The Churchâ??s Changing Position On Birth Control

[thesometimesaint]

Most of us well stop before we have 69 children.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2006/May/14/h...er-of-all-days/

[LDSMusic483]

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.

I agree that families of any size that are cared for are wonderful. I also believe that a family size is between the family and the Lord. But I do feel entitled to say that I believe many people use the "it's between the couple of the Lord" to justify their limiting of their posterity based on motives that in the over-all scheme of things are selfish reasons, despite what they say. My personal opinion is that I don't see the Lord saying too often "okay you can stop having kids now because you can't afford it." The Lord blesses us on our righteous desires. If we say, I want to have as many children as I can for you, then He'll help us achieve that.

[katherine the great]

Most of us well stop before we have 69 children.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2006/May/14/h...er-of-all-days/

Farfegnugen! I thought my great granny was amazing for having fifteen!

[LeSellers]

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.

If by "restating", you mean "twisting", then I guess that is true.

I was, in the message you cited, stating that the "it's too expensive to have (many) children today" excuse, is not a legitimate excuse. That is a far cry from saying that it is not a legitimate choice.

There was once a saying, "Every child brings his own loaf." I believe it is true today. It does not say that every child brings his own brick of gold. The decision to curtail one's family because it's "too expensive" only means the person values what ever the child would cost economically more than he values the child. I believe this to be an illegitimate excuse, but the person has every right to make it. Which makes it a legitimate choice.

You must remember that I am a libertarian, both politically and spiritually. I believe that people have the right to be wrong on any matter, including spiritual ones. That does not mean the excuses they present are legitimate, but the choices they make are, becaue, for good or ill, they are their choices. It does not mean I must agree with or support those choices, either.

Lehi

[katherine the great]

I agree that families of any size that are cared for are wonderful. I also believe that a family size is between the family and the Lord. But I do feel entitled to say that I believe many people use the "it's between the couple of the Lord" to justify their limiting of their posterity based on motives that in the over-all scheme of things are selfish reasons, despite what they say. My personal opinion is that I don't see the Lord saying too often "okay you can stop having kids now because you can't afford it." The Lord blesses us on our righteous desires. If we say, I want to have as many children as I can for you, then He'll help us achieve that.

Why are you so interested in what other perfectly good people do? I can see why people lament murderers, rapists and child molesters, but why the concern about people who choose to use birth control?

[LDSMusic483]

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.

Yes, but the "equipping" you seem to be referring to does not sound financial (i.e. destroying women). I have always said that planning families based on the health (of all types) of the mother is quite fine. Right now, we're waiting to have more kids because I think my wife might go crazy if she had 3 kids under 2 yrs old. It is for THOSE reasons that I believe the brethren changed their tone on the birth control position because it could be misconstrued to mean that regardless, you should have more kids. That obviously is not in the capacity of every person.

[katherine the great]

You must remember that I am a libertarian,

How could I possibly forget?

Yes, but the "equipping" you seem to be referring to does not sound financial (i.e. destroying women). I have always said that planning families based on the health (of all types) of the mother is quite fine. Right now, we're waiting to have more kids because I think my wife might go crazy if she had 3 kids under 2 yrs old. It is for THOSE reasons that I believe the brethren changed their tone on the birth control position because it could be misconstrued to mean that regardless, you should have more kids. That obviously is not in the capacity of every person.

So you are justifying your own choice, but condemning others? Come on!

[LDSMusic483]

Why are you so interested in what other perfectly good people do? I can see why people lament murderers, rapists and child molesters, but why the concern about people who choose to use birth control?

Should I not lament the fact that by the choice of righteous families not to have more children, those possible children may be born into situations that could otherwise have been avoided? I think that is definitely something worth lamenting. They are my spiritual siblings, and I hope for the best lives for them, and I would think that would be better of with a family that is living righteous principles (even without all the temporal luxuries they might otherwise get) in leau of being born into a drug addicted family, or a family where there are child molesters, or murders or the such.

[LeSellers]

How could I possibly forget?

I don't know, but it seems to happen regularly.

You (and you're not alone) confuse my stating my opinion for my stating a mandate.

Lehi

[katherine the great]

Should I not lament the fact that by the choice of righteous families not to have more children, those possible children may be born into situations that could otherwise have been avoided? I think that is definitely something worth lamenting. They are my spiritual siblings, and I hope for the best lives for them, and I would think that would be better of with a family that is living righteous principles (even without all the temporal luxuries they might otherwise get) in leau of being born into a drug addicted family, or a family where there are child molesters, or murders or the such.

I think you should worry about your own choices and less about your neighbors'.

[LDSMusic483]

How could I possibly forget?So you are justifying your own choice, but condemning others? Come on!

Nope, because my choice has always been in tune with that of what the brethren have taught in all ages. The choices I am condemning have not been. And I do not condemn the choices of others who choose what they do based on the health of the mother.

[LeSellers]

So you are justifying your own choice, but condemning others? Come on!

I didn't read that at all.

What we have been discussing here is the "it's too expensive to have (m)any children" dodge so many people use to justify their curtailing their family size.

That was not the reason given.

Lehi

[LDSMusic483]

I think you should worry about your own choices and less about your neighbors'.

I'll stand for what I believe is righteous principles and not apologize if it is hard to bear by others. It is the principle I argue against, not my specific "neighbors." Perhaps I should also not try to spread the gospel in fear of worrying about my neighbors choices?

edited for spelling

[katherine the great]

I don't know, but it seems to happen regularly.You (and you're not alone) confuse my stating my opinion for my stating a mandate. Lehi

We are all entitled to our own opinions. I just don't understand this propensity among many decent people to judge other decent people on matters so personal as birth control. I'll have as many children as my husband and I decide and you have as many as your wife and you decide. We shouldn't have to second guess each other on these things or even bother thinking about other people's personal decisions.

I'll stand for what I believe is righteous principles and not apologize if it is hard to bear by others. It is the princpile I argue against, not my specific "neighbors." Perhaps I should also not try to spread the gospel in fear of worrying about my neighbors choices?

I don' think that most non latter day saints know or even care about our church policies on birth control.

[LDSMusic483]

We are all entitled to our own opinions. I just don't understand this propensity among many decent people to judge other decent people on matters so personal as birth control. I'll have as many children as my husband and I decide and you have as many as your wife and you decide. We shouldn't have to second guess each other on these things or even bother thinking about other people's personal decisions.

I believe the thing you are confusing with Lehi and I is that we are not attacking personal decisions that are made between the couple and the Lord. We are fighting against the notion that MONEY is a valid decision maker on family size. I personally do not believe that something extremely temporal like that should influence an eternal family size. But, I will not deny that people can get that response from God. I just do not believe it to be likely or common. My fight is against those who cling to the idea that the church has turned away from birth control being bad so they can justify their temporal desires.

I don' think that most non latter day saints know or even care about our church policies on birth control.

Who says I can only spread the gospel to my non-member neighbors?

[katherine the great]

I believe the thing you are confusing with Lehi and I is that we are not attacking personal decisions that are made between the couple and the Lord. We are fighting against the notion that MONEY is a valid decision maker on family size. I personally do not believe that something extremely temporal like that should influence an eternal family size. But, I will not deny that people can get that response from God. I just do not believe it to be likely or common. My fight is against those who cling to the idea that the church has turned away from birth control being bad so they can justify their temporal desires.

Who says I can only spread the gospel to my non-member neighbors?

I think you should print up this thread, stick it in your undie drawer for twenty years and then report back to me with your feelings on birth control. I get the impression that you are a generation younger than me and two generations younger than LeSellers. I'm not convinced that you are at an age where you really know yet how you feel about it. I'm not saying that your feelings will change, but often the reality of raising children is far from the vision we have when we are just starting out.

[bluebell]

The Lord blesses us on our righteous desires. If we say, I want to have as many children as I can for you, then He'll help us achieve that.

This sounds good, but is demonstratably false.

I have a friend who has told the Lord that she will have as many children as she can for Him-her and husband make plenty of money as are wonderful parents-but still they have trouble getting pregnant and after many years of marriage have only a small few, not all biological.

I have another friend who also was open to having as many children as she could, until she started having children and discovered that she emotionally couldn't handle it-it went to the point where she was suicidal, not because she couldn't have children, but because she knew she was not the mother they deserved and that it was out of her control to be that in the way that most of the church thought she should be.

Even leaving the issue of children, there are countless numbers of people who have righteous desires of all kinds, (such as to get married for example) that they will never achieve in mortal life.

It's clear that simply having a 'righteous desire' does not mean it's possible to achieve it. Sometimes our 'righteous desires' are not God's will for us for whatever reason.

I think Andrea Yates is a pretty good example of someone who should have stopped having children before she did, though her and her husband's desires for children were completely righteous.

[LDSMusic483]

I think you should print up this thread, stick it in your undie drawer for twenty years and then report back to me with your feelings on birth control. I get the impression that you are a generation younger than me and two generations younger than LeSellers. I'm not convinced that you are at an age where you really know yet how you feel about it. I'm not saying that your feelings will change, but often the reality of raising children is far from the vision we have when we are just starting out.

You just reminded me of my first companion in the mission field telling me that I would understand later on in my mission why it was important to missionaries to burn articles of clothing every 6 month anniversary that they had. I didn't believe him in the beginning of my mission, nor did I "understand" later. I will never think that lack of money is okay to curtail having children. I love my boys, and I could never imagine prohibiting more children to come because I thought I couldn't afford it.

[LDSMusic483]

This sounds good, but is demonstratably false.

I have a friend who has told the Lord that she will have as many children as she can for Him-her and husband make plenty of money as are wonderful parents-but still they have trouble getting pregnant and after many years of marriage have only a small few, not all biological.

I have another friend who also was open to having as many children as she could, until she started having children and discovered that she emotionally couldn't handle it-it went to the point where she was suicidal, not because she couldn't have children, but because she knew she was not the mother they deserved and that it was out of her control to be that in the way that most of the church thought she should be.

Even leaving the issue of children, there are countless numbers of people who have righteous desires of all kinds, (such as to get married for example) that they will never achieve in mortal life.

It's clear that simply having a 'righteous desire' does not mean it's possible to achieve it. Sometimes our 'righteous desires' are not God's will for us for whatever reason.

I think Andrea Yates is a pretty good example of someone who should have stopped having children before she did, though her and her husband's desires for children were completely righteous.

I'm sorry...I should have added that into my statement. I am in agreement with you that sometimes our righteous desires do not always come to fruition. I guess a better way of saying it is that the Lord blesses us on our righteous desires when they are according to His will. If the Lord wants us to have many children, and we want to have many children, He will help us to achieve that. Kind of based on 1 Nephi 3:7. Sorry if (and I read it that way too just now) my post was read as stating that the Lord always gives us the righteous things we want.

[katherine the great]

I love my boys, and I could never imagine prohibiting more children to come because I thought I couldn't afford it.

I love my boys and my girls and I can easily imagine finances being a factor in family planning. I'm not saying it was a factor for me, but I don't judge others' who do make that a factor. With hindsight I am glad that I chose the number of children I have because I am just now seeing how expensive they can be when disease becomes an unexpected factor.

[LeSellers]

We are all entitled to our own opinions.

We have that settled, I think.

I just don't understand this propensity among many decent people to judge other decent people on matters so personal as birth control.

Sorry. I missed the part where I was judging anyone on this issue (or any, for that matter).

My only point, which you have apparently missed, lo, these dozen times, is that the excuse that it's too expensive to have (m)any children is simply not valid. As it the (original) claim that it is more expensive today than it has been in the past. Both of these are excuses. My military training tells me that the maximum effective range of an excuse it 0 meters.

The excuse is not the reason. The excuse is just a pretty sounding phrase that the speaker imagines will deflect all further criticism. For me, an excuse is a reason to criticize. It tells me that the speaker is either ignorant of the facts or is hiding something. and it's usually the latter.

However, in the case where it is ignorance, it is only charitable to educate him. That's what my pointing out that it is cheaper today, not more expensive, to raise children than when our fathers did, and that it is not impossible to raise children even in limited financial circumstances is an effort in that direction.

I'll have as many children as my husband and I decide

Please do. But whatever the reason, don't try to tell me that it is because it's "too expensive" to have more. It is a sacrifice, but it's not too expensive if you value children enough.

We shouldn't have to second guess each other on these things or even bother thinking about other people's personal decisions.

None of which was the point at all from my perspective.

What I have been trying to do, and all I have said is that these two arguments are fallacious, and they are nothing more than excuses.

Lehi

[LDSMusic483]

I love my boys and my girls and I can easily imagine finances being a factor in family planning. I'm not saying it was a factor for me, but I don't judge others' who do make that a factor. With hindsight I am glad that I chose the number of children I have because I am just now seeing how expensive they can be when disease becomes an unexpected factor.

You and I are different in that aspect then.

[katherine the great]

You and I are different in that aspect then.

I suspect we are different in more aspects than that. One thing we can agree on (I hope) is that it is a choice to be reached between a wife, her husband, and the Lord. You have no way of knowing WHY the Lord confirmed my decision to stop having children after number five. I only know that it was a pleasing decision to Him and can only speculate as to why.

[katherine the great]

You just reminded me of my first companion in the mission field telling me that I would understand later on in my mission why it was important to missionaries to burn articles of clothing every 6 month anniversary that they had. I didn't believe him in the beginning of my mission, nor did I "understand" later. I will never think that lack of money is okay to curtail having children. I love my boys, and I could never imagine prohibiting more children to come because I thought I couldn't afford it.

Like I said, I'm not saying that you WILL change your feelings on birth control, but life has taught me that I usually see things very differently through time and experience than I do when I'm just starting out. You may end up with thirteen children or you may end up with four. I imagine a large part of that decision will depend on your wife.

Please do. But whatever the reason, don't try to tell me that it is because it's "too expensive" to have more. It is a sacrifice, but it's not too expensive if you value children enough.

It's all about choices.

[bluebell]

You just reminded me of my first companion in the mission field telling me that I would understand later on in my mission why it was important to missionaries to burn articles of clothing every 6 month anniversary that they had. I didn't believe him in the beginning of my mission, nor did I "understand" later. I will never think that lack of money is okay to curtail having children. I love my boys, and I could never imagine prohibiting more children to come because I thought I couldn't afford it.

Isn't it a bit odd though, to believe that God will and does limit people's 'righteous desires' based on their bodies or mental and emotional states, and does so fairly often, but that it's extremely rare for Him to use economic means to limit those desires?