The Churchâ??s Changing Position On Birth Control

[LDSMusic483]

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?

I would say that it is different priorities. Which is more important? The health of the mother, or having money? I would say the Lord doesn't use economic means because of the nature of what money can do to us. Perhaps thinking might turn from, I don't have enough money for child-rearing, to I don't have enough money for tithing. Then, I need more money so I'm going to take another job on Sunday. More times than not, the abundance of money does not cause good behaviors. It easily leads to pride. IMO I think the Lord doesn't use that as means for reasons to not do something because of the negative effects it could have.

edited to add that I am not 100% sure as to why God may use one instance to limit righteous desires, but not another. I think He has a good reason. I just don't believe He would use that as a reason.

[katherine the great]

I would say that it is different priorities. Which is more important? The health of the mother, or having money? I would say the Lord doesn't use economic means because of the nature of what money can do to us. Perhaps thinking might turn from, I don't have enough money for child-rearing, to I don't have enough money for tithing. Then, I need more money so I'm going to take another job on Sunday. More times than not, the abundance of money does not cause good behaviors. It easily leads to pride. IMO I think the Lord doesn't use that as means for reasons to not do something because of the negative effects it could have.

We really don't know the mind of God. Sometimes the Lord may ask us to do something that doesn't make sense to us at the time, but in His infinite wisdom, will make sense to us some day.

[LDSMusic483]

We really don't know the mind of God. Sometimes the Lord may ask us to do something that doesn't make sense to us at the time, but in His infinite wisdom, will make sense to us some day.

Definitely in agreement. I just find it hard to believe that it would be as normal an answer as it seems to be today.

I mean, I want to make myself clear (hopefully). I do believe the Lord can say...For economic reasons, you should keep your family at the size it is at. I believe that is completely possible. I just don't think that it happens very often at all. That would be when a couple and the Lord arrive at that decision together, in place of those who use the churches stance today as an excuse to use that decision maker. It's as though there was a collective sigh in making the churches position easier to live.

[bluebell]

I would say that it is different priorities. Which is more important? The health of the mother, or having money? I would say the Lord doesn't use economic means because of the nature of what money can do to us. Perhaps thinking might turn from, I don't have enough money for child-rearing, to I don't have enough money for tithing. Then, I need more money so I'm going to take another job on Sunday. More times than not, the abundance of money does not cause good behaviors. It easily leads to pride. IMO I think the Lord doesn't use that as means for reasons to not do something because of the negative effects it could have.

edited to add that I am not 100% sure as to why God may use one instance to limit righteous desires, but not another. I think He has a good reason. I just don't believe He would use that as a reason.

I understand what you are saying, but to me it doesn't seem valid.

To your first question about what is more important, the health of the mother or having money-i would answer that both are equally important but in different ways. That you believe it must be one or the other is a red flag to me. In the u.s., we can depend on the government to feed and, to a large extent, doctor our kids if we can't, so it's sometimes hard for us to see exactly how devastating it would be to have a child die from hunger or malnutrition brought on by a lack of funds to provide those things. But for parents actually in that situation, i think they would find your question very shallow and practically impossible to answer.

To your second statment of why you believe the Lord wouldn't use economic means as a way to limit the number of children we should have, i would ask-if God knows our hearts, and how we each individually feel about money, why would He need to base His decisions on what we 'might' do?

And to your third, that the abundance of money does not cause good behavior-neither does it cause bad behavior. I think it is imperative that we not let 'well, some people have that weakness so God obviously wouldn't put them in a position to give in to it' as way to decide the actions of God. We have the example of the book of mormon to show us that even when God knows some people are going to misuse his gifts or direction, He still provides those things. The negative affects of some of the things of mortality never seem to play much of a role in determining the will of God, from what i can see in scripture.

[bluebell]

Definitely in agreement. I just find it hard to believe that it would be as normal an answer as it seems to be today.

I mean, I want to make myself clear (hopefully). I do believe the Lord can say...For economic reasons, you should keep your family at the size it is at. I believe that is completely possible. I just don't think that it happens very often at all. That would be when a couple and the Lord arrive at that decision together, in place of those who use the churches stance today as an excuse to use that decision maker. It's as though there was a collective sigh in making the churches position easier to live.

No doubt there are people who are limiting the size of their families against the will of God, but i've never known any member of the church personally who claimed that they stopped having kids because it was too expensive to have anymore.

I think that expense definitely does limit the size of our families in these days, but i think it does so in pretty limited ways. I don't believe that someone pulling in 200,000 a year would choose to have 10 kids but that the same people would choose to have 5 if they only made 100,000. I honestly don't know anyone that relies soley on their income to make that decision for them. It's been my experience that people who want a lot of kids, what them no matter how much they make and that people who don't want that many also, still don't want that many whether financially well off or not.

Which leads me to ask, what experiences are you having that lead you to believe that economic reasons are responsible to such a great extent as you describe above, for the limiting of children in LDS families? I've just not had any experience that leads me to believe that, myself.

[LeSellers]

what experiences are you having that lead you to believe that economic reasons are responsible to such a great extent as you describe above, for the limiting of children in LDS families? I've just not had any experience that leads me to believe that, myself.

We have seen several people here use this kind of rationalization.

(I will not link back to their messages, but here are direct quotes, in this topic alone):

the fact that it is not as economically and emotionally feasible for couples to have as large of families under the current circumstances

BTW, I have three children...having some difficulty imagining a fourth right now

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!

I agree with [writer of above message]-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.

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.

It takes over 1/4 of a million dollars to raise just one child to adulthood in an American middle class lifestyle.

I did not include multiple quotes from the same person.

There have only been 22 posters, with 154 messages, in this topic (kate has 43 of them, I come in a distant 2d with 24, only two others are in double digits), of those, I know of only 13 who are Latter-day Saints. That's 5 of c. 13, a pretty high ratio.

Small sample, self-selected, I know it's not a scientific survey, but it is reason to suppose there is the "great extent" you asked about.

Lehi

[katherine the great]

Which leads me to ask, what experiences are you having that lead you to believe that economic reasons are responsible to such a great extent as you describe above, for the limiting of children in LDS families? I've just not had any experience that leads me to believe that, myself.

I think I inadvertently took the thread in that direction when I mentioned how much more expensive it is to have children now than in the past. It cost my mom $60.00 to have my brother and me. My children started at $2,000.00 and went up to $6,000.00, and we couldn't afford insurance then. I think it is now closer to $10,000.00. When a child is struck with a chronic, lifelong disease, the cost of their healthcare is truly staggering. Of course, we can't just not have children because of all of the "could happens" but I am now truly grateful that I didn't keep having children when I felt prompted to stop.

[LDSMusic483]

I understand what you are saying, but to me it doesn't seem valid.

To your first question about what is more important, the health of the mother or having money-i would answer that both are equally important but in different ways. That you believe it must be one or the other is a red flag to me. In the u.s., we can depend on the government to feed and, to a large extent, doctor our kids if we can't, so it's sometimes hard for us to see exactly how devastating it would be to have a child die from hunger or malnutrition brought on by a lack of funds to provide those things. But for parents actually in that situation, i think they would find your question very shallow and practically impossible to answer.

To your second statment of why you believe the Lord wouldn't use economic means as a way to limit the number of children we should have, i would ask-if God knows our hearts, and how we each individually feel about money, why would He need to base His decisions on what we 'might' do?

And to your third, that the abundance of money does not cause good behavior-neither does it cause bad behavior. I think it is imperative that we not let 'well, some people have that weakness so God obviously wouldn't put them in a position to give in to it' as way to decide the actions of God. We have the example of the book of mormon to show us that even when God knows some people are going to misuse his gifts or direction, He still provides those things. The negative affects of some of the things of mortality never seem to play much of a role in determining the will of God, from what i can see in scripture.

To me, the reason I said which is more difficult, I base this on the supposition that if God was to command us to continue having kids regardless...which circumstance would make it more difficult for me to obey? The health of my spouse would make me stumble much more quickly than a lack of money.

[katherine the great]

To me, the reason I said which is more difficult, I base this on the supposition that if God was to command us to continue having kids regardless...which circumstance would make it more difficult for me to obey? The health of my spouse would make me stumble much more quickly than a lack of money.

Sometimes the health of a spouse can snowball very quickly into a lack of money.

[LDSMusic483]

I think I inadvertently took the thread in that direction when I mentioned how much more expensive it is to have children now than in the past. It cost my mom $60.00 to have my brother and me. My children started at $2,000.00 and went up to $6,000.00, and we couldn't afford insurance then. I think it is now closer to $10,000.00. When a child is struck with a chronic, lifelong disease, the cost of their healthcare is truly staggering. Of course, we can't just not have children because of all of the "could happens" but I am now truly grateful that I didn't keep having children when I felt prompted to stop.

I think the big thing there was you felt prompted to stop. And if I remember correctly, you said that it was not due to financial reasons. Now obviously looking back you might be relieved, but as you said, we can't base our decisions on could happens. That's where my "grrrr" hits in when people are thinking, well it'll be expensive so it might be difficult to pay for kids. The thing is that we have to trust in God. We may just as well be making more money then! We see the future through our lenses of today which is not easy to comprehend. Maybe everything will spiral downward and in another 30 years or so it'll only be $60.00 to have kids again. With so much unknown, I find it as a tragedy for those who do choose to limit their child-bearing based on future possible financial situations.

edited due to the fact that my brain and hands don't seem to be on speaking terms at the moment. :-p

Which leads me to ask, what experiences are you having that lead you to believe that economic reasons are responsible to such a great extent as you describe above, for the limiting of children in LDS families? I've just not had any experience that leads me to believe that, myself.

The majority of my friends and those I went through school with adhere to this reasoning. "Let me do this first, or I need more money, or let me focus on my career, there will be time later, etc."

[katherine the great]

I think the big thing there was you felt prompted to stop. And if I remember correctly, you said that it was financial reasons.

No no. I specifically said that finances were NOT a factor in my family planning. I don't consider finances an invalid factor though. I think that should be an individual choice. I'm happy to belong to an organization that still values traditional family life at all! I didn't really want to go into the entire history of my childbearing but for clarification: I had five children in nine years who I reared almost entirely on my own while my husband was off earning his fortune. My husband was perfectly happy to have two or ten whatever I was okay with. After number five, the Lord told me this was acceptable and I retired from giving birth. Now that my baby has type one Diabetes, the expense and emotional toll have been so great that I ponder whether this may be why I received such instructions. I just don't think it is seemly to worry about how our neighbours are fulfilling the command. Its enough to try to fulfill our own responsibility.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

No no. I specifically said that finances were NOT a factor in my family planning. I don't consider finances an invalid factor though. I think that should be an individual choice. I'm happy to belong to an organization that still values traditional family life at all! I didn't really want to go into the entire history of my childbearing but for clarification: I had five children in nine years who I reared almost entirely on my own while my husband was off earning his fortune. My husband was perfectly happy to have two or ten whatever I was okay with. After number five, the Lord told me this was acceptable and I retired from giving birth. Now that my baby has type one Diabetes, the expense and emotional toll have been so great that I ponder whether this may be why I received such instructions. I just don't think it is seemly to worry about how our neighbours are fulfilling the command. Its enough to try to fulfill our own responsibility.

I agree 100% with everything you've said here. This is an issue that is up to the woman, the man, and the Lord.

It once was said that the Mormon motto was "Mind your own business."

Whatever happened to that?

[LDSMusic483]

No no. I specifically said that finances were NOT a factor in my family planning. I don't consider finances an invalid factor though. I think that should be an individual choice. I'm happy to belong to an organization that still values traditional family life at all! I didn't really want to go into the entire history of my childbearing but for clarification: I had five children in nine years who I reared almost entirely on my own while my husband was off earning his fortune. My husband was perfectly happy to have two or ten whatever I was okay with. After number five, the Lord told me this was acceptable and I retired from giving birth. Now that my baby has type one Diabetes, the expense and emotional toll have been so great that I ponder whether this may be why I received such instructions. I just don't think it is seemly to worry about how our neighbours are fulfilling the command. Its enough to try to fulfill our own responsibility.

My apologies,....I knew you said it was NOT a factor, and my brain was reminding me that you had said such, but I now realize that my hands did not listen to my brain...I will edit my post immediately!

[LeSellers]

It once was said that the Mormon motto was "Mind your own business."

Whatever happened to that?

I suppose it would be fine to allow false doctrine on the grounds that it's none of my business. But when false doctrine (or any error) is presented as if true, then what is one's oblgation to correct the misunderstanding?

The truth has value that needs to be announced in the face of error. It is not more expensive today than in times past to raise children, inflation and other government theft appropriately discounted.

It is always financially possible to have a(nother) child, if one is willing to make the sacrifice.

Whether one does or not is a wholly different question, and whether financial issues are part of the trade off (and they should be) is a matter for those involved.

But the "arguments" above are not reasons, they are nothing more than excuses.

Lehi

[katherine the great]

But the "arguments" above are not reasons, they are nothing more than excuses.

Lehi

Says you.

[LeSellers]

Says you.

You want to escalate this into a war?

Okeh. I CFR that it is

1. More expensive today to raise children than it has been in the past (controlled for both inflation and relative standard of living, both of which are implied in the first claim).
   
2. Too expensive to have a child or large family today.
   

.

You folks (need I name names?) made the claim, so you all can provide the data.

Lehi

[katherine the great]

You want to escalate this into a war?

Okeh. I CFR that it is

1. More expensive today to raise children than it has been in the past (controlled for both inflation and relative standard of living, both of which are implied in the first claim).
   Lehi
   I cost my parents $60.00 and my mom stayed a week in the hospital (even though she felt fine.) My last child cost me $6,000.00 and I got a day and a half in the hospital (although I could have used a week.)

[thesometimesaint]

Katherine the Great:

My son had Preemie Twins. Cost well into the $200,000. My niece has a daughter has a Million Dollar Baby.

[LeSellers]

I cost my parents $60.00 and my mom stayed a week in the hospital (even though she felt fine.) My last child cost me $6,000.00 and I got a day and a half in the hospital (although I could have used a week.

All other things were equal? You were healthy, your own child healthy? Was there insurance in both cases? If not, are you considering the differences between what the doctor got and what both families paid?

Are you considering that, in 1960 prices of things in general were ¹/₁₀ in terms of nominal dollars what they are now? A gallon of gasoline costs 35

[thesometimesaint]

Census Bureau: Number of U.S. Uninsured Rises to 47 Million Americans are Uninsured: Almost 5 Percent Increase Since 2005

About 25 million Americans â?? or approximately one of every five adults younger than age 65 with health insurance â?? did not have sufficient coverage last year to shield them from financial hardship if they ended up in the emergency room or were seriously ill, according to a new study to be released on Tuesday by the Commonwealth Fund.

[ttribe]

I suppose it would be fine to allow false doctrine on the grounds that it's none of my business. But when false doctrine (or any error) is presented as if true, then what is one's oblgation to correct the misunderstanding?

What "false doctrine" was taught here?

[LDSMusic483]

What "false doctrine" was taught here?

That finances is an excuse not to have more children/it's more expensive to have children today so that is justification in limiting family size.

[ttribe]

That finances is an excuse not to have more children/it's more expensive to have children today so that is justification in limiting family size.

How is that a "doctrine"?

[LDSMusic483]

How is that a "doctrine"?

I never used the word doctrine, you'll need to get that from Lehi. I just think it's an incorrect practice to claim lack of money as a reason to stop having kids.

[ttribe]

I never used the word doctrine, you'll need to get that from Lehi. I just think it's an incorrect practice to claim lack of money as a reason to stop having kids.

Okay...but Lehi made the charge of "false doctrine" as being the reason he is so adamant in his fight in this thread. "False doctrine" is a rather serious charge, IMO.

Frankly, if it is relegated to opinion (which is where I think this discussion belongs) then it appears to be rather wasteful, in terms of time, to be beating each other up over it. But, carry on if you are so inclined; in the meantime, I await Lehi to address the validity of his charge of "false doctrine".