Is Birth Control Still Evil In Your Church?

[theplains]

I was doing some research in LDS History about the teaching of birth control and found a quote in Ensign:

http://www.lds.org/e...estion?lang=eng

"So, as to the number and spacing of children, and other related questions on this subject, such decisions

are to be made by husband and wife righteously and empathetically communicating together and seeking the

inspiration of the Lord. I believe that the prophets have given wise counsel when they advise couples to be

considerate and plan carefully so that the mother’s health will not be impaired. When this recommendation

of the First Presidency is ignored or unknown or misinterpreted, heartache can result".

She was the mother of eight children and was in her early forties. She asked, “Father, may I quit now?” His

response was, “Don’t ask me. That decision is between you, your husband, and your Father in Heaven. If you

two can face him with a good conscience and can say you have done the best you could, that you have really

tried, then you may quit. But, that is between you and him. I have enough problems of my own to talk over

with him when we meet!” So it is clear to me that the decisions regarding our children, when to have them,

their number, and all related matters and questions can only be made after real discussion between the

marriage partners and after prayer.

I also found the following:

http://www.lds.org/s..."birth control"

- "Elective abortion as a method of birth control, however, is contrary to the commandments of God".

and

http://eom.byu.edu/i...p/Birth_Control

But when I look at earlier teachings of the LDS Church (from Doctrines of Salvation), I see a stronger

stance against birth control, even calling it evil and wicked, even leading to the loss of one's salvation).

Based on the quotes that follow, I had a few questions:

a) is birth control (excluding abortion) still regarded as evil in your church?

b) do some classes in your ward still promote this evil doctrine?

c) do you believe as Brigham Young that God will punish a spirit child by sending him or her into the

family of wicked people just because you don't have your next child?

page 85 - ABUSE OF MARRIAGE COVENANT DESTROYS NATIONS ... "No nation can survive the abuse of this principle.

Rome, Greece, Babylon, Egypt and many other nations owe their downfall to the breaking of the sacred covenant

of marriage. The anger of a just God was kindled against them for their immortality. The bones of dead

civilizations on this American continent [Nephites/Lamanites/Jaredites, Native American Indians?] bear silent

but convincing evidence that it was unchastity and the disregard of this sacred covenant which brought them

to their final judgment".

page 85 - BIRTH CONTROL ... THE BLESSINGS OF BIRTH INTO MORTALITY ... "Nothing should be held in greater

sacredness and honor than the covenant by which the spirits of men ... are privileged to come into this world

in mortal tabernacles ... And then to think that we are not only privileged, but also commanded to assist

our Father in the great work of redemption by giving to his children, as we have obtained these blessings

ourselves ... Every child has the right to be well born! Every individual who denies them that right is guilty

of a mortal sin".

page 87 - BIRTH CONTROL IS WICKEDNESS ... "The abuse of this holy covenant has been the primary cause for the

downfall of nations ... When a man and a woman are married and they agree, or covenant, to limit their offspring

to two or three, and practice devices to accomplish this purpose, they are guilty of iniquity which eventually

must be punished. Unfortunately this evil doctrine is being taught as a virtue by many people ... It has even

crept in among members of the Church and has been advocated in some of the classes within the Church ... It

should be understood definitely that this kind of doctrine is not only not advocated by the authorities of the

Church, but also is condemned by them as wickedness in the sight of the Lord".

page 87-88 - "President Joseph F. Smith has said in relation to this question: Those who have taken upon

themselves the responsibility of wedded life should see to it that they do not abuse the course of nature; that

they do not destroy the principle of life within them, nor violate any of the commandments of God. The command

which he gave in the beginning to multiply and replendish the earth is still in force upon the children of men.

Possibly no greater sin could be committed by the people who have embraced this gospel than to prevent or to

destroy life in the manner indicated".

page 88 - SPIRITS DESIRE BIRTH IN RIGHTEOUS FAMILIES ... "President Brigham Young has this to say about birth

control, an abomination practiced by so-called civilized nations, but nations who have forsaken the ways of

life - There are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles, now what is our duty? To

prepare tabernacles for them; to take a course that will not tend to drive those spirits into the families of

the wicked, where they will be trained in wickedness, debauchery, and every species of crime. It is the duty

of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can ... Morever, may we not

lose our own salvation if we violate this divine law?"

page 88 - BIRTH CONTROL LEADS TO DAMNATION ..".Instructing the mothers of the Church, President Joseph F. Smith

said in June 1917: I regret, I think it is a crying evil, that there should exist a sentiment or a feeling among

any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. I think that is a crime wherever it occurs,

where husband and wife are in possession of health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed

upon their posterity. I believe that where people undertake to curtail or prevent the birth of their children

that they are going to reap disappointment by and by. I have no hesitancy in saying that I believe that is one

of the greatest crimes of the world today, this evil practice".

"If the love of the world and the wicked practices of the world mean more to a man and woman than to keep the

commandment of the Lord in this respect, then they shut themselves off from the eternal blessing of increase.

Those who wilfully and maliciously design to break this important commandment shall be damned. They cannot have

the Spirit of the Lord".

"Smalll families is the rule today. Husbands and wifes refuse to take upon themselves the responsibilities of

family life. Many of them do not care to be bothered with children. Yet this commandment given to Adam has never

been abrogated or set aside. If we refuse to live by the covenants we make, especially in the house of the Lord,

then we cannot receive the blessings of those covenants in eternity. If the responsibilities of parenthood are

wilfully avoided here, then how can the Lord bestow upon the guilty the blessings of eternal increase? It

cannot be, and they shall be denied such blessings".

Thanks,

Jim

[Freedom]

But when I look at earlier teachings of the LDS Church (from Doctrines of Salvation), I see a stronger

stance against birth control, even calling it evil and wicked, even leading to the loss of one's salvation).

Just to be clear, Doctrines of Salvation is not the teachings of the LDS Church. It is the opinion of one man who was very opinionated on may subjects and had opinions that were not in harmony with many of his contemporary church leaders. Family Planning is important, and having children just because you are biologically capable is irresponsible. There was a time when this was different. We do not live on farms anymore. Raising 8 children in today's society is not financially feasible because they do not generate income as they did 100 years ago. You cannot take quotes from a different era and apply it to today's circumstances. If we look at the members of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, we see much smaller families than what was advocated in the early 1900s. We are expected to use commons sense.

[Duncan]

Just to be clear, Doctrines of Salvation is not the teachings of the LDS Church. It is the opinion of one man who was very opinionated on may subjects and had opinions that were not in harmony with many of his contemporary church leaders. Family Planning is important, and having children just because you are biologically capable is irresponsible. There was a time when this was different. We do not live on farms anymore. Raising 8 children in today's society is not financially feasible because they do not generate income as they did 100 years ago. You cannot take quotes from a different era and apply it to today's circumstances. If we look at the members of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, we see much smaller families than what was advocated in the early 1900s. We are expected to use commons sense.

yeah

Edited June 30, 2012 by Duncan

[CASteinman]

I believe 'theplains" is a name used on-line by a long-term inveterate enemy of the LDS Church and its Doctrines.

[Freedom]

I believe 'theplains" is a name used on-line by a long-term inveterate enemy of the LDS Church and its Doctrines.

Well, certainly birth control is one of our more wretched and insidious canonized and enshrined doctrines.

[CASteinman]

Well, certainly birth control is one of our more wretched and insidious canonized and enshrined doctrines.

We are all minor demons for believing such dreck. But I cannot help myself. I am compelled. As any good Calvinist would be.

[CV75]

I was doing some research in LDS History about the teaching of birth control and found a quote in Ensign:

Everyone has to answer to God as to their inclination to prevent or enable life in the Lord’s way, and not their assumptions and understanding about what “birth control” means to the general population in any particular day and age.

[BCSpace]

Perhaps one could find an old doctrinal quote to prove me wrong, but iirc, whenever I read those statements, I always got the impression the main context was an indictment against selfishly limiting one's family size. I'm pretty sure there are no statements dictating what one's family size should be so even though some of these apostles and prophets were wanting to speak directly of actual birth control methods and devices, they really weren't because they couldn't directly reference them, just the negative principle of limiting family size. The lack of doctrine on specific family sizes blocked them.

In a way, it's like evolution is now. Some apostles (like Nelson) try to take a swipe at it from time to time, but are unsuccessful because prior doctrine (the lack thereof in the birth control case) like the 1909 and 1931 statements as well as other statements by other prophets (like DOM), prevents them from directly referencing evolution as wrong.

Edited July 1, 2012 by BCSpace

[Bernard Gui]

It is interesting to note the decline of native European populations.

Bernard

[Freedom]

It is interesting to note the decline of native European populations.

Bernard

I am surprised at how many couples today are choosing not to have children. There is a bit of a crisis in Canada with dropping birthrates and slower immigration from stable sources such as China and India. The City of Vancouver has an ever increasing population, yet elementary school enrollment is down considerably. There are even active member of the church in my stake who are choosing not to have children, and parents who have one child and stick it in daycare.

When I am in my golden years, I will be surrounded by grand and great grand children. Many of my friends will be left alone for perhaps decades without loved ones to care or honor them. I don't have a nice boat, but I do have music, dance, sports, straight teeth, graduation diplomas, medals, and a host of other testimonies to the heritage I am creating.

[thesometimesaint]

I have 3 kids and 5 Grandkids. I am well blessed.

[Widow's Son]

Here's my theory on the question. There is absolutely no doubt that there has been a change in Church culture about birth control. I had my marriage interview with a sweet but elderly Bishop who warned that he wouldn't issue a recommend to couples practicing birth control. Recently my married daughter was getting it on the BYU student health plan.

Here's my theory for the change. In the early days of the Church, if a child was born sickly or with complications there wasn't much medicine could do. The child either lived or died without causing a ruinous strain on family finances.

Today medicine can perform miracles, but at outrageous cost. Six figure babies are commonplace and seven figure babies aren't that rare. Nobody wants to deny care to a sick mother or baby, but someone has to pay the cost, and the Church certainly doesn't want to have to.

It is common for newlyweds, especially students, and others to not have health insurance and it certainly isn't wise or provident living to have babies while uninsured when the risks are so great.

[Calm]

someone has to pay the cost, and the Church certainly doesn't want to have to.

You are suggesting the Church allows birth control so it doesn't have to pay the medical costs of high risks kids?

If you are....

Seriously?

[Mark Beesley]

Based on the quotes that follow, I had a few questions:

a) is birth control (excluding abortion) still regarded as evil in your church?

b) do some classes in your ward still promote this evil doctrine?

c) do you believe as Brigham Young that God will punish a spirit child by sending him or her into the

family of wicked people just because you don't have your next child?

I wondered why you wanted answers to these questions "based on the quotes that followed." The passages you quoted preceding your questions seemed to answer them quite nicely. Perhaps your questions should have been phrased differently, asking us to speculate on the mind-set of Joseph Fielding Smith or Brigham Young when they expressed their opinions, because that is essentially what you asking us to do.

The wonderful thing about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that it is a living, dynamic Church. Continuing revelation ensures that attitudes and directions about some things can change as circumstances warrant. I am sorry if your church does not enjoy this type of opportunity for growth.

In the future, might I suggest that CARM is probably not the best resource to use for investigating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

[Mark Beesley]

Here's my theory on the question. There is absolutely no doubt that there has been a change in Church culture about birth control. I had my marriage interview with a sweet but elderly Bishop who warned that he wouldn't issue a recommend to couples practicing birth control. Recently my married daughter was getting it on the BYU student health plan.

Here's my theory for the change. In the early days of the Church, if a child was born sickly or with complications there wasn't much medicine could do. The child either lived or died without causing a ruinous strain on family finances.

Today medicine can perform miracles, but at outrageous cost. Six figure babies are commonplace and seven figure babies aren't that rare. Nobody wants to deny care to a sick mother or baby, but someone has to pay the cost, and the Church certainly doesn't want to have to.

It is common for newlyweds, especially students, and others to not have health insurance and it certainly isn't wise or provident living to have babies while uninsured when the risks are so great.

Thank heaven for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Now newlyweds won't have to go without health insurance.

Incidentally, do you have any figures showiing how much of the cost of childbearing the Church historically covers for its members?

[cwald]

Some couples choose to have large families. Some choose to have small families. I'm glad the church leadership no longer expects everyone to fit in the same box.

I have not heard birth control talked about at church since the 80s. I think it is more of a cultural expectation than a church commandment today.

[thesometimesaint]

Mark Beesley:

Or even some oldie weds.

[Freedom]

You are suggesting the Church allows birth control so it doesn't have to pay the medical costs of high risks kids?

If you are....

Seriously?

I think the point is that, advocating large families is a policy that may lead to great poverty or at least great financial risk. I agree with the sentiment of the post although (as with virtually all of my posts) it may not have been worded distinctly

[thesometimesaint]

Freedom:

It is a two edged sword. If our parents had waited until they could have afforded kids very few of us would be alive today.

[Freedom]

Freedom:

It is a two edged sword. If our parents had waited until they could have afforded kids very few of us would be alive today.

It is not so much about waiting to have children, but rather about feeling obligated to have a child every 12 months for 20+ years. In today's economy, one cannot jump into a career at age 21. It often takes 6 years of education to produce a good income. Also a house is significantly more expensive. Homes in Vancouver are perhaps an extreme example with purchasers needing $70,000 for a down payment, but it is a different market today. Also, in the United states, a university degree is exorbitantly expensive leaving many students with a fortune in debt and a low starting wage. It is a perfect storm of never being able to catch up.

I don't think it is prudent today for a return missionary to get married and have the young uneducated bride start having children right away.

[Widow's Son]

>>You are suggesting the Church allows birth control so it doesn't have to pay the medical costs of high risks kids?<<

Absolutely. Probably could have worded it differently, but it happens all of the time.

When a couple gets crushed by high medical costs through not having insurance, there are real direct costs in food assistance, housing assistance, etc. There are also direct payments under Fast Offerings:Medical to doctors and hospitals. Obviously not quick and easy or the Church would grow broke, but it happens, more in some demographics/areas than others.

I personally know of several cases. In one the couple had a second miracle baby whilst digging out of the financial abyss of the first. In another, twin preemies were in the NICU for three months at insane costs.

In today's era of modern but costly medical miracles nobody wants to deny care to someone who needs it but somebody has to pay the bills. The Church isn't going to let anyone be homeless or hungry, but having babies without insurance is the total opposite of provident living.

There is a difference between planning for children and preventing children. God gave all living things the power to procreate, but only man was given intelligence. Using that power without using intelligence is reducing ourselves to the level of the animals.

[thesometimesaint]

Freedom:

I'm not suggest that anyone be imprudent. Here in southern California a starter home is likely to cost a third of a million dollars. When tied with good incomes of around $40G/yr a home is really unobtainable for most couples unless both are working full time.

University cost are through the roof. It is like having a mortgage before ever getting started. When I graduated I had about $2000 in school debt. When my oldest son graduated it was $80,000 in debt. Fortunately he makes very good money. He went to school with kids, and a house to support. He did it. But I don't envy him.

You have an advantage with medical in Canada. A serious illness or injury doesn't devastate you financially.

So if our kids wait till they could afford them. Very few would have any.

[Freedom]

Freedom:

I'm not suggest that anyone be imprudent. Here in southern California a starter home is likely to cost a third of a million dollars. When tied with good incomes of around $40G/yr a home is really unobtainable for most couples unless both are working full time.

University cost are through the roof. It is like having a mortgage before ever getting started. When I graduated I had about $2000 in school debt. When my oldest son graduated it was $80,000 in debt. Fortunately he makes very good money. He went to school with kids, and a house to support. He did it. But I don't envy him.

You have an advantage with medical in Canada. A serious illness or injury doesn't devastate you financially.

So if our kids wait till they could afford them. Very few would have any.

I understand what you are saying, but the bottom line is that having children 100 years ago is different from having children today. I don't want to derail the thread, but it appears that a more improved medical insurance plan and better funded post secondary schools would greatly reduce the burden. I am not suggesting that the Canadian model is the solution; it is too far in the opposite direction.

[thesometimesaint]

Freedom:

I'm old but not that old. No doubt about it children have gone for an economic asset to an economic liability. However I didn't have children for their economic contributions. I've been very well blessed in my abilities to provide for my family. Paid for Missions, cars, and college. I believe in paying it forwards. Now they get to for their children.

I've got a very good medical insurance plan, but it sure costs a lot of money, around a thousand dollars a month.

On this side of the border the Canadian system looks pretty good. Though I do think the French have an even better one.

[Calm]

On this side of the border the Canadian system looks pretty good.

In some ways it is, some ways not so good. You should study it more in how it practically works before deciding whether or not the US should adopt something like it.