The Churchâ??s Changing Position On Birth Control

[LeSellers]

What "false doctrine" was taught here?

It was a parallel. Notice the words "or any error"?

Lehi

[ttribe]

It was a parallel. Notice the words "or any error"?

Lehi

So, does disagreement with Lehi equate to "error" and then rise to the level of "false doctrine" if you are feeling particularly dogmatic?

[LeSellers]

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

As katherine said: Life is about choices.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

So, does disagreement with Lehi equate to "error" and then rise to the level of "false doctrine" if you are feeling particularly dogmatic?

You're reading entirely too much into a simple analogy.

The first error was that is is more expensive today to raise children than it has been in the past. This is false.

The second error was that it is too expensive to raise (m)any children in today's economy. This is false.

When I hear such false statements, it is my duty to correct them, just as I would were it false doctrine.

And I do.

Lehi

[katherine the great]

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?Lehi

Similar care except that my mom had far more time in the hospital. Please do not assume that all Americans can afford health insurance. I think that approximately 35% of Americans cannot afford health insurance and that number is going up fast. According to the Department of Commerce, the average annual health care expenditure per capita in 1960 was $143.00. In 2003, it was $5,670.00. That is a forty fold increase. This is a real problem for young families. I agree that many cost of living expenses have increased in proportion to wages. Health care and affordable housing are far more problematic.

You're reading entirely too much into a simple analogy.The first error was that is is more expensive today to raise children than it has been in the past. This is false.

It is not false. It is true.

[staccato]

As katherine said: Life is about choices.Lehi

What do you suppose God would say about your responsibility level in the hereafters if you chose to bring 13 children into the world and 8 of them died of tuberculosis because you could not afford to pay for health care. Did you manage your stewardship wisely?

[ttribe]

You're reading entirely too much into a simple analogy.

Or perhaps you were using the "anology" to add force to your opinion; regardless, you left the statement out there and it needed clarification.

The first error was that is is more expensive today to raise children than it has been in the past. This is false.

Since no one has yet produced evidence to refute your statement, nor have you produced anything irrefutable in support of your statement, I'd have to say (as an observer of this mess) that the jury's still out on that one.

The second error was that it is too expensive to raise (m)any children in today's economy. This is false.

"...too expensive" is clearly relative to one's income; therefore, by stating this assertion in absolute terms (which I'm unsure anyone else did) you have set it up to be false by definition since even one counterexample (let's use the Duggar Family in Arkansas - http://www.duggarfamily.com/) would render the entire statement false. That's kind of a dishonest way to go about your argument, don't you think?

When I hear such false statements, it is my duty to correct them, just as I would were it false doctrine.

Your duty? Really? Or is it your hobby?

And I do.

You definitely do something, but I'm not sure it's always correct.

[LeSellers]

"...too expensive" is clearly relative to one's income; therefore, by stating this assertion in absolute terms (which I'm unsure anyone else did) you have set it up to be false by definition since even one counterexample (let's use the Duggar Family in Arkansas - http://www.duggarfamily.com/) would render the entire statement false. That's kind of a dishonest way to go about your argument, don't you think?

Why "dishonest"?

I mentioned them by reputation in an earlier message on this topic. I applaud them.

After a fairly low hurdle, being able to afford anything is a matter of values and choices. The fact that there are people living happily on $10,000 a year and having several children, proves that it can be done. If one family, much less many, can do it, any family can. The issue is, are there many families willing to do what these families have done in order to raise their children? From what I have seen, here are few who will make those trade offs.

"Economics" is a subset of the science of praxeology. Praxeology is the "study of human conduct". I call it the "study of values and trade offs".

I mentioned before that we can tell how much a family values the next child: it's what they are willing to give up to have him. If they are unwilling to sacrifice for the child, they don't value him as much as whatever it is he would cost, keeping in mind that not all costs are financial.

If the only thing that holds a family back from having that next child is financial, then we can safely say the value of that child is less than "$X". It is rare that finances are the only concern, but for the sake of this discussion, we have limited it to that question.

Once again, I emphasize that it is only the two questions that I am examining. What anyone determines (and why) for his own family is not the point. I am examining the question, "Is it more expensive, less expensive, or about the same, to raise a child today?" I am examining the question, "Is today's economic environment too costly to raise a child?"

My studies have shown that it is at worst, about the same to raise a child today as it has been over the past century or so. It is probably less so. It is likewise, by the very existence of the Duggars and many others, not too expensive to raise children. Whether you, or anyone else is willing to do what they have done, is wholly another matter.

Nonetheless, I did not raise the cost issue first, you did, here: <{POST_SNAPBACK}>. So, it is your challenge to make your case, not mine.

You seem to have subscribed to Billy's school of thought: that by giving me examples that support my case, yours is strengthened. This is indeed the first time I have seen this approach twice in the same week. It makes me wonder.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

What do you suppose God would say about your responsibility level in the hereafters if you chose to bring 13 children into the world and 8 of them died of tuberculosis because you could not afford to pay for health care. Did you manage your stewardship wisely?

Don't get started on God's allowing children to die.

Besides, who has said you should ignore finances in making the decision to have another child? Are you putting words in my mouth?

Lehi

[LDSMusic483]

What do you suppose God would say about your responsibility level in the hereafters if you chose to bring 13 children into the world and 8 of them died of tuberculosis because you could not afford to pay for health care. Did you manage your stewardship wisely?

If they received a Priesthood blessing beforehand by a worthy male and with the faith that is necessary, they wouldlive. If they didn't, then they were appointed unto death regardless.

[katherine the great]

If they received a Priesthood blessing beforehand by a worthy male and with the faith that is necessary, they wouldlive. If they didn't, then they were appointed unto death regardless.

Wow. Do you rely only on the Priesthood for your babies' health care?

[LeSellers]

Do you rely only on the Priesthood for your babies' health care?

How could you assume that from what he wrote?

Lehi

[katherine the great]

How could you assume that from what he wrote?

Lehi

Read the post he was replying to.

[ttribe]

Why "dishonest"?

Because you set up the question in such a way as to make it impossible to be true and it does not honestly represent the counterargument.

I mentioned them by reputation in an earlier message on this topic. I applaud them.

After a fairly low hurdle, being able to afford anything is a matter of values and choices. The fact that there are people living happily on $10,000 a year and having several children, proves that it can be done. If one family, much less many, can do it, any family can. The issue is, are there many families willing to do what these families have done in order to raise their children? From what I have seen, here are few who will make those trade offs.

"Economics" is a subset of the science of praxeology. Praxeology is the "study of human conduct". I call it the "study of values and trade offs".

Perhaps you should research ME a bit before you take to lecturing me about the fundamentals of economic theory.

I mentioned before that we can tell how much a family values the next child: it's what they are willing to give up to have him. If they are unwilling to sacrifice for the child, they don't value him as much as whatever it is he would cost, keeping in mind that not all costs are financial.

If the only thing that holds a family back from having that next child is financial, then we can safely say the value of that child is less than "$X". It is rare that finances are the only concern, but for the sake of this discussion, we have limited it to that question.

All else being equal, your conclusion is logical. However, I would submit that all else is not equal.

Once again, I emphasize that it is only the two questions that I am examining. What anyone determines (and why) for his own family is not the point. I am examining the question, "Is it more expensive, less expensive, or about the same, to raise a child today?" I am examining the question, "Is today's economic environment too costly to raise a child?"

Who, other than you, said it was "too costly to raise a child" in such absolute terms? Not I, for sure.

My studies have shown that it is at worst, about the same to raise a child today as it has been over the past century or so. It is probably less so. It is likewise, by the very existence of the Duggars and many others, not too expensive to raise children. Whether you, or anyone else is willing to do what they have done, is wholly another matter.

What studies? Personal studies? Published studies subjected to refereed review for methodological problems, etc.? Please help us all know where we can go to review these studies for ourselves.

Nonetheless, I did not raise the cost issue first, you did, here: <{POST_SNAPBACK}>. So, it is your challenge to make your case, not mine.

You're right I did raise the issue - broadly. Please do not ascribe some of the follow-on arguments to me as I do not agree with them.

You seem to have subscribed to Billy's school of thought: that by giving me examples that support my case, yours is strengthened. This is indeed the first time I have seen this approach twice in the same week. It makes me wonder.

It makes you wonder what? Don't beat around the bush, Lehi, it's very unlike you.

[staccato]

Don't get started on God's allowing children to die.

Besides, who has said you should ignore finances in making the decision to have another child? Are you putting words in my mouth?

Lehi

Who is saying anything about God allowing children to die? I'm saying a parent is theoretically culpable in the scenario I outlined.

And YOU are the one saying finances are not a factor. I maintain that is it irresponsible to NOT include finance as a factor.

[LDSMusic483]

Wow. Do you rely only on the Priesthood for your babies' health care?

Of course not, but if they received a blessing and everything was done for them that could be done, and they still died, then they were meant to. And interestingly enough, JS said to rely on the Priesthood more than medicine.

I should add that I principly rely on the Priesthood. Obviously the Lord has blessed us in the day and age we live in to be healed through medicine and surgical procedures. But I have more faith in God than the studies of man(nothing against doctors). I am just saying that if a child receives a blessing from a worthy priesthood holder and still dies, then it was meant to happen. And I would honestly say that regardless of medicine being involved. God once told Joseph Smith that his days were known and his years would not be numbered less. If we are living righteously, that promise holds true for us, even if we can't "afford" major medical procedures.

[Log]

And interestingly enough, JS said to rely on the Priesthood more than medicine.

To cite a dead prophet in support of an unpopular position is heresy. We're supposed to believe them spiritually, but not literally.[/sarcasm]

[LDSMusic483]

nevermind

[Log]

oh...um...err...okay...let's see...later JS taught in the Word of Wisdom that things like tabacco should only be used for medicinal purposes...so...obviously he taught contradictory things...so ignore what I just said, okay? Better?

I don't know what you're talking about... what are you talking about?

[Log]

I happen to agree with you and Joseph Smith. Others, who are, of course, more enlightened, speak as though priesthood is merely the sauerkraut on medicine's Hebrew National hotdog.

[LDSMusic483]

I happen to agree with you and Joseph Smith. Others, who are, of course, more enlightened, think priesthood is merely the sauerkraut on medical science's massive, Hebrew National hotdog.

That's no good...I don't like sauerkraut...

[katherine the great]

Of course not, but if they received a blessing and everything was done for them that could be done, and they still died, then they were meant to. And interestingly enough, JS said to rely on the Priesthood more than medicine.

His scenario said specifically that the child was not able to receive medical treatment because the parents could not afford it.

[katherine the great]

I happen to agree with you and Joseph Smith. Others, who are, of course, more enlightened, speak as though priesthood is merely the sauerkraut on medicine's Hebrew National hotdog.

I think that's great. Seriously, if you really believe that modern medicine is inferior to the Priesthood blessing, you would save a lot of money on health care. You actually don't need it at all. Personally, I believe that healing medicine IS God's word. There is not one single documented case of type one Diabetes being cured through a Priesthood blessing or any other type of faith healing. If I took the attitude that it is God's will that my child dies because a Priesthood blessing doesn't heal her then I would consider myself responsible for her death.

[Log]

I happen to agree with you and Joseph Smith. Others, who are, of course, more enlightened, speak as though priesthood is merely the sauerkraut on medicine's Hebrew National hotdog.

I think that's great. Seriously, if you really believe that modern medicine is inferior to the Priesthood blessing, you would save a lot of money on health care. You actually don't need it at all. Personally, I believe that healing medicine IS God's word.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

[katherine the great]

I think that's great. Seriously, if you really believe that modern medicine is inferior to the Priesthood blessing, you would save a lot of money on health care. You actually don't need it at all. Personally, I believe that healing medicine IS God's word.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Do you ever go to the doctor?