Will the LDS Church endorse birth control in the future?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours 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.

That is not the message I got from that quote.

[USU78]

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

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

You know what they call couples who practice the rhythm method, don't you?

 

 

 

Parents.

[USU78]

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by USU78
Duplicate

[Duncan]

Elder Paul H. Dunn came to our Stake in 1982 and as part of his scheduled events for the weekend he held a women's only meeting. My mom attended and still talks about it to this day even. They had a QA and one person asked something about how many kids you should have and Elder Dunn said that he and his wife had 3 and that was fine for them and how many kids you have is nobody's business but you and your spouse and the Lord.

[JLHPROF]

21 hours 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.

There was a belief in the early Church that sexual relations were for procreation only.  Don't want a kid, no sex.  There was likewise a belief against relations during pregnancy that was traced to scripture.
These beliefs were practiced to various degrees in the early Church at the very least through the turn of the century and slowly began to diminish.  The adoption of the Manifesto brought some of them to light.
In your 1960s quote we can see the remnants of the teaching.

In the Church today we occasionally hear a random teaching hinting at this doctrine, but officially the Church teachings have softened, just as the wording of the law of Chastity covenant became more relaxed and less specific over time.

• 21.4.4 Birth Control
  It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.
  Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.

Just another example of doctrines and Church position developing over time.

[Thinking]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Don't want a kid, no sex.

When I was a teenager one of my friends found out that I was from a family with 12 kids. He remarked, "That means your parents have had sex 12 times!"

[cinepro]

On 2/25/2018 at 12:24 PM, 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?

I vote "never" as well.  With conversion rates being what they are, large families are the best hope for the future of the Church.

But with LDS birthrates falling like they are, that may not be much of a hope.

[Gray]

Birth control I think has already become the norm. Families with 6-10 kids seem pretty rare these days. Look at general authorities - most of them seem to have limited the size of their families too.

The current position - it's between you and your spouse - will I think hold steady.

[Storm Rider]

Late comment, I know.  In my poor, rather human way of thinking about things birth control is the antithesis of the purpose of this mortal existence; our reason for being here upon this earth.  Yet, at the same time I have the other side of me that argues for "common sense" - that we should only have children if we can afford them.  Even as I say that I look back at history and have to question that premise - would any of us be here on earth if our ancestors only had children once they could afford them?

In order to destroy families a society must destroy the appreciation or desire for children or, at least, belittle it to the point of making it viable only if it is convenient.  Then it must also belittle the role of motherhood to the point that it is demeaning for any enlightened female to choose to be a mother. Motherhood must become so repugnant that for a woman to realize her full potential she must seek out every role except that of being a mother.  Lastly, a society must destroy fatherhood; make it a caricature of its purpose and role so that no man feels worthy of the role.  

 

[Thinking]

50 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Late comment, I know.  In my poor, rather human way of thinking about things birth control is the antithesis of the purpose of this mortal existence; our reason for being here upon this earth.  Yet, at the same time I have the other side of me that argues for "common sense" - that we should only have children if we can afford them.  Even as I say that I look back at history and have to question that premise - would any of us be here on earth if our ancestors only had children once they could afford them?

In order to destroy families a society must destroy the appreciation or desire for children or, at least, belittle it to the point of making it viable only if it is convenient.  Then it must also belittle the role of motherhood to the point that it is demeaning for any enlightened female to choose to be a mother. Motherhood must become so repugnant that for a woman to realize her full potential she must seek out every role except that of being a mother.  Lastly, a society must destroy fatherhood; make it a caricature of its purpose and role so that no man feels worthy of the role. 

Where does finite resources fit into your view?

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Where does finite resources fit into your view?

An impetus to finally figuring out United Order and Consecration in preparation for the Millennial period?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

You know what they call couples who practice the rhythm method, don't you?

 

 

 

Parents.

LOL-- but there are other natural methods. And where's the argument that even man-made substances and barriers work in natural ways?

[Thinking]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

An impetus to finally figuring out United Order and Consecration in preparation for the Millennial period?

What if we cross that threshold and Christ hasn't yet returmed?

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Late comment, I know.  In my poor, rather human way of thinking about things birth control is the antithesis of the purpose of this mortal existence; our reason for being here upon this earth.  Yet, at the same time I have the other side of me that argues for "common sense" - that we should only have children if we can afford them.  Even as I say that I look back at history and have to question that premise - would any of us be here on earth if our ancestors only had children once they could afford them?

In order to destroy families a society must destroy the appreciation or desire for children or, at least, belittle it to the point of making it viable only if it is convenient.  Then it must also belittle the role of motherhood to the point that it is demeaning for any enlightened female to choose to be a mother. Motherhood must become so repugnant that for a woman to realize her full potential she must seek out every role except that of being a mother.  Lastly, a society must destroy fatherhood; make it a caricature of its purpose and role so that no man feels worthy of the role.  

 

You need to watch "ladbaby" then on youtube! They are making families fun!

[Teancum]

On 2/25/2018 at 4:52 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Scientists say the population is already a threat to humanity

Gavin Yamey reports

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.

I have no doubt that the typical limits on population will be part of humanities future.  Wars will eliminate large parts of the population, and perhaps we have still have a nuclear war in store. That will certainly wipe out a bunch of us, it not most.

Then there is nature. There is no question that there will be some sort of flu or other disease pandemic that humans cannot control.  That could take out tens of millions or more.

Then there is our own stupidity.  Climate change is real.  That may help eliminate large swaths of humanity.  Homo-sapiens may not even be hear in the next few hundred years.

Trust God....and see if God can save us from our own stupidity.  

[Teancum]

On 2/25/2018 at 5:31 PM, phaedrus ut said:

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 

Sure!  One way to keep church membership growing or maybe not declining. Guilt the members into having lots of kids.  Just like they used to do.

[Teancum]

On 2/25/2018 at 7:34 PM, 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  

There is plenty of open space. And some of it is habitable.  I once read where you could fit the entire world population into Texas if you allowed only a certain amount of space for each person (don't recall what that was but it was managable).

 

The question really is resources.  Personally, from what i have read, we have plenty of resources to feed and give clean water to the entire human population on earth at this time. We have the ability, the technology, the finances and so on to do it. What prevents it is borders, nations, evil leaders, greed, hoarding or wealth, etc.

[theplains]

On 25/02/2018 at 3:49 PM, USU78 said:

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

I think its unwise for a husband and wife to keep having children if they cannot provide for them
financially, emotionally, etc.  God didn't make us as rabbits in his image. Unless of course you
believe Heavenly Parents are busy multiplying and replenishing other planets with billions and
billions of their own children.

Jim

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

What if we cross that threshold and Christ hasn't yet returmed?

Good question.

• "What of Enoch, the seventh from Adam in the patriarchal succession? What of him and his period? Was it not prophetic of our day--symbolical of the building up of Zion in this dispensation? What is said of Enoch and his city, sanctified by the Law of Consecration, without which there can be no Zion, and consequently no coming of the Christ? Moses says: "And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness, and there was no poor among them." Such a condition will be again, and the Lord will come again, as he has promised:"
  - Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, April 1927, pp. 99-100

[USU78]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

I think its unwise for a husband and wife to keep having children if they cannot provide for them
financially, emotionally, etc.  God didn't make us as rabbits in his image. Unless of course you
believe Heavenly Parents are busy multiplying and replenishing other planets with billions and
billions of their own children.

Jim

You don't value the burden personal responsibility for moral/ethical choices imposed upon parents/potential parents ... or the growth in strength and humanity gained through the stretching that pushing one's capacities to and through their limits imposes.

Interesting.

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

You need to watch "ladbaby" then on youtube! They are making families fun!

Never heard of "ladbaby", but I may not be the best person to exemplify being plugged in to today's internet world.  Still pretty basic - we do have Netflix and hulu, but not cable TV.  Really don't see the value anymore.  I have watched things on YouTube, but it is a rarity rather than a weekly thing.

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Never heard of "ladbaby", but I may not be the best person to exemplify being plugged in to today's internet world.  Still pretty basic - we do have Netflix and hulu, but not cable TV.  Really don't see the value anymore.  I have watched things on YouTube, but it is a rarity rather than a weekly thing.

may I introduce to you! They make these kid inventions!

 

[Storm Rider]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

Where does finite resources fit into your view?

Thinking - did you read my comment?  I am talking specifically about the statement I where I said, "Yet, at the same time I have the other side of me that argues for "common sense" - that we should only have children if we can afford them."  

How about you answering a question - when did our ancestors consider their finite resources?  If you have had children, did you already know that you would be able to afford not just the birth, but all of the expenses that go along with it?  Is the very concept of "finite resources" valid given that it is a very subjective measure or standard.  

I have know some wonderful families in my life time that had many children and they just made it work - were happy, kids went to college, etc.  I have know other families that were utter failures - my niece is one:  two kids, two daddies, never married, and simply does not have the interest in being a mom and consequently isn't.  My sister and her husband enable her.  My niece does not for a minute consider the cost of having children or what the meaning of being a responsible parent, but I digress.

If you go back to my comment I argued both sides because I see both sides.  I think I still fall down on trying every now and then to exert a little faith.  BTW, we had two children and we just were not going to have anymore - not by choice as that was all there was for us.

[Exiled]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

I vote "never" as well.  With conversion rates being what they are, large families are the best hope for the future of the Church.

But with LDS birthrates falling like they are, that may not be much of a hope.

I have to agree.  In fact, I think if birthrates get lower still, the church will start a campaign to have more children.  When I was growing up, the leaders living in my ward and stake would talk about Catholics on occasion and how the birthrate was the secret to their success.  I don't think it is any secret either that since people tend to be the religion of their parents and extended family, that birthrate is the key to any long run success of any religion, or any other group for that matter.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Exiled

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Thinking - did you read my comment?  I am talking specifically about the statement I where I said, "Yet, at the same time I have the other side of me that argues for "common sense" - that we should only have children if we can afford them." 

Yes, but then you continued...

9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Even as I say that I look back at history and have to question that premise - would any of us be here on earth if our ancestors only had children once they could afford them?

In order to destroy families a society must destroy the appreciation or desire for children or, at least, belittle it to the point of making it viable only if it is convenient.  Then it must also belittle the role of motherhood to the point that it is demeaning for any enlightened female to choose to be a mother. Motherhood must become so repugnant that for a woman to realize her full potential she must seek out every role except that of being a mother.  Lastly, a society must destroy fatherhood; make it a caricature of its purpose and role so that no man feels worthy of the role.

I interpreted the rest of your post as a refutation of that one sentence.

And now for your other question...

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

How about you answering a question - when did our ancestors consider their finite resources?  If you have had children, did you already know that you would be able to afford not just the birth, but all of the expenses that go along with it?  Is the very concept of "finite resources" valid given that it is a very subjective measure or standard.  

I have know some wonderful families in my life time that had many children and they just made it work - were happy, kids went to college, etc.  I have know other families that were utter failures - my niece is one:  two kids, two daddies, never married, and simply does not have the interest in being a mom and consequently isn't.  My sister and her husband enable her.  My niece does not for a minute consider the cost of having children or what the meaning of being a responsible parent, but I digress.

I should have been more specific with my question about finite resources as I was considering a grander scale. Population growth cannot continue exponentially because the planet does not have unlimited resources. If the human population approaches that threshold, what would your opinion be?

 

Edited February 28, 2018 by Thinking