The Churchâ??s Changing Position On Birth Control

[LeSellers]

I want to separate parenting from decisions to reproduce - thus we can dispense with judgments concerning consumerism.

The physical acts involved with procreation are not limiting. We are talking about responsible adults.

While I don't agree with your specifics (I can't have chickens, goats, and cows in my subdivision),

Living in a subdivision is a choice. If one wants chickens, goats, a large garden, etc., one makes a different choice.

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 gets close.

I am not advocating tht everyone have as many children as humanly (or womanly) possible. I am saying that people neither should nor can, legitimately, use the excuse that it's too expensive to have children, and too expensive to have a large family.

All choices we make, from buying a pack of gum, to the house where we live, to the number of children we raise, demonstrate our values and our goals. No sane person makes a suboptimal choice by design (unless it is part of an overall strategy that will gain a higher valued objective later on, which is another choice with its values).

If a family wants children, they will find a way to get around any obstacle. When an obstacle stops them, they demonstrate the value they place on the (next) child: it is less than the cost (not all costs are economic) of surmounting the barrier.

This assumes that one is not drawn into spending money on luxuries and that one is satisfied with a minimalist lifestyle.

It merely shows that they value children more than luxuries they forgo.

Keep in mind that katherine the grate's (and others') objections to what I have written have drastically changed the scope and tenor of the discussion. I have never said that everyone must live what you term a "minimalist lifestyle". I haven't said that everyone should have thirteen children. I am saying that economics is not an adequate excuse for limiting one's children. There may be other reasons, and probably are. I wanted twelve children. My Jacquie wanted five. She compromised up, I compromised down. I do not know all the reasons she wanted five (or the seven we have). I doubt I told her all those I have for wanting 12, but the reason we have seven is she didn't want a dozen.

I valued her desires more than I valued those five other children.

Lehi

[why me]

That's an interesting point. It raises an interesting question about why so many Mormons are conservative on this issue. Are they against â??socialized medicineâ? because they really think that our healthcare system ought to be a business geared towards making insurance companies, lawyers, and healthcare providers very wealthy? Or are they against â??socialized medicineâ? because the current system makes babies prohibitively expensive, thus providing an excuse for family planning?

Although you claimed satire with Katharine I will respond to this anyway. You bring up some interesting questions. Here is my opinion: Most American mormons have not given it much thought either way. They more or less accept the current state of health care and expense, even though it may make having babies too expensive thereby practicing family planning. However, european mormons (those who live in the more mature EU) are enjoying having their babies without going into the poor house and they are very happy about it. In fact, in certain european countries, families receive a government stipend each month for having a child or children and the more children one has, the larger the amount. Now which would you prefer? The american or the european model? And yet, mormons in Europe can still practice family planning. But the muslims overwhelmingly love the system.

Is this a joke?

Why would it be a joke? I think that there is much hidden truth in what analytics said even though he or she may have claimed satire.

[why me]

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).

The catholic position has not basically changed over the centuries whereas the mormon position has changed. Birth control is perfectly acceptable among the lds whereas just a few years ago, it would have been discouraged and those who were practicing birth control would have felt the need to keep it a secret.

Much has to do with quality over quanity these days among the lds. However, the good ol' days of multiplying and replenshing the earth were not so bad. The lds church grew large as a righeous generation was being raised.

[katherine the great]

:pirate:Why would it be a joke? I think that there is much hidden truth in what analytics said even though he or she may have claimed satire.

Because the LDS church has an historical love-hate relationship with the American government unlike any other religious group here. We tend to be very patriotic, but also very averse to too much government regulation in our lives. Obviously, there are Mormons at every part of the spectrum (although I don't know any who are all the way to the left), but I don't think any one would argue that most Mormons in America are Republican and don't want the government to take over our entire health care system--even at the price of outrageously expensive health care.

[thesometimesaint]

katherine the great:

As most Mormons are not citizens of the US, or even reside in it. I would say most Mormons don't give a rats behind about Republicans. They are probably jingoistic enough to care more about their own country, and what us Damned Yankees do TO it.

[katherine the great]

katherine the great:

As most Mormons are not citizens of the US, or even reside in it. I would say most Mormons don't give a rats behind about Republicans. They are probably jingoistic enough to care more about their own country, and what us Damned Yankees do TO it.

I was talking about health care in America and American Mormons. I tried to specifically refer to "American" Mormons. I'm sorry if I confused you.

[thesometimesaint]

katherine the great:

No problem.

[Teancum]

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.

The article says:

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?

THe items referenced specifically said the Church was AGAINST birth control and ARTIFICIALLY curtialing hte birth of children. Would BC like to re think his comment?

[Teancum]

To the letter of the law, yes. However, the spirit of the law is simply the selfish limiting of family size which really has nothing at all to do with birth control methods, While admitedly it is easy to see many taking the letter of the law, it is for that I reason maintain the Church's position has not really changed at all. For example, abstinence is not an "artificial" means, yet it can be used to limit family size.

Simply put the Church has changed its position on the use of Birth Control and even, contrary to your position, family size. The Church now says it is up the the parents and the Lord. The statements quoted and the others from conference reports are all items published my the Church and thus represent Church position and doctrine. The position has thus changed. It does not matter what you MAINTAIN. You are simply wrong in this.

[Tchild2]

Simply put the Church has changed its position on the use of Birth Control and even, contrary to your position, family size. The Church now says it is up the the parents and the Lord. The statements quoted and the others from conference reports are all items published my the Church and thus represent Church position and doctrine. The position has thus changed. It does not matter what you MAINTAIN. You are simply wrong in this.

Teancum - There are apologists who say that what is written in the Ensign does not necessarily reflect church doctrine, or what content is on LDS.org, so I wonder if this statement will have any more authorative power for them, than the latter two examples.

Where is Sometimessaint to tell us that prophets are fallable, opinions are everywhere and that it birth control issues aren't doctrines of the church?

[ttribe]

Teancum - There are apologists who say that what is written in the Ensign does not necessarily reflect church doctrine, or what content is on LDS.org, so I wonder if this statement will have any more authorative power for them, than the latter two examples.

Where is Sometimessaint to tell us that prophets are fallable, opinions are everywhere and that it birth control issues aren't doctrines of the church?

Why does it matter if it has changed? Are you trying to turn this into some kind of "gotcha"?

[katherine the great]

The physical acts involved with procreation are not limiting. We are talking about responsible adults.

Living in a subdivision is a choice. If one wants chickens, goats, a large garden, etc., one makes a different choice.

This gets close.

I am not advocating tht everyone have as many children as humanly (or womanly) possible. I am saying that people neither should nor can, legitimately, use the excuse that it's too expensive to have children, and too expensive to have a large family.

All choices we make, from buying a pack of gum, to the house where we live, to the number of children we raise, demonstrate our values and our goals. No sane person makes a suboptimal choice by design (unless it is part of an overall strategy that will gain a higher valued objective later on, which is another choice with its values).

If a family wants children, they will find a way to get around any obstacle. When an obstacle stops them, they demonstrate the value they place on the (next) child: it is less than the cost (not all costs are economic) of surmounting the barrier.

It merely shows that they value children more than luxuries they forgo.

Keep in mind that katherine the grate's (and others') objections to what I have written have drastically changed the scope and tenor of the discussion. I have never said that everyone must live what you term a "minimalist lifestyle". I haven't said that everyone should have thirteen children. I am saying that economics is not an adequate excuse for limiting one's children. There may be other reasons, and probably are. I wanted twelve children. My Jacquie wanted five. She compromised up, I compromised down. I do not know all the reasons she wanted five (or the seven we have). I doubt I told her all those I have for wanting 12, but the reason we have seven is she didn't want a dozen.

I valued her desires more than I valued those five other children.

Lehi

I have to agree with some of what you said here LeSellers. Life IS all about choices, but I think it is quite smug of you to decide what is a legitimate choice and what is not. I'm also curious to know why you wanted twelve. Why not fifteen or sixteen? Why not twenty two? Certainly you have the means to support as many children as are humanly possible for you to father. If your wife dies in childbirth, you can go find another one. Some people value taking good care of the children they already have more than endlessly reproducing. I think the brethren recognize that this is a choice best made between the individual couple and the Lord. The scriptures say we should multiply and replenish the earth--not multiply promiscuously without regard to the health and welfare of the already existing family. I have not seen a single scripture that says anything about limiting a family size--only that we are to do our duty to multiply. If we have one child, we have multiplied. There are legitimate economic reasons for some people to stop having children whether you believe it or not. Maybe not in your personal world, but there could be in others.

[LDSMusic483]

I have to agree with some of what you said here LeSellers. Life IS all about choices, but I think it is quite smug of you to decide what is a legitimate choice and what is not. I'm also curious to know why you wanted twelve. Why not fifteen or sixteen? Why not twenty two? Certainly you have the means to support as many children as are humanly possible for you to father. If your wife dies in childbirth, you can go find another one. Some people value taking good care of the children they already have more than endlessly reproducing. I think the brethren recognize that this is a choice best made between the individual couple and the Lord. The scriptures say we should multiply and replenish the earth--not multiply promiscuously without regard to the health and welfare of the already existing family. I have not seen a single scripture that says anything about limiting a family size--only that we are to do our duty to multiply. If we have one child, we have multiplied. There are legitimate economic reasons for some people to stop having children whether you believe it or not. Maybe not in your personal world, but there could be in others.

I think the reason the brethren have said it's between the Lord and the couple is to avoid confusion, rather than changing of position. I think the brethren firmly believe that birth control aside from certain specific reasons is wrong. But they have put the decision back in our hands. For them to continue to say that birth control is evil and wrong might confuse those people who have those specific issue's, and cause them to then make decisions that the Lord doesn't want them to make. Now the whole crux of the supposed "change" of position is that the decision should be made with the Lord. Really, that's the way it's ALWAYS been. Teachings from the Prophets have always been for the church as a whole, but sometimes there are exceptions needed. Even before this supposed change, couples, if they felt that they couldn't have more children, or not at a certain time should then have taken the matter to the Lord in prayer and gotten some guidance from Him. That is how the system works. I think that too many people were just focusing on "if I'm not having babies, I'm sinning." I don't think the Lord wants the health of mothers, or the sanity of parents to be jeopardized.

I think the purpose of the council of bringing the decision to the Lord is to verify their choices. I know personally my sister has brought the decision to have more children to the Lord, and she was specifically told not to HAVE anymore, because the last pregnancy took a major physical toll on her. But they were commanded to rear more children, so they are in the process of adopting a couple more. My concern is just that I worry that many people will think that they can't handle more, so they don't worry about taking it to the Lord, whereas the Lord may want them to have more, even though they may think they can't raise more children comfortably. God has ways of making us more intelligent to spread money around better. If He wants us to have more children, we can request of Him (and rightfully so) that He help us to either increase our income, or help us use our income more wisely.

[katherine the great]

I think the reason the brethren have said it's between the Lord and the couple is to avoid confusion, rather than changing of position. I think the brethren firmly believe that birth control aside from certain specific reasons is wrong.

Or, they like to practice what they preach. Some of the apostles only have two or three children. Others have as many as ten. I doubt they were asked if they practice birth control as part of their GA interview. We are also not asked this in a temple recommend interview.

[LeSellers]

I have to agree with some of what you said here LeSellers.

Holy cow!! Wonders, it seem, never cease!

Life IS all about choices, but I think it is quite smug of you to decide what is a legitimate choice and what is not.

Where did I say anything about a "legitimate choice"?

I'm also curious to know why you wanted twelve.

It's none of your business.

If your wife dies in childbirth, you can go find another one.

This insults not only me, but every father, and most of the women married to them.

Some people value taking good care of the children they already have more than endlessly reproducing.

It's not either or. We have done both (albeit not "endlessly"), as far as I can tell.

I think the brethren recognize that this is a choice best made between the individual couple and the Lord.

Where did I say otherwise? Your propensity to put words into my mouth is disgusting and it makes me gag.

The scriptures say we should multiply and replenish the earth--not multiply promiscuously without regard to the health and welfare of the already existing family.

And neither have I.

More words in my mouth.

My point, and my only point, is that "it's too expensive" is an excuse, not a reason, for curtailing the size of one's family. Those who use it announce their values.

I have not seen a single scripture that says anything about limiting a family size--only that we are to do our duty to multiply. If we have one child, we have multiplied.

No, "we" have not. It takes at least 2.1 children to multiply by one. Only if a couple (or, more specifically, a woman) has more than two children, i.e., three or more, since children don't come in fractional packs, can they "multiply".

There are legitimate economic reasons for some people to stop having children whether you believe it or not. Maybe not in your personal world, but there could be in others.

I only live in the real world. Thes other world you allude to must be something other than the real world.

I know you will not heed it, but my suggestion is that you read Wattenberg's The Birth Dearth. I also suggest that you research a bit of history especially demographics and learn that countries whose birth rate falls significantly below those of their neighbors' invariably get over run. This is typically by a more-or-less peaceful invasion by displacement (e.g., our own USmerican Southwest) or by armed conflict as in France in the early XX. It is inevitable.

Encouraging women to bear more children is a national security issue, even were it not a spiritual concern. The Germans "get it", even though they are doing it all wrong, as is normal for politicians anywhere (it isn't working, except for among their Musellimon population). They do understand that the nation we call Germany will not exist in a few decades absent an unprecedented increase in their native birthrate.

In USmerica, we don't even begin to understand the demographic problem, and we will pay a serious price, indeed are already doing so.

That aside, I do respect those LDS mothers who have put their money, so to speak, where their beliefs are and who have raised a righteous generation. Because that is the easiest way to build the kingdom. The striplings of Helaman's Army demonstrate this. The fact that LDS women are the only native USmericans (on average, fer cryin' in a bucket) who are having "large" families is worrisome, but I salute you all who do.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Or, they like to practice what they preach.

That puts the cart before the horse.

You might have better said, they like to preach what they practice.

Or even better, they don't preach much about it at all.

You, having made the assertion, might show us where any of the Brethren with small families have spoken on the matter.

Lehi

[katherine the great]

Holy cow!! Wonders, it seem, never cease!

This insults not only me, but every father, and most of the women married to them.

Exactly. Outrageous suggestion, isn't it?

[katherine the great]

No, "we" have not. It takes at least 2.1 children to multiply by one. Only if a couple (or, more specifically, a woman) has more than two children, i.e., three or more, since children don't come in fractional packs, can they "multiply".

Last time I checked, 1X1=1.

[LDSMusic483]

Last time I checked, 1X1=1.

Yes, but if 2 people have 2 children , then they are not increasing or multiplying, they are merely replacing. Considering that death happens more than just from old age, if there was only 1 birth for every adult, population would decrease and quite exponentially so.

[katherine the great]

Where did I say anything about a "legitimate choice"?

Quoting you: I am saying that people neither should nor can, legitimately, use the excuse that it's too expensive to have children, and too expensive to have a large family.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, simply restating what you said.

[katherine the great]

Yes, but if 2 people have 2 children , then they are not increasing or multiplying, they are merely replacing. Considering that death happens more than just from old age, if there was only 1 birth for every adult, population would decrease and quite exponentially so.

I understand that. However, if someone wants to use the scriptures to preach against birth control, they will find no support because the scripture does not say anything beyond: multiply and replenish the earth (specifically to Adam and Eve.) Nowhere does it say: Do not plan the size of your family.

[LDSMusic483]

Quoting you: I am saying that people neither should nor can, legitimately, use the excuse that it's too expensive to have children, and too expensive to have a large family.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, simply restating what you said.

No person should legitimately decide they cannot afford to have more children. That decision should only come from God. I would never presume to think that I could not afford to have more kids. I may not know how it would happen, but if God said I could, then I could. I do not think God uses lack of money as a reason very often for people to stop multiplying and housing the spirits of His children.

[LDSMusic483]

I understand that. However, if someone wants to use the scriptures to preach against birth control, they will find no support because the scripture does not say anything beyond: multiply and replenish the earth (specifically to Adam and Eve.) Nowhere does it say: Do not plan the size of your family.

Yes, but neither does it say "plan the size of your family." The only thing it does say is to have kids, and happy are those who have a quiver full of them. The argument always goes both ways, and there have never been prophets to argue for using birth control to cut down on the size of the family. There is much more evidence to the fact that God wants us to grow our families in place of limiting them. Now the size of the family is between God and the parents, but that doesn't change the fact that He wants His children to come down to good families so that they can accept the gospel. I think there will be plenty of people who worried to much on the temporal things and allowed those to could their vision of building up their families.

[katherine the great]

No person should legitimately decide they cannot afford to have more children. That decision should only come from God. I would never presume to think that I could not afford to have more kids. I may not know how it would happen, but if God said I could, then I could. I do not think God uses lack of money as a reason very often for people to stop multiplying and housing the spirits of His children.

And you are certainly entitled to that thought. I agree with the most current statement from church leadership that is ONLY between the couple and the Lord. I have nothing against large families. I think they are wonderful when they can be provided for. I also think small and medium sized families are wonderful when they are well cared for. I think the bottom line is that it is not my business how many children you have and why you have the number of children you have, and it is not your business how many children I have, etc. Wonderful families come in all sizes.

[katherine the great]

Yes, but neither does it say "plan the size of your family." The only thing it does say is to have kids, and happy are those who have a quiver full of them.

I suppose that I have a "quiver full of children" and I am a doting and devoted mother. However, not everyone is equipped to be happy with a lot of children. There are many, many factors and a "quiver full of children" could (and does) destroy some women. It is a personal matter.