Will the LDS Church endorse birth control in the future?

[Thinking]

It's no secret that in the past LDS leaders condemned birth control. Presently that decision is left to the husband and wife. As the world population increases, will the LDS Church ever encourage its members to limit the size of their families?

 

 

[Jeanne]

No.

[Tacenda]

Never...

[provoman]

15 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It's no secret that in the past LDS leaders condemned birth control. Presently that decision is left to the husband and wife. As the world population increases, will the LDS Church ever encourage its members to limit the size of their families?

 

 

 

 

 

Do you believe anyone here speaks for the LDS Church? 

[USU78]

Has the commandment to multiply and replenish been revoked or suspended?

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It's no secret that in the past LDS leaders condemned birth control. Presently that decision is left to the husband and wife. As the world population increases, will the LDS Church ever encourage its members to limit the size of their families?

If overpopulation ever becomes a threat to humanity, I think members will self-regulate the size of their families.  Mormon family sizes are already decreasing and probably similar to the cultures they live in.

The government will limit family size before the church ever does.

[Duncan]

I haven't heard a peep about birth control in years, whatever couples choose to do then they choose to do it

[Meerkat]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

It's no secret that in the past LDS leaders condemned birth control. Presently that decision is left to the husband and wife. As the world population increases, will the LDS Church ever encourage its members to limit the size of their families?

The earth is far from full. 

Edited February 25, 2018 by Meerkat

[SamuelTheLamanite]

58 minutes ago, pogi said:

If overpopulation ever becomes a threat to humanity, I think members will self-regulate the size of their families.  Mormon family sizes are already decreasing and probably similar to the cultures they live in.

The government will limit family size before the church ever does.

Scientists say the population is already a threat to humanity

Quote

In fact, the unprecedented growth of the human population in the second half of the last century — growing from 2.5 billion to 6 billion — may have already started changing how infectious diseases emerge. "There's a strong correlation between the risk of pandemic and human population density. We've done the math and we've proved it," said Dr. Peter Daszak, a disease ecologist and the president of Eco Health Alliance, who examined the link in a 2008 study published in the journal Nature.

Gavin Yamey reports

Quote

Pandemics know no boundaries. That is especially true now, when factors such as international travel, climate change, deforestation and human-animal interactions are accelerating the spread of infectious diseases.

So yes, the scientists think large populations are a threat. But I trust God more than the scientists. God told us to multiply and replenish the Earth, so I have nothing to worry about. God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

Edited February 25, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

So yes, the scientists think large populations are a threat. But I trust God more than the scientists. God told us to multiply and replenish the Earth, so I have nothing to worry about. God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

As I told you before, it's not a binary choice.

We can recognize that God is in control, wants us to multiply and replenish, and that the earth doesn't need to fear overpopulation.

AND we can recognize that we do a crap job utilizing resources, caring for each other and protecting our environment so that scientists are right that we probably can't maintain our current lifestyles if populations continue to increase.

Both can be true.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

AND we can recognize that we do a crap job utilizing resources, caring for each other and protecting our environment so that scientists are right that we probably can't maintain our current lifestyles if populations continue to increase.

Do you believe increasing "human-animal interactions" are a threat? As the population grows, the more farms we are going to need. How is farming a "crap job"? 

Edited February 25, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[phaedrus ut]

With convert baptism rates falling and LDS birth rates falling I don't see this happening.  I could honestly see something from coming from church hq advising members not to be selfish and have small families and encouraging more children.  

 

Phaedrus 

[2PairsofCletes]

It's not  about "is there room on the planet for me people", it's about resources. Water, food, etc. As it is, South Africa will be running out of clean water soon. 

[strappinglad]

History has shown that disease can and does devastate populations. Small pox, measles etc . did a tremendous job of wiping out a large portion of the Native Americans even before there was a lot of European interaction. The Black plague scourged Europe. The 1918 flu took millions worldwide. Some academics would be happy to see  population stabilize at around 3 billion ( as long as they were part of the 3 billion  ) Watch out for famine ! Not from drought but from excessive COLD . ( quietly reaches for foil hat !)

[Garden Girl]

3 hours ago, Meerkat said:

The earth is far from full. 

My husband and I liked to drive from Calif to Neb every couple years to see family.  After several such trips I became familiar with many of the farms/homes we would pass as we always took the same route... after all, we would drive through miles and miles of rolling rural countryside and so the farms became like landmarks.  I remember I'd comment on a new barn or additions, etc.  On one such drive we were on a particularly long stretch before reaching the next town, and I remember actually thinking... what overpopulation?  You see, we drove across country to numerous different areas and it seemed to me that the major populated areas lined the coasts with large cities,  and then those that dot the middle states with miles of open country in  between... and I'm not counting the areas that aren't really conducive to being generally populated (like the really arid parts of desert areas such as Death Valley, the badlands, etc).  Mind you, I'm not saying there isn't an overpopulation problem, but after driving through the miles of rolling hills in so many of our inland states, it does make me wonder about the research in determining just what the problem is...

GG  

Edited February 26, 2018 by Garden Girl

[clarkgoble]

The places that are overpopulated typically don’t have a lot of Mormons so this seems odd. Most western nations have negative population growth in some cases offset by immigration. So basically your talking Africa and I don’t know enough about the areas Mormons are strong. Ghana seems to be doing economically well so I don’t see an issue there although individuals might be unwisely living beyond their means. So I think some clarity is in order as the rest of the world outside Africa, Mid East and a few places in Asia doesn’t appear to have a problem.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

It's no secret that in the past LDS leaders condemned birth control. Presently that decision is left to the husband and wife. As the world population increases, will the LDS Church ever encourage its members to limit the size of their families?

Probably not.  Family size among Mormons has been steadily decreasing, even though it is still larger than most non-Mormons.  As to birth control, I have never heard the Brethren criticize it in my 76 years, and faithful Mormons I know have freely used birth control since at least the 1960s.  Perhaps you have in mind an earlier era.

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

It's no secret that in the past LDS leaders condemned birth control. Presently that decision is left to the husband and wife. As the world population increases, will the LDS Church ever encourage its members to limit the size of their families?

Condemnation and encouragement, and planning and control are not the same things. https://www.lds.org/topics/birth-control?lang=eng

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As to birth control, I have never heard the Brethren criticize it in my 76 years, and faithful Mormons I know have freely used birth control since at least the 1960s.  Perhaps you have in mind an earlier era.

"The First Presidency is being asked from time to time as to what the attitude of the Church is regarding birth control. In order that you may be informed on this subject and that you may be prepared to convey the proper information to the members of the Church under your jurisdiction, we have decided to give you the following statement: We seriously should regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity.Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by. However, we feel that men must be considerate of their wives who bear the greater responsibility not only of bearing children, but of caring for them through childhood. To this end the mother's health and strength should be conserved and the husband's consideration for his wife is his first duty, and self control a dominant factor in all their relationships.It is our further feeling that married couples should seek inspiration and wisdom from the Lord that they may exercise discretion in solving their marital problems, and that they may be permitted to rear their children in accordance with the teachings of the gospel.” (First Presidency (David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner ), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Office of the First Presidency, April 14, 1969)

Emphasis mine.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

My husband and I liked to drive from Calif to Neb every couple years to see family.  After several such trips I became familiar with many of the farms/homes we would pass as we always took the same route... after all, we would drive through miles and miles of rolling rural countryside and so the farms became like landmarks.  I remember I'd comment on a new barn or additions, etc.  On one such drive we were on a particularly long stretch before reaching the next town, and I remember actually thinking... what overpopulation?  You see, we drove across country to numerous different areas and it seemed to me that the major populated areas lined the coasts with large cities,  and then those that dot the middle states with miles of open country in  between... and I'm not counting the areas that aren't really conducive to being generally populated (like the really arid parts of desert areas such as Death Valley, the badlands, etc).  Mind you, I'm not saying there isn't an overpopulation problem, but after driving through the miles of rolling hills in so many of our inland states, it does make me wonder about the research in determining just what the problem is...

GG  

True, but the problem is not so much room as it is resources. Primarily water and food. If we were smart in placing our population Las Vegas would be a small town, we would not be growing water intensive crops in California, and New Orleans would be built to withstand flooding.

But we are not smart........

[JAHS]

I guess another question that could be asked is, can a family have too many kids? I have seen large families where some kids don't get enough individual attention and one or two slip through the cracks and get lost in terms of church activity and getting into more trouble than they might otherwise would have in a smaller family where they got more attention from their parents.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Thinking said:

"The First Presidency is being asked from time to time as to what the attitude of the Church is regarding birth control. In order that you may be informed on this subject and that you may be prepared to convey the proper information to the members of the Church under your jurisdiction, we have decided to give you the following statement: We seriously should regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity.Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by. However, we feel that men must be considerate of their wives who bear the greater responsibility not only of bearing children, but of caring for them through childhood. To this end the mother's health and strength should be conserved and the husband's consideration for his wife is his first duty, and self control a dominant factor in all their relationships.It is our further feeling that married couples should seek inspiration and wisdom from the Lord that they may exercise discretion in solving their marital problems, and that they may be permitted to rear their children in accordance with the teachings of the gospel.” (First Presidency (David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner ), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Office of the First Presidency, April 14, 1969)

Emphasis mine.

Thank you for that.  I note that, unlike the harsh Roman Catholic teaching on the subject, the First Presidency saw fit to add:

Quote

However, we feel that men must be considerate of their wives who bear the greater responsibility not only of bearing children, but of caring for them through childhood. To this end the mother's health and strength should be conserved and the husband's consideration for his wife is his first duty, and self control a dominant factor in all their relationships.It is our further feeling that married couples should seek inspiration and wisdom from the Lord that they may exercise discretion in solving their marital problems, and that they may be permitted to rear their children in accordance with the teachings of the gospel.

Which I take to mean that judicious family planning is appropriate, some young marrieds choosing to get out of grad school before starting their families.  Not curtailing, but merely delaying the explosion in family size and responsibility.  On the other hand, I knew students who chose to have children constantly during school.  I especially recall one very pregnant fellow student who disappeared for a day to two from class, but was soon back taking notes usual.  However, I think that she had her mother caring for the baby locally.  Everyone must decide for himself how that is to be handled.

[Buckeye]

To answer the question in the header, the church already openly endorses birth control: "Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple." https://www.lds.org/topics/birth-control?lang=eng

To answer the question in the OP, I doubt the church will specifically counsel couples to limit the number of children they have (at least in my life time) but I do expect the counsel to continue (and grow) that, in deciding how many children to have, couples should consider" the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children." https://www.lds.org/topics/birth-control?lang=eng

 

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

the First Presidency saw fit to add:

Which I take to mean that judicious family planning is appropriate, some young marrieds choosing to get out of grad school before starting their families.  Not curtailing, but merely delaying the explosion in family size and responsibility.  On the other hand, I knew students who chose to have children constantly during school.  I especially recall one very pregnant fellow student who disappeared for a day to two from class, but was soon back taking notes usual.  However, I think that she had her mother caring for the baby locally.  Everyone must decide for himself how that is to be handled.

True, but if you carefully read and noted what I bolded (self control), the direction from the FP was to use abstinence instead of artificial means to curtail birth.

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, Thinking said:

True, but if you carefully read and noted what I bolded (self control), the direction from the FP was to use abstinence instead of artificial means to curtail birth.

Abstinence isn't the only natural, non-artificial means of birth control. Self-control applies to any of them.