the will of God.

Where's the contradiction?

It also implies that when someone has a baby and then tortures it for fun, for example (i just read a horrible example of this the other day) that it was God's will taht the child be born into that situation, since if it wasn't His will, the child would not have been conceived.

And again, where's the contradiction?

[bluebell]

Where's the contradiction?

And again, where's the contradiction?

If you can't see it, i can't explain it to you log.

[katherine the great]

Indeed, but not every time that the deed is done is a child conceived, even when all things are normal.

Ha! Speak for yourself!

[Log]

If you can't see it, i can't explain it to you log.

I'm going to assert there is no contradiction.

[bluebell]

I'm going to assert there is no contradiction.

Assert away-it doesn't change my opinion on it in the least.

[Log]

Assert away-it doesn't change my opinion on it in the least.

I don't expect anything I could ever say would.

[LeSellers]

So you agree that this family should not continue to multiply under the present circumstances?

Why do you think I would not?

But it is their irresponsibility, not their financial condition, that would be the limiting factor. As I said, families with fewer resources might have even more children.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Then clear things up, Lehi: If a couple decides to have zero, one, or two children, and are capable of having more, are they

1) Multiplying and replenishing?

2) Breaking a commandment?

3) Sinners?

Simple yes/no will suffice. Just clear it up.

A simple yes or no is not appropriate. There are many factors that play into such decisions.

You are trying to get me to make a statement you can hang me with, and I will not do it.

My only statements are:

1. It is not more expensive today to raise children than in times past (with a few exceptions that are more than made up for by lower prices elsewhere).
   
2. It is not too expensive today to raise a(nother) child.
   It all depends on the couple's values.
   

Lehi

[bluebell]

I don't expect anything I could ever say would.

[LDSToronto]

A simple yes or no is not appropriate. There are many factors that play into such decisions.

You are trying to get me to make a statement you can hang me with, and I will not do it.

Lehi, you made a strong but succinct statement and then you shutdown when others try to explore it. Similar pattern to other discussions here. I understand if you regret the statements you made. However, if you don't want to play anymore, I'm cool with that too.

H.

[LDSMusic483]

I agree, to a point.

Yes, God is ultimately in control, but to believe that every time a child is born it is God's will is to negate the agency of the people having sex and the ability of people to choose contrary to the will of God.

It also implies that when someone has a baby and then tortures it for fun, for example (i just read a horrible example of this the other day) that it was God's will taht the child be born into that situation, since if it wasn't His will, the child would not have been conceived.

I don't agree with that line of reasoning.

I don't think your conclusions are necessarily derived off of eachother. Just because it is God's will that the child should be born, does not mean that God desires what will happen. God wants every one of His spirit children to receive a body. So everytime a child is born, that is accomplished. Unfortunately, many children will be born to families like you have described (though I might throw a plug in here for not needlessly limiting families so that could be somewhat helped) but that doesn't mean that God desires the punishment to happen. A spirit won't enter a body just because a man and a woman have relations. God sends that spirit so they can receive a body. I don't pretend to know how it is fair in Gods mind for some to suffer and others not to, or how it will all equal out in the end. But I know of plenty of people who have tried and tried and it is a long while before they have children, and there has been nothing wrong with them.

[LDSMusic483]

Ha! Speak for yourself!

I can't...I've been married for about 2 1/2 years and we've had 3 pregnancies...

[LeSellers]

Lehi, you made a strong but succinct statement and then you shutdown when others try to explore it. Similar pattern to other discussions here. I understand if you regret the statements you made. However, if you don't want to play anymore, I'm cool with that too.

If you think I said something other than the two I have repeatedly noted, what was it?

You claim I said that people who fail to have three children are breaking a commandment, but that is not what I said.

Your taking things I have said out of their context does not make me a liar, nor does it mean either that I have stopped playing or that I regret anything I have said.

Once gain, I restate the fact that you have inferred from what I have said things I neither intended nor implied.

Lehi

[BenMacKay]

A simple yes or no is not appropriate. There are many factors that play into such decisions.

You are trying to get me to make a statement you can hang me with, and I will not do it.

My only statements are:

1. It is not more expensive today to raise children than in times past (with a few exceptions that are more than made up for by lower prices elsewhere).
   
2. It is not too expensive today to raise a(nother) child.
   It all depends on the couple's values.
   

Lehi

I have to chime in here after reading pretty much every post on this thread. I can see why Lehi's statements have been perceived as inflammatory. I agree with the statement that one should not limit family size due to the desire to fulfill material "wants."

However, a general, blanket statement that family size simply depends on the couple's economic value system is, in my opinion, not entirely fair. More children does not necessarily equal a "higher value." We "only" have four children. My wife and I prayed and fasted for a long time when we considered having #4 (hence the large gap between #3 and #4). We honestly didn't feel a strong spiritual impression one way or the other, and felt that it was up to us on what to do. So we decided to have #4 (a 3rd beautiful daughter) and have felt relieved and grateful to be finished with our family.

Could we "afford" another child? Certainly. And we are both physically, mentally, and emotionally very healthy. In fact, my wife was a very successful athlete at BYU, so our kids have one parent who is very physically gifted. So...are our values out of line with the Lord because we are done having children? Have we unrighteously "limited" our family at four children?

Well, I would submit that there are many, many factors that determine family size. And each couple needs to determine â??

[busybee]

Why do you think I would not?

But it is their irresponsibility, not their financial condition, that would be the limiting factor. As I said, families with fewer resources might have even more children.

Lehi

I think that's kind of splitting hairs. Their financial position, in this instance, is a very good reason for them to not have any more children. After the last 3 kids they have had to upgrade the size of their vehicle to accomodate each child, never mind the clothing schooling etc. Also the detrimental effect on the children is soooo obvious. I'll say no more.

Just as a matter of interested are you against Family Planning as a whole or just limiting the size of the family? Let me clarify. Do you think it's wrong to use contraceptives to space the children in a family?

[ttribe]

I have to chime in here after reading pretty much every post on this thread. I can see why Lehi's statements have been perceived as inflammatory. I agree with the statement that one should not limit family size due to the desire to fulfill material "wants."

However, a general, blanket statement that family size simply depends on the couple's economic value system is, in my opinion, not entirely fair. More children does not necessarily equal a "higher value." We "only" have four children. My wife and I prayed and fasted for a long time when we considered having #4 (hence the large gap between #3 and #4). We honestly didn't feel a strong spiritual impression one way or the other, and felt that it was up to us on what to do. So we decided to have #4 (a 3rd beautiful daughter) and have felt relieved and grateful to be finished with our family.

Could we "afford" another child? Certainly. And we are both physically, mentally, and emotionally very healthy. In fact, my wife was a very successful athlete at BYU, so our kids have one parent who is very physically gifted. So...are our values out of line with the Lord because we are done having children? Have we unrighteously "limited" our family at four children?

Well, I would submit that there are many, many factors that determine family size. And each couple needs to determine â??

[busybee]

Best post of this thread. Thank you.

I agree. It really does all come down to minding our own business!

[bluebell]

I agree. It really does all come down to minding our own business!

Amen.

[LeSellers]

Their financial position [seven children, family living on the backs of the taxpayers], in this instance, is a very good reason for them to not have any more children. After the last 3 kids they have had to upgrade the size of their vehicle to accomodate each child, never mind the clothing schooling etc. Also the detrimental effect on the children is soooo obvious. I'll say no more.

I maintain that it is not the financial situation that is their problem, but their attitude towards money and all things financial.

As I have said, I know of many families with as many or more children, who do not live at the expense of others, but whose income is lower, perhaps much lower, than these people's. And they do just fine. Money, per se is not the answer, money is only a tool. Some people use tools more wisely and more skillfully than others.

I freely admit that more money usually makes problems easier to deal with, but that does not make the problems go away.

Here is an excerpt from a book I wrote a couple of years ago:

Income defines your ability to support a given lifestyle. The more income one has, the more he can spend. And, within reason, he can spend it on anything. With $25,000 a year, he can afford one type of house and a completely different type with an annual paycheck of $250,000. His car would be different in each case, and even his diet would change depending on which amount he earned.

...

With all this said, however, money is not the answer to all problems. In some arenas, it can only make things more comfortable, if even that. No amount of money can comfort loving parents whose son has turned to drugs, or whose daughter is pregnant and does not know which man is the father. Money cannot redeem a failed marriage, it will not buy trust. It will not replace a lost testimony, it will not build faith. These are not amenable to financial correction.

Money can, however, help one avoid such issues. This section discusses values, and where money can and cannot improve our lives.

â??

The Earth is the Lord's and the Fulness Thereof, a Workbook for Financial Freedom in the LDS World

Just as a matter of interested are you against Family Planning as a whole or just limiting the size of the family? Let me clarify. Do you think it's wrong to use contraceptives to space the children in a family?

This is, again, a question I will not answer because every case would be different.

I have not said that anyone should have a specific number, or even a relative number, of children. That's their decision, however they reach it.

My only position is that the two blanket statements:

1. it is too expensive to have a(nother)child; and
   
2. it is more expensive today to raise children than it was in days past
   

are both false.

I believe that too many people, LDSs and others as well, have used these excuses or accepted the premises on which they are based to limit their family size, and that those who do will regret their decisions "by and by". In the one case, I do believe that some people with small families are letting their desire for the worldly override inspiration from the Lord to increase their families, and in both cases, that the dwindling population of western countries, not just USmerica, will cause grave harm to those very countries in general, and specifically to the people without children.

Which these families are, though, I do not and cannot say

Historically, children have been a family's "Social Security" program. I believe that those with few children are putting themselves at financial risk because the Ponzi scheme of antiSocial inSecurity will fail in a few years. I believe that the ability to care for older people, by definition, in the hand of the younger, will be seriously limited because there simply will not be enough of these to handle the job.

Finally, as I have said elsewhere, every country throughout history that has had a significantly lower birthrate than its neighbors has been invaded (sometimes peacefully, sometimes by force). We are already seeing this in USmerica. Canada is not immune. France and Germany have such large populations of Mousellemins that they are even now overwhelming the governments' "social" systems, and the cultures there are dissolving. Larger families are a national security issue.

Lehi

[ttribe]

My only position is that the two blanket statements:

1. 
   

Which you have yet to provide any actual support for.

it is too expensive to have a(nother)child; and

You're moving the goalposts now since the vast majority of your previous statements did NOT say "another"; only "a". This is a different proposition when taken out of the sterile environment of economic analysis where all else is equal. Again, I submit that all else is NOT equal (and I believe that your refusal to answer certain questions in a broad manner is an admission of such).

it is more expensive today to raise children than it was in days past

For the third time, I am asking you to please provide supporting documentation/calculations for this assertion.

are both false.

How can we evaluate this ourselves unless you share the data? Do you expect us to take your word for it? Where can we find these books of yours on the topics?

Larger families are a national security issue.

On this point, you and I agree.

[busybee]

[

Finally, as I have said elsewhere, every country throughout history that has had a significantly lower birthrate than its neighbors has been invaded (sometimes peacefully, sometimes by force). We are already seeing this in USmerica. Canada is not immune. France and Germany have such large populations of Mousellemins that they are even now overwhelming the governments' "social" systems, and the cultures there are dissolving. Larger families are a national security issue.

Lehi

[bluebell]

My only position is that the two blanket statements:

1. it is too expensive to have a(nother)child; and
   
2. it is more expensive today to raise children than it was in days past
   

are both false.

And these blanket statements of your's are what i believe are both false.

I can't even imagine how someone could think they have enough knowledge of every couple's finances to believe they could say absolutely that it is NEVER too expensive for a couple to have a baby.

And, i know at least speaking for myself, that i never did (or at least never meant to) say that it is more expensive today to 'raise' children than it was in days past. I said that it is more expensive to HAVE them.

A couple hundred years ago, babies cost practically nothing to raise for the first year of life. They cost no money to carry, no money to deliver, and no money to feed for at least that first year. And even after that first year the cost of the child was still pretty small-only the cost of a little food and clothing and not much else for a few more years to come.

That meant that having a new baby was not a strain on the family finances for quite a few years-and for most families, by the time the child was a considerable cost to the family, they were also at the age to start working on the family farm or ranch, thus actually paying for some of their 'keep' themselves. By the time a child was in his or her late teens they would be considered an adult and would either leave the family all together or contribute enough resources to the family to completely pay for their own upkeep. Thus a financially poor family could easily bare many children without taxing the resources of the family. More children actually made the family more financially stable in many instances as having them seldom took anything away from the family financially and often provided for the later opportunity of adding to the family's financial well being.

Contrast that to our world today.

My first baby cost me over 20,000 in the first year alone. My second, who was born without any complications still cost me over 10,000-and that's only medical care-if i add in formula for my second i can add another 1500 dollars or so to that cost. My children will be a drain on my family, which does not farm or ranch, probably for 18+ years, if not more should my husband and i choose to help them with the cost of their missions and college.

That means that each child i have has the potential (for every family it's different depending on the type of pregnancy, birth, and insurance the family has) to be an extreme draw on my family's resources-to the point where simply giving birth to a child (leaving out 'raising' it altogether) could seriously jeopardize my ability to financially support my other children.

So it does seem obvious to me that the cost of having a child has grown so much as to have the potential to be a legitamete(sp) factor in the number of children a couple choose to have.

[ttribe]

So it does seem obvious to me that the cost of having a child has grown so much as to have the potential to be a legitamete(sp) factor in the number of children a couple choose to have.

In terms of raw dollars, you are correct that it is indisputably more expensive to have and raise a child. However, what I believe Lehi is arguing is in terms of what are called "real" dollars; in other words, inflation-adjusted, etc. What Lehi has failed to thus far, is provide the data which support his conclusions that it is NOT more expensive in terms of inflation-adjusted real dollars (and, for some reason, he keeps ignoring my request to produce such information).