LDS Viewpoint of Planned Parenthood

[zelder]

That gets asserted a bunch . . . yet I've never seen any actual evidence that education, other than in-home and Church teachings, has had much effect on teenage pregnancy numbers.

That is the point I'm trying to make. Planned Parenthood and secular sex education is the wrong kind of education.

[USU78]

zelder:

Yes every child should be wanted and cared for. There should never be any such thing as rape, incest, and the health and life of the mother should never be in question. It is unfortunate that we don't live in that type of world.

I see a need for both services. PP does a good job of teaching the mechanics(You'd be surprised at how little teens and preteens actually know), and the Church does a good job of teaching the religious/moral responsibilities of parenthood. Ideally parents would take seriously their responsibilities to teach their children factually and responsibly. Unfortunately most parents don't actually do a good job of either, as our emotions are all tied up in it.

Saw briefly last night on some TV drama or other (can't remember -- don't care which) that an 8-1/2 month-long gestated child was still being referred to as a fetus. This by physicians. Guess none of them had ever actually been to a neonatal NICU to see all the 5- and 6-month preemies.

[zelder]

I would love to see our two churches work even closer together on social issues. I have great respect for recent Popes and I find Catholicism as a culture to be a beautiful thing, especially in Ireland.

Yours under the bridge-building oaks,

Nathair /|\

What is the context of that Joseph Smith quote and where does it come from?

[USU78]

That is the point I'm trying to make. Planned Parenthood and secular sex education is the wrong kind of education.

I was agreeing with you.

[zelder]

... except to make them rise.

Lehi

I honestly think that is the intent. Increasing sexual activity, and increasing teen pregnancies weakens families and puts the children more and more under the influence of the state.

[thesometimesaint]

That type of logic condemns us to a very brutal world.

[USU78]

I honestly think that is the intent. Increasing sexual activity, and increasing teen pregnancies weakens families and puts the children more and more under the influence of the state.

I don't disagree that that is the inevitable consequence of the policy, and that we intend what is the inevitable consequence of our acts, but I'm not convinced that they subjectively intend such a thing, at least not most folks on that there side of the argument.

[BCSpace]

Individual Stake Presidents don't have the authority to change Temple Recommend questions. It would be like a Catholic Bishop changing the rules for the Vatican.

That's not a reasonable comparison since the power resides with the Bishops as long as they recognize the Pope (also known as the Bishop of Rome). I never suspected that the TR questions would be changed. I'm simply surprised by strong council given by BCSpace's stake.

We ask the same questions as everyone else. One of them has to do with affiliating, supporting, or agreeing with any group who's teachings or practices are contrary to those accepted by the LDS Church. And no, no council is given as to the historical roots of the question so it's not limited to polygamous groups.

[mfbukowski]

I feel that is enough to deny temple recommends and even remove from the roles of the Church the names those who support Planned Parenthood in any way after such is explained to them. We have already had to give such council in our Stake and will continue to do so.

Really?

I am no fan of PP but are they "an organization opposed to the church"?

I am just curious about how this decision was reached.

Clearly they support positions which LDS should oppose, but I am just curious about the temple recommend question. If you can show me how it is justified, I might be able to influence another stake to join the cause.

[mfbukowski]

zelder:

Though not directly PP, the Church went through a similar experience with Bishops asking highly personal questions about its members sex lives in Temple Recommend interviews. Finally Salt Lake had to put a stop to it.

CFR

[blueadept]

zelder:

Yes every child should be wanted and cared for. There should never be any such thing as rape, incest, and the health and life of the mother should never be in question. It is unfortunate that we don't live in that type of world.

At the LA Religious Education Congress, there is this speaker who is a product of rape but her mother carried her to term and gave her up for adoption. Needless to say, she is rather grateful of her mother's decision and has a rather powerful message on this subject from what I've heard. IMO, she is an exception to the norm in not being aborted

I see a need for both services. PP does a good job of teaching the mechanics(You'd be surprised at how little teens and preteens actually know), and the Church does a good job of teaching the religious/moral responsibilities of parenthood. Ideally parents would take seriously their responsibilities to teach their children factually and responsibly. Unfortunately most parents don't actually do a good job of either, as our emotions are all tied up in it.

While I see an occasional case that may warrant a need for an abortion, I believe it's an exception and not the rule. The real issue is I've heard too many cases where PP doesn't seem to follow any particular guideline in how they help women whether they are in the 1st trimester or the last trimester. If a woman wants the problem to go away (and they have the money) PP seems to offer that altenative. I've heard too many stories from pro-lifers who portray themselves as desparate young (especially minorities) who are given advise over the phone of how they can potentially get an abortion to take care of their 'problem' and that's just over the phone. I don't imagine that they're much more neutral in person since they make more money if the patient has an abortion.

Pro-life clinics are slowly popping up on the radar around the country. Is there any surprise they're putting these clinics next to existing PP clinics?

My 2 cents

[SilverKnight]

Like Methadone Clinics, Halfway Houses and Rehab Clinics - Planned Parenthood is a necessary evil that performs an absolutely critical function in a morally, economically and religiously diverse society.

[mfbukowski]

I would love to see our two churches work even closer together on social issues.

[BCSpace]

Really?

Really

I am no fan of PP but are they "an organization opposed to the church"?

Yes. See my orginal post and recall the TR question I refered to in my last post.

http://www.stopp.org/ provides all the references one needs to show this.

I am just curious about how this decision was reached.

Clearly they support positions which LDS should oppose, but I am just curious about the temple recommend question. If you can show me how it is justified, I might be able to influence another stake to join the cause.

I think it has a lot to do with the battle to remove PP from the school district's cirriculum when a lot of information about PP came to light. The bottom line is does one support, sympathize, or agree with teachings or practices of the group which happen to be contrary to LDS teaching and practice? A specific policy against the LDS Church is not required.

Though not directly PP, the Church went through a similar experience with Bishops asking highly personal questions about its members sex lives in Temple Recommend interviews. Finally Salt Lake had to put a stop to it.

CFR

While I cannot give a CFR for the moment, I have to agree anecdotally with tss. I do remember seeing an official statement on it and I do recall being asked such questions for a period of time back in the 1990's.

[zelder]

I don't disagree that that is the inevitable consequence of the policy, and that we intend what is the inevitable consequence of our acts, but I'm not convinced that they subjectively intend such a thing, at least not most folks on that there side of the argument.

It is a bizarre point of view and I know it is one that is not shared by many. I'm convinced that there is a "beast", "church of the devil", "secret combination" that is more devious than we can imagine and whose leaders take instructions from Lucifer directly as did Korihor. Now is indeed the great day of Lucifers power, the "whore" has dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, toungues and people. They themselves call it a "new world order". They are deliberately trying to destroy families in an effort to gain more power and control over the masses. They believe they can bring about world peace by controlling everyone and will do anything to gain that power, no sacrifice to to great.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Okay, I voted "other" because my view of PP is negative but not just because of the abortion business. There have been a number of hidden camera stings in recent years showing the organization lacks integrity and willfully ignores the abuse of women and children. Also (iirc) they supported legislation to allow children to be carried across state lines by school representatives (counselors) for abortions without parental notification.

And of course, there's the fact that I find PP founder Margaret Sanger a completely repulsive individual for her views on eugenics, race, motherhood, and infanticide...

Yeah. Not a fan of PP.

Ditto, PP is a immoral organization that uses public funding to help erode the moral fiber that this nation was built upon.

[thesometimesaint]

mfbukowski:

http://mormonmatters.org/2008/03/17/prophetic-counsel-about-sex-within-marriage-a-brief-history/

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Guy 1986:

Those so called hidden camera stunts have been proven to be as fraudulent as a three dollar bill bill.

http://gothamist.com/2011/02/08/anti-abortion_groups_pimp_stunt_tar.php

[zelder]

That type of logic condemns us to a very brutal world.

In my view accepting the conspiratorial reality provides hope for a better world because it empowers us to see that we are being lied to and in that way we are able to more easily overcome the dogma. For example, if cures for cancer and heart disease are being with held from us for the purpose of gaining profits and controlling population growth then we can more easily begin to entertain alternative views of how to treat these diseases. What if Linus Pauling was right? What if heart disease is nothing more than low grade, cronic scurvy? If that is true then I can save myself and my loved ones from dying of heart disease by simply giving them a lot more vit C. What if laetril really does cure most cancers? All I have to do is eat my apple seeds and apricot kernals and I'm safe. I would be living a better life becasue I was able to see past the monsterous dogma that most people cannot see through.

The cognative dissonance over the scriptural view of natural history vs the secular view of natural history is no longer a problem since I can see that there is a "beast" with control over the education system and the secular view of natural history is a lie. Accepting the reality of mass conspiracy makes me happier and helps me to live at peace with the world around me. The gospel gives me hope for a better world becasue I know that good will eventually win no matter how bad it is or gets in the future.

[mfbukowski]

While I cannot give a CFR for the moment, I have to agree anecdotally with tss. I do remember seeing an official statement on it and I do recall being asked such questions for a period of time back in the 1990's.

Thanks for your comments- I am considering that position carefully. Part of the problem as I see it is that there are probably a hundred or a thousand organizations in the same category as PP in teaching practices the church would not accept, including in Southern Ca for example school boards- similar to the problem you had. But in a diverse community like LA, we LDS wouldn't stand a chance in opposing such organizations due to numbers alone.

I am not saying we should not take up the fight- remember we knocked on doors and spent days on the phones for Prop 8 here. In a small homogeneous community such an effort could make a huge difference.

But here, do we start asking people in temple rec. interviews if they agree with the local school board or deny the recommend? We have temple recommend holders ON our school board! How about the other thousand organizations in a similar category? Where do you draw the line?

Regarding the above quote- I have never been asked such a question in a TR interview in my life, though I have had a rec. continuously since I joined the church in 1980.

Perhaps what we have here is a difference between the church in Utah, and in an area with institutionalized immorality.

It would be interesting to speculate how this TR question would be interpreted in a country which has actually legislated, for example, the number of children a family can have.

Would one have to disobey to the laws of the land to get a temple recommend?

Edit: To the OP: Sorry if this is a derail- I will start a new thread if you like

[BCSpace]

But here, do we start asking people in temple rec. interviews if they agree with the local school board or deny the recommend? We have temple recommend holders ON our school board! How about the other thousand organizations in a similar category? Where do you draw the line?

Again, we don't ask any different questions, nor do we change them. It comes up only if such a person were known publically to be a supporter in much the same way it might come up if a person were teaching as doctrine or advocating something false. I personally do believe the Church should identify certain specific organizations and doctrines and include them as examples of what the question means by "support, sympathize, or agree with". The good would be a more uniform and accurate interpretation and application of doctrine. The bad would be less leeway for Bishops and Stake Presidents to make judgement calls as is their right and responsibility.

I guess it all comes down to how many and what type of tares you want growing up with the wheat. It should be enough for any believing LDS person, when presented with the information and evidence and knowing the doctrine, to make the right decision. But as anyone can see from posts on this and other boards and the examples of certain community leaders who are ostensibly LDS, this is often not the case.

[Jigglysaint]

Many of my friends would not exist if PP had it's way. I feel that anybody who does support PP also believes that my friends should have been aborted, and for me that's grounds for damnation,

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski:

http://mormonmatters.org/2008/03/17/prophetic-counsel-about-sex-within-marriage-a-brief-history/

Fair enough, I will take that as satisfying the CFR, but what is interesting to me is that NOTHING in that article, in my opinion, would authorize a bishop to ask personal questions about intimate relations between a husband and wife.

Again, in Utah, it might have been interpreted that way and I am sure there were some who saw it as a mandate to ask such questions, but elsewhere, I think it would be seen as overly intrusive and totally offensive.

That's the kind of thing that if done here, you could see a mass exodus from the church, in my opinion, and that is why it was not ever done, in my experience as one individual with the one or two bishops I had during that time period.

[thesometimesaint]

zelder:

Please.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html

And eating apricot pits, apple seeds is dangerous both contain cyanide.

http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/apples.asp

[blueadept]

Many of my friends would not exist if PP had it's way. I feel that anybody who does support PP also believes that my friends should have been aborted, and for me that's grounds for damnation,

There's a "Survivor 73" T-shirt out there now that has this saying on the back of it that surmises your statement rather well jigglysaint.

"Since 1973 1/3 of my generation has been slaughtered by abortion at the rate of 4000 babies per day. My friends...My classmates...My generation compromised by the selfishness of others. As a survivor I will not let future generations be slaughtered in the name of convenience. I will not be silent. I will not forget. I will not compromise."

http://www.catholicposters.com/shop/product.php?prodId=742&cat=