The Churchâ??s Changing Position On Birth Control

[katherine the great]

Hey again bluebell,

Either can be the problem. If I understand you correctly, your hypothetical which would permit NFP only as the means would match my understanding.

However, the churches have to face the fact that we live in a world that is increasingly hostile to the fertility of human life, and we need to reiterate more than ever before how large families can be a great blessing to parents and to a society that frowns upon them. What 30 year old Dad with four kids wants to hear the snickers and smart aleck remarks of the typical people at work who have been taught that large families selfishly consume the earth's limited resources? It takes a bit of courage to ignore the opposition of the world in this matter. The churches have a responsibility to make sure that couples are refraining because of serious reasons, not embarrassment, or wishes for an unnecessary standard of material prosperity.

The church may have a responsibility to make the doctrine clear but not to make sure of how couples are using that information. Nothing short of video surveillance would do that!

[Analytics]

I don't doubt there are people out there who might try to argue that. Its almost as absurd as arguing that LDS people practice birth control in order to shop at Nordstrom.

My actual point had to do with why me being exactly correct in that America should reform its healthcare system. Peculiar people who want large families which start younger in life have many reasons to be politically progressive; it is ironic that they arenâ??t.

[Log]

My actual point had to do with why me being exactly correct in that America should reform its healthcare system. Peculiar people who want large families which start younger in life have many reasons to be politically progressive [read: lay hands on other men's goods without just exchange]; it is ironic that they arenâ??t.

Yeah... sometimes peculiar people have a thing about not committing theft; whether by their own hands, or the hands of their duly elected servants, it is the same. Irony abounds.

[Analytics]

Yeah... sometimes peculiar people have a thing about not committing theft; whether by their own hands, or the hands of their duly elected servants, it is the same. Irony abounds.

Do you consider yourself an anarchist?

[Log]

Do you consider yourself an anarchist?

I lean towards anarcho-capitalism, I suppose.

[3DOP]

The church may have a responsibility to make the doctrine clear but not to make sure of how couples are using that information. Nothing short of video surveillance would do that!

I don't think anyone is suggesting cameras. There would no virtue in correct behavior performed under such inadvisable scrutiny as you describe anyway.

I don't know how things work for you. But with us, a serious sin is made worse by receiving holy communion. You probably know that passage about being sickly and sleeping and stuff from unworthy communions. Couples who disagree with Catholic teaching should reevaluate their choice of religions anyway. You don't want people to leave, but if they have adopted the modern notion that Christian morals must absoluetly end at the bedroom door, charity would suggest that they should find a community that is compatible with their beliefs, don't you think?

3DOP

[katherine the great]

My actual point had to do with why me being exactly correct in that America should reform its healthcare system. Peculiar people who want large families which start younger in life have many reasons to be politically progressive; it is ironic that they aren?t.

I see your point but I think it would be more likely to see like minded LDS forming their own communities with their own doctors than to campaign for socialized medicine. Personally, I prefer to limit the number of children I have to 5 of my own and another two I am helping a relative raise. I feel no pangs of guilt for using "artificial" means to achieve a manageable family size. If people like LeSellers want to sneer down their narrow snouts at me for so doing, that is their perogative.

[thesometimesaint]

katherine the great:

I want the same coverage as Congress gets. Choose your own provider, the government pays the premiums.

[katherine the great]

I don't think anyone is suggesting cameras. There would no virtue in correct behavior performed under such inadvisable scrutiny as you describe anyway.

3DOP

I was just funnin about the cameras.

[Analytics]

I see your point but I think it would be more likely to see like minded LDS forming their own communities with their own doctors than to campaign for socialized medicine.

What is the difference between that and socialized medicine? Sounds like exactly the same thing, but on a community scale rather than a national scale. If you were to do something like this, would you allow new people to join your community? The sick uninsured would have a strong motivation to move in and join your plan.

Personally, I prefer to limit the number of children I have to 5 of my own and another two I am helping a relative raise. I feel no pangs of guilt for using "artificial" means to achieve a manageable family size. If people like LeSellers want to sneer down their narrow snouts at me for so doing, that is their perogative.

Personally I think his position is more inline with what Mormon doctrine actually says, but I'd be the last person to fault somebody like you who reinterprets it in a way that better fits into reality and a healthy lifestyle. I give you my sincerest kudos for helping your relative.

[3DOP]

I was just funnin about the cameras.

I knew you weren't serious, but I thought you might be angry. Glad to hear you were funnin'. We can always use a good dose of that.

[katherine the great]

katherine the great:

I want the same coverage as Congress gets. Choose your own provider, the government pays the premiums.

Go for it! (I'll vote for you!)

[katherine the great]

What is the difference between that and socialized medicine? Sounds like exactly the same thing, but on a community scale rather than a national scale. If you were to do something like this, would you allow new people to join your community?

Well, like I said, I prefer to try to work within the society whenever possible. I just think LDS would generally prefer to network and barter amongst themselves before resorting to a major government overhaul. I don't envision actually forming separatist compounds, although some may prefer that to the latter.

[LeSellers]

If people like LeSellers want to sneer down their narrow snouts at me for so doing, that is their perogative.

It's "prerogative".

Thank goodness I have a large nose, else I might think you were talking about me specifically. Which, btw, I have not done about you in this topic.

I prefer to limit the number of children I have to 5 of my own and another two I am helping a relative raise.

Self congratulations?

Lehi

[katherine the great]

It's "prerogative".

Thank goodness I have a large nose, else I might think you were talking about me specifically. Which, btw, I have not done about you in this topic.Self congratulations?

Lehi

I won't list their accomplishments and brag about how righteous and obedient they are.

[LeSellers]

I won't list their accomplishments and brag about how righteous and obedient they are.

It ain't braggin' if you done it.

I haven't begun to "list their accomplishments".

As you are inclined to see everything I write as a personal assault on you, rather than "I did it, I have enough faith in others to believe they can, too," please refrain from reading anything I write in future. I do not want to cause you any more pain.

Lehi

[katherine the great]

I haven't begun to "list their accomplishments".

As you are inclined to see everything I write as a personal assault on you, rather than "I did it, I have enough faith in others to believe they can, too," please refrain from reading anything I write in future. I do not want to cause you any more pain.

Lehi

You don't cause me pain you just annoy me.

[LeSellers]

You don't cause me pain you just annoy me.

Then please do not read my writings as I annoy you.

Why not just avoid the discomfort of annoyance when a reasonable and cost-free alternative exists?

Lehi

[katherine the great]

Then please do not read my writings as I annoy you.

Why not just avoid the discomfort of annoyance when a reasonable and cost-free alternative exists?

Lehi

You're just irresistible...

[LeSellers]

You're just irresistible...

So I've been told. But please resist your primal urges and desist.

Lehi

[katherine the great]

So I've been told. But please resist your primal urges and desist.

Lehi

Sorry. I'm too weak..

[saemo]

To the questions regarding Catholicism and artificial birth control.

As a former Mormon from a large family, who went atheist and has one child, to now Catholic and wish I had not done the one-child thing...

The disagreement between LDS and Catholic is just three words. Artificial birth control (ABC).

I think an LDS person (of either gender) understands our stance against abortion. Many forms of ABC are abortifacients. That is, fertilization takes place, but artificial hormones prevent the fertilized egg from implanting, thus, it is in effect an abortion.

That is one huge issue with practicing Catholics.

Also, hormonal ABC methods are known to cause severe health problems in women, including death. Even if I were not Catholic, I would not use them for that reason alone and have strongly discouraged my non-Catholic daughter to never use them, even if she does want to use other ABC methods.

We view other (non-hormonal) methods as blocking the sexual act as God intended it to be.

That sounds rather clinical and if you go Monty Python, even comical. But, spiritually speaking, and in terms of a spiritual marriage, we seek to keep marriage open to the unity of the couple, completely. Including the conjugal act. Many married Catholics (men and women) can tell you the positive effect this has on their marriage.

Natural Family Planning (or NFP)...for a Catholic is acceptable to use for health reasons and for spacing of children and in cases of financial hardship. Financial hardship does not include materialism. NFP is acceptable because the creative act is not blocked. It is based on abstaining during the fertile times of the woman's cycle. Abstinence is acceptable to God. If you nurse, part of practicing NFP is allowing and encouraging the body's natural reaction to nursing...no ovulation.

As someone who practices NFP, there are side benefits. Tracking your body's cycles make you more aware of what is going on with yourself. Use of hormonal ABC makes this impossible. I can't tell you the number of times women have documented abnormal things going on with themselves, and can explain exactly what is going on to their Dr., thus improving their health care outcomes.

[LDSToronto]

The church may have a responsibility to make the doctrine clear but not to make sure of how couples are using that information. Nothing short of video surveillance would do that!

That sounds hot!

[LDSToronto]

As I said, this will vary broadly from family to family. There is no way I or anyone else can say what it would take.

Rather than setting a set of costs, we could define the minimum set of needs for a family.

• A mommy and a daddy who love them, and respect them as individuals and as children of God, who value them as members of their family.
  
• Food, nutritious and adequate in caloric content. Oatmeal, Wheatina, home-raised goats or cow providing the milk (or raw milk to avoid allergies and other illnesses), home grown vegetables and fruit supplemented by stuff from the store, etc.
  
• Clothing, neat and clean. Fits reasonably well. Home-grown meat form time to time, and eggs from the family hens, etc.
  
• Housing, a bed for each child (although not necessarily a separate bed for each child â?? it was common until the 1960s for children to share a bed until they were in their early teens), a place to read, and a place to eat, preferably as a family unit, and warmth (or coolth â?? although again, not mandatory in most cases; Las Vegas might be an exception) to prevent illness, etc.
  
• Transportation or reducing the need for it. I seat belt for each family member.
  
• A library (public if needs be) and a respect for reading and thinking, etc.
  
• etc.
  
• etc.
  

There are people who live reasonably well with several children on less than $10,000/year. It takes much dedication, it takes creativity, it takes daring, and it takes more than wishing, but it is more than possible. These people have savings, too.

It simply is a lie to say that it takes $200,000 to raise a large family. It takes $200,000 to raise a large, wasteful, fashion-conscious "family".

It doesn't take all the fancy doodads and the hoopla the destroy-Western-families people print to raise strong, happy, successful children. Money might help with some issues, but it will not make parenting, true parenting, any easier. That takes time, dedication, and love without stint or measure. And, yes, you can love "many" as much as you love "few": yajesgottawanna.

I want to separate parenting from decisions to reproduce - thus we can dispense with judgments concerning consumerism. While I don't agree with your specifics (I can't have chickens, goats, and cows in my subdivision), it seems to me as though you are saying that the minimal set of criteria are:

1) Parents supply of love of faith

2) Basic nutrition

3) Shelter

4) Basic clothing

5) Hygiene or the means to hygiene

6) Safe transportation

7) Access to learning

Assuming there is no cost to item #1, and one were to minimize the cost on items 2-7, then it would seem to me that, as a married couple's income increases, so should the number of children in their family, providing the couple has good health and is biologically capable. This assumes that one is not drawn into spending money on luxuries and that one is satisfied with a minimalist lifestyle.

LeSellers, is this your line of thinking?

H.

[ttribe]

That sounds hot!