Birth control

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am not sure.  I think it is recent.

It was recent.  My opinion is he heard something Elder Bednar taught and took it a step further.  We discussed it in the past year, I am pretty sure.  Seems like it was around the same time as the discussion on Brad Wilcox.  I will try and find it.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

It was recent.  My opinion is he heard something Elder Bednar taught and took it a step further.  We discussed it in the past year, I am pretty sure.  Seems like it was around the same time as the discussion on Brad Wilcox.  I will try and find it.

That may be a different one***, but we talked about it in August and it happened a few weeks before.  I put up a transcript (couldn’t link to where I got it, sorry) and there is no “dumb question” in it.  I could not listen to the rest of the video after that, but it seems like a different case.  Teancum, who is the man in the video?  I don’t recognize him, but I hardly recognize anyone these days (wasn’t that great in the past either).

***https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74720-the-continued-decline-of-young-men-willing-to-serve-a-mission/?do=findComment&comment=1210108793

 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And then we get stuff like this.  Granted this is an area authority not a GA or in the upper quorus of the church but themes like this are not uncommon. And they get perpetuated.

This kind of stuff is insufferable to me and is so severely contrary to the core principles of the restored gospel that each and every young impressionable member in that audience deserves a letter clarifying what was wrong in his talk and why, in order to prevent such cult-like/lemming behavior/mentality from being perpetuated.  

Our youth need to see leaders being corrected.  They need to see mistakes addressed.  What a powerful lesson that would be for our youth to see that leaders can make mistakes, and that the church can still be true!  

[Rain]

@Teancum - this is actually a fairly sensitive subject for me this week.  I mentioned my dad, but I saw my parents last week.  I don't know how we got on the topic, but it was suddenly there and then immediately shut down by my dad.  I had said something about only needing to be obedient to God and finding out what he wants for me.  He jumped on that with something about needing to be obedient to priesthood leaders.  The way he jumped on that and with some of my concerns about priesthood leaders I quickly pushed that idea away and then he closed things down.  But later swiped at me some thing about being obedient or listening to priesthood or something.  

So I completely understand what you talk about with following the prophet etc.  I feel it every time I talk with my dad.  But somehow (and probably in part because of how controlling he raised us and and how I know his grandma controlled things) I was able to also to hear the other side of getting inspiration and revelation for ourselves.  I don't disagree that follow the prophet is a strong current in our church. I also don't think that we should ignore what leaders have to say.   I just think that somehow we have to find that happy medium of listening to them and then taking that to God and how well we do that is going to depend a lot on personality and experience.  

Edited January 4, 2023 by Rain

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well sure but the point is that the concept of what I am trying to explain IS being taught.  @pogi was talking about this recently on another thread.  Some members like you and Pogi may be able to wade through this.  But in my own personal experience, which I concede is limited but valid, many members tend towards a "if the leaders say it the thinking is done."  Heck I was always trying to bring my life into compliance with what the leaders said.  Sure I would pray about some things but as an active member I do not recall ever feeling like I got an answer that disputed what GAs said.  I remember is a y0ung immature 2 something EQ president telling a lovely woman that had joined the church a year or so before our conversation with her family that if she did not like something that was her problem.  But she needed to get her thinking in line with the GA ( this was on the priesthood ban and she was struggling with what had been taught).  So maybe I was a "fundamentalist's" Latter-day Saint to some extent.

And then we get stuff like this.  Granted this is an area authority not a GA or in the upper quorus of the church but themes like this are not uncommon. And they get perpetuated.

Well sure.  I am not arguing against that.  My point is simply that the Church leaders emphasize heavily that we should follow what they say.

 

Ok.

I think what the speaker said- whoever it was was totally in error.

That is why we are branded as a "cult", and justifiably.  It contradicts every gospel principle I know.

Turn me in to my SP and he will agree.

I am sorry for any criticism I have made if you or others believe that and were taught that way.

To me it violates the "prime directive".

Edited January 4, 2023 by mfbukowski
Clarification

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

@Teancum - this is actually a fairly sensitive subject for me this week.  I mentioned my dad, but I saw my parents last week.  I don't know how we got on the topic, but it was suddenly there and then immediately shut down by my dad.  I had said something about only needing to be obedient to God and finding out what he wants for me.  He jumped on that with something about needing to be obedient to priesthood leaders.  The way he jumped on that and with some of my concerns about priesthood leaders I quickly pushed that idea away and then he closed things down.  But later swiped at me some thing about being obedient or listening to priesthood or something.  

So I completely understand what you talk about with following the prophet etc.  I feel it every time I talk with my dad.  But somehow (and probably in part because of how controlling he raised us and and how I know his grandma controlled things) I was able to also to hear the other side of getting inspiration and revelation for ourselves.  I don't disagree that follow the prophet is a strong current in our church. I also don't think that we should ignore what leaders have to say.   I just think that somehow we have to find that happy medium of listening to the and then taking that to God and how well we do that is going to depend a lot on personality and experience.  

Sorry about that.

I cannot imagine ANY convert agreeing.

Anyone in any church could say those words, how could anyone know the truth if everyone says that and everyone agrees with that?

It nullifies the very idea of a testimony, and for that matter the need for the Holy Ghost. Just do what you are told. There IS no agency. Evil.

That stuff comes from the adversary.  It is fascism, not the path of happiness or of following the spirit.

I am sorry that an innocent child might be taught that and can see better now one ends up leaving, if you were taught that.

But those are errors of men, not the gospel, I don't care what their title is.

 

[Chum]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

Our youth need to see leaders being corrected.  They need to see mistakes addressed. 

I agree with this except much more broadly. I have witnessed how the stigma of mistakes and failure is rife across our priesthood holders. That's not an us thing, per se, but we tend to give it fertile ground.

Once during a priesthood stuff-about-yourself round, I swapped the dumb favorite ice cream Q for my favorite shortcoming about myself.  While I was talking, someone took the chair next to me, picked up the Favorite Shortcoming Q and the group ran with it. It was visibly cathartic. I kept thinking to myself how dumb it is to get depressed about the most critical component of success.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

And yet the savior sought the one.  If Seeking could benefit from clarity, I’m sure there are others.  It doesn’t seem to me to be a big ask? 

Absolutely, let him ask for a disavowal of Elder Cannon's quote if clarifications such as mine where preventing the birth of children is a sin with dire consequences per Elder Cannons quote, with some exceptions per scripture that Elder Cannon evidently supported (exceptions such as killing Laban, rules of defense in war, plural marriage, etc.). These principles haven't changed since his day (see Proclamation, Gospel Topics, Handbook), so disavowal isn't appropriate.

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, Chum said:

I agree with this except much more broadly. I have witnessed how the stigma of mistakes and failure is rife across our priesthood holders. That's not an us thing, per se, but we tend to give it fertile ground.

Once during a priesthood stuff-about-yourself round, I swapped the dumb favorite ice cream Q for my favorite shortcoming about myself.  While I was talking, someone took the chair next to me, picked up the Favorite Shortcoming Q and the group ran with it. It was visibly cathartic. I kept thinking to myself how dumb it is to get depressed about the most critical component of success.

Amen! 

Until the myths and false expectations of infallibility of prophets and priesthood leaders - to the point where praying about their counsel is considered "a stupid question" - or, where prophets are viewed as fallible in theory only - until these false notions are dissipated, then the bite and stigma of failures and mistakes will remain, and unnecessary disillusionment and lost testimony will follow.   The disillusionment that needs to happen for a more enduring faith to take place is in regards to the commonly held illusion of prophets and leaders in the first place. 

This Church News article addresses it pretty well:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2022/2/3/23218872/keith-erekson-ensign-college-devotional-what-latter-day-saints-get-wrong-about-living-prophets

[CV75]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Have you read the thread?

Never said nor implied any such thing. 

Honestly, your posts make my head spin, so I limit my interaction to the parts that are understandable to someone who who doesn’t have a spiritual PhD in spinology. 

OK ask me some questions from the perspective of the individuals you think would benefit from a disavowal of the Elder Cannon quote.

[Chum]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

Until the myths and false expectations of infallibility of prophets and priesthood leaders - to the point where praying about their counsel is considered "a stupid question" - or, where prophets are viewed as fallible in theory only - until these false notions are dissipated, then the bite and stigma of failures and mistakes will remain, and unnecessary disillusionment and lost testimony will follow.

 The notion of infallibility in human beings doesn't work for me. I not only don't need it to follow divine council, it just screws things up in general. Whatever infallibility is supposed to impress upon us seems to be better achieved thru the Mantle of God.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Once during a priesthood stuff-about-yourself round, I swapped the dumb favorite ice cream Q for my favorite shortcoming about myself.  While I was talking, someone took the chair next to me, picked up the Favorite Shortcoming Q and the group ran with it. It was visibly cathartic. I kept thinking to myself how dumb it is to get depressed about the most critical component of success.

Would you please clarify this?

I guess I am still after 44 years as a member, I have not been in the culture enough to understand what happened 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry about that.

I cannot imagine ANY convert agreeing.

It doesn't matter if they are converts or not.  Some converts see such a difference in their live that they become very strict about following the prophet.  

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Anyone in any church could say those words, how could anyone know the truth if everyone says that and everyone agrees with that?

It nullifies the very idea of a testimony, and for that matter the need for the Holy Ghost. Just do what you are told. There IS no agency. Evil.

That stuff comes from the adversary.  It is fascism, not the path of happiness or of following the spirit.

I am sorry that an innocent child might be taught that and can see better now one ends up leaving, if you were taught that.

But those are errors of men, not the gospel, I don't care what their title is.

 

 

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Once during a priesthood stuff-about-yourself round, I swapped the dumb favorite ice cream Q for my favorite shortcoming about myself.  While I was talking, someone took the chair next to me, picked up the Favorite Shortcoming Q and the group ran with it. It was visibly cathartic. I kept thinking to myself how dumb it is to get depressed about the most critical component of success.

Would you please clarify this? I guess I am still after 44 years as a member, I have not been in the culture enough to understand what happened 

I'm not sure which part you're looking to clarify so here it all is.

All us priesty guys are sitting around in a circle in EQ.  We're doing that thing were we share personal details, as if we were introducing ourselves. There's a template of questions that we're loosely following, where we came from or what we do or similar. There's the obligatory dumb question which in this case is favorite ice cream. Once one person is done, the person next to them starts.

About a third of the way thru, some bit of disappointment creeps into one of the Qs we're answering. Like "I did this Churchy thing we're supposed to do but I dropped the ball here".  So I rolled that into the dumb ice cream Q and shared my favorite shortcoming about myself. Procrastination, maybe - and how it's helped me. While I'm wrapping up, a brother comes in the room and takes the chair next to me. He figures shortcomings is what we're tasked to share and he picks up the ball. 

One by one the rest of the brethren pick a personal imperfection and share how it's made them better people.  When their personal disappointment was shared it seemed to build up a sad tension in the room. After sharing how their flaws were actually awesome parts of their personal growth, that tension was gone and the mood was much lighter.

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, Chum said:

I'm not sure which part you're looking to clarify so here it all is.

All us priesty guys are sitting around in a circle in EQ.  We're doing that thing were we share personal details, as if we were introducing ourselves. There's a template of questions that we're loosely following, where we came from or what we do or similar. There's the obligatory dumb question which in this case is favorite ice cream. Once one person is done, the person next to them starts.

About a third of the way thru, some bit of disappointment creeps into one of the Qs we're answering. Like "I did this Churchy thing we're supposed to do but I dropped the ball here".  So I rolled that into the dumb ice cream Q and shared my favorite shortcoming about myself. Procrastination, maybe - and how it's helped me. While I'm wrapping up, a brother comes in the room and takes the chair next to me. He figures shortcomings is what we're tasked to share and he picks up the ball. 

One by one the rest of the brethren pick a personal imperfection and share how it's made them better people.  When their personal disappointment was shared it seemed to build up a sad tension in the room. After sharing how their flaws were actually awesome parts of their personal growth, that tension was gone and the mood was much lighter.

So it turned cathartic for the group, after a fortunate but "accidental" switch of the topic, which now became about how weakness can actually be made positive, and strengthened everyone.

Great story, thanks!

Edited January 4, 2023 by mfbukowski

[T-Shirt]

12 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Sounds like God's spokesperson to me.

When Joseph Fielding Smith made his comment about birth control, he was not the President of the Church. As a preface to his comments he had this to say:

Quote

In answer to your communication in which you ask me for my views on the question of "birth control," or the limiting of the number of children in a family to one or two," according to the teaching of the day by the so-called elite or fashionable class, I have this to say :

This is clearly him giving his opinion. Granted, as an Apostle, his opinion carried a lot of weight, but he was not giving doctrine, nor was it his place to do so. Anti-birth control was pretty much the culture of the Church at that time as well as the United States in general, his views were not unusual. However, in the very same publication, just a few paragraphs earlier, David O McKay also gave his opinion on birth control, which was generally the same as other men of the time, but he added:

Quote

In all this, however, the mother's health should be guarded. In the realm of wifehood, the woman should reign supreme. Man, not woman, is the chief cause of this evil of race suicide now sweeping like a blight through the civilized nations. Marriage is ordained of God that children might be so trained that they may eventually be worthy of Christ's presence ; and that home is happiest in which they are welcomed, as God and nature intended they should be.

I am reminded of a statement by Elder Oaks awhile back that should be remembered in all of this:

Quote

The explanation I gave that man is the same explanation I give to you if you feel you are an exception to what I have said. As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by T-Shirt

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, Rain said:

@Teancum - this is actually a fairly sensitive subject for me this week.  I mentioned my dad, but I saw my parents last week.  I don't know how we got on the topic, but it was suddenly there and then immediately shut down by my dad.  I had said something about only needing to be obedient to God and finding out what he wants for me.  He jumped on that with something about needing to be obedient to priesthood leaders.  The way he jumped on that and with some of my concerns about priesthood leaders I quickly pushed that idea away and then he closed things down.  But later swiped at me some thing about being obedient or listening to priesthood or something.  

So I completely understand what you talk about with following the prophet etc.  I feel it every time I talk with my dad.  But somehow (and probably in part because of how controlling he raised us and and how I know his grandma controlled things) I was able to also to hear the other side of getting inspiration and revelation for ourselves.  I don't disagree that follow the prophet is a strong current in our church. I also don't think that we should ignore what leaders have to say.   I just think that somehow we have to find that happy medium of listening to them and then taking that to God and how well we do that is going to depend a lot on personality and experience.  

Thank you for sharing your personal experience with this.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

Absolutely, let him ask for a disavowal of Elder Cannon's quote if clarifications such as mine where preventing the birth of children is a sin with dire consequences per Elder Cannons quote, with some exceptions per scripture that Elder Cannon evidently supported (exceptions such as killing Laban, rules of defense in war, plural marriage, etc.). These principles haven't changed since his day (see Proclamation, Gospel Topics, Handbook), so disavowal isn't appropriate.

You asked for questions so here is one. 
 

You state “preventing the birth of children is a sin with dire consequences”. 
 

Everytime a woman says “no” to her husband, she is potentially “preventing the birth of children”. In what exceptions is it acceptable to say no? If she is just too tired? If she has a head ache? If she just had a fight? What are the guiding principles?

 

You state “preventing the birth of children is a sin with dire consequences”. You state this is a principle still held by the modern church. Please provide the most recent direct quote from from a prophet (Q of 12 or FP) in an official setting (general conference) where this principle is DIRECTLY taught as clearly as your statement above.

 

 

[MustardSeed]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

Absolutely, let him ask for a disavowal of Elder Cannon's quote if clarifications such as mine where preventing the birth of children is a sin with dire consequences per Elder Cannons quote, with some exceptions per scripture that Elder Cannon evidently supported (exceptions such as killing Laban, rules of defense in war, plural marriage, etc.). These principles haven't changed since his day (see Proclamation, Gospel Topics, Handbook), so disavowal isn't appropriate.

It’s not a sin to use birth control. 

[MustardSeed]

That video is disturbing.  Seems more like a zealous charismatic speaker who likes the sound of his own voice.  
 

I imagine being his child.  I’m grateful for parents who taught me the process of thinking. I make mistakes, but I’m ok with the process of growth through the mistakes. 

[pogi]

14 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

When Joseph Fielding Smith made his comment about birth control, he was not the President of the Church. As a preface to his comments he had this to say:

This is clearly him giving his opinion. Granted, as an Apostle, his opinion carried a lot of weight, but he was not giving doctrine, nor was it his place to do so. Anti-birth control was pretty much the culture of the Church at that time as well as the United States in general, his views were not unusual. However, in the very same publication, just a few paragraphs earlier, David O McKay also gave his opinion on birth control, which was generally the same as other men of the time, but he added:

I am reminded of a statement by Elder Oaks awhile back that should be remembered in all of this:

 

I think you are absolutely right that prophets and apostles are products of their culture to a certain degree.  It is inescapable.  Often, these cultural opinions are portrayed as the will of God and part of "covenant" and "commandment", as was frequently expressed in relation to birth-control at the time.    It is not always clearly expressed as their opinion only, and at times, prophets don't perceive that their teachings and opinions are mere reflections of their culture, but are at times expressed as doctrinal truths, or commandment, or covenant.     This gives the saints the opportunity to exercise their own spiritual muscles.  It places the burden on the saints to "heed" what the prophets say, but to discern and "obey" what God says.  Without burden, there is no growth and strength in spiritual self-reliance.   

It is easy to look back in time and state that this or that was merely their opinions influenced by the culture at the time and don't necessarily reflect the will and commandments of God, but it is not always so easy for members to flex that spiritual self-reliance muscle when they are living it in the present and faced with current teachings (which are guaranteed to reflect modern cultural opinions and influences to some degree, and not always the will of God - if history says anything about the present and future).  It is always easier to point-out missteps in hindsight.  In the present, we can see a culture that is deeply engrained high up in the ranks of area authorities even, where you simply don't question the prophets.  Ever.  Those who do so are belittled and shunned as people who ask "stupid questions". 

That is the difficulty I am facing with several members on this forum who can't "abide" my presence, or equate me with Kate Kelly and other harsh critics devoid of faith and testimony (which was apologized for, which I appreciate) but the suspicion that I am on the road to apostacy lingers.  I want to feel fellowship in the church as a faithful, temple recommend holding, fully devoted Latter-day Saint with a testimony of the restoration.  I want to feel what Joseph Smith felt when he stated "it feels so good not to be trammeled" in his beliefs.   I am hoping for the day when that kind of oneness is achieved in the church.  I am hoping for the day where missteps and mistakes are viewed as growing experiences and do not lead to disillusionment due to black and white thinking and mistaken expectations of our modern prophets who are not really any less human and fallible than all of our historical prophets of the restoration and from Biblical times. 

Sorry, I kind of got off on a rant in response to your post which was only partially relevant to what you said. 

 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

OK ask me some questions from the perspective of the individuals you think would benefit from a disavowal of the Elder Cannon quote.

To be quite honest, you are the type of individual who would benefit from a disavowal. Many members on this thread have moved on from the toxic rhetoric of the past, but you seem to cling to it and seek to harmonize it. You presumedly interact with others in your ward in both casual and leadership roles, and the attitudes you’ve expressed in this thread likely continue to do harm. A disavowal from the brethren would inform both you and those who you interact with that your views are in error. 

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Rain said:

It doesn't matter if they are converts or not.  Some converts see such a difference in their live that they become very strict about following the prophet.  

But that is entirely different!

They are not following because they were told to do so, they are following because they tried it, liked it, and followed the principle because it WORKED for them.

That is exactly what I am saying everyone OUGHT to do! Test every precept and get your own testimony!

Edited January 4, 2023 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You asked for questions so here is one. 
 

You state “preventing the birth of children is a sin with dire consequences”. 
 

Everytime a woman says “no” to her husband, she is potentially “preventing the birth of children”. In what exceptions is it acceptable to say no? If she is just too tired? If she has a head ache? If she just had a fight? What are the guiding principles?

 

You state “preventing the birth of children is a sin with dire consequences”. You state this is a principle still held by the modern church. Please provide the most recent direct quote from from a prophet (Q of 12 or FP) in an official setting (general conference) where this principle is DIRECTLY taught as clearly as your statement above.

 

 

Everytime a woman says “no” to her husband, she is potentially “preventing the birth of children”. In what exceptions is it acceptable to say no? This is a relationship question, not a "preventing the birth of children question." What are the guiding principles? "Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities." And abiding by the rest of the Family Proclamation.

You state “preventing the birth of children is a sin with dire consequences”. You state this is a principle still held by the modern church. Please provide the most recent direct quote from from a prophet (Q of 12 or FP) in an official setting (general conference) where this principle is DIRECTLY taught as clearly as your statement above. It depends on what you mean by DIRECT: "We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force [so disobedience would be a sin]... We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God [dire consequence 1]. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets [dire consequence 2]."

Why are there no questions about circumstantial or conditional exceptions to commandments?

[CV75]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

It’s not a sin to use birth control. 

That is a semantic distinction.