Birth control

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The full quote…

Perhaps there were different attitudes towards sex among members of the Church in the 1800s and we are judging them from our “liberated” point of view? If the purpose of monogamous and plural marriages was to raise children for the Lord, anything that would hinder or debase that purpose would be discouraged.
 

For example, see the next post for some interesting comments by Brother Brigham on this subject…

Yes, I'm sure there were different attitudes (not judging), and I find room to allow exceptions in both quotes you provided. 

[pogi]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps there were different attitudes towards sex among members of the Church in the 1800s and we are judging them from our “liberated” point of view?

Most certainly there were different attitudes and cultures about this back then.  That is my point.  I am not judging them for being influenced by their culture.  We are all susceptible to that.  In fact, I am not judging “them” at all.  My judgment is in regard to if this was a commandment and covenant (and one that is still in effect today), or merely a cultural attitude.  Aren't we commanded to make these judgments for ourselves - to decipher for ourselves what is right and wrong.  That is in no way a personal judgment of any individual. It is a judgment of principle - to hold it in the balance.

I certainly find the current policy, hands-off approach, and teachings of the church on this matter as “liberated” from the teachings and attitudes that existed.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to go back to that way of life, or try to prop up those principles as if we should live by them today.  There is nothing wrong with appreciating modern progress and enjoying the liberating nature of todays church teachings.  That is not a judgment on them.  We are all susceptible to current cultural perspectives, but we shouldn’t be afraid to embrace new and different ideas out of fear of offending a people that have passed on, or modern people who still cling to their mentality and way of life.  I want to embrace the progress that the Lord and his prophets have provided without getting entangled in old cultural mindsets.

I want to establish that the mantle of the prophet of God can remain in tact while still being influenced by cultural attitudes and getting it wrong on occasion.  Overall, what these prophets did was good and praiseworthy and inspired/revealed.  I believe the Lord directed them in prophetic ways.  I don’t think we should be afraid to use our judgment to to distinguish inspired from uninspired teachings though; especially where those teachings may be causing confusion, unnecessary guilt, and are not coherent with current teachings, despite noble efforts to make them appear so with lots of squinting and blurring.  That is my opinion.  CV75 is free to have his, but I strongly disagree with it.  That is ok.  We can still be in good fellowship with each other. 

That is how this is all supposed to work.  We all have to test the seeds of the prophets for ourselves.  We are never all going to agree, but we can, as Joseph Smith implored, be tolerant of different beliefs. 

Edited January 5, 2023 by pogi

[MustardSeed]

 

 

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Most certainly there were different attitudes and cultures about this back then.  That is my point.  I am not judging them for being influenced by their culture.  We are all susceptible to that.  In fact, I am not judging “them” at all.  My judgment is in regard to if this was a commandment and covenant, or merely a cultural attitude.

I certainly find the current policy of the church “liberating” from the teachings and attitudes that existed.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to go back to that way of life, or try to prop up those principles as if we should live by them today (generally speaking).  There is nothing wrong with appreciating modern progress and enjoying the liberating nature of todays church teachings.  That is not a judgment on them.  We are all susceptible to current cultural perspectives, but we shouldn’t be afraid to embrace new and different ideas out of fear of offending a people that have passed on, or modern people who still cling to their mentality and way of life.

I want to establish that the mantle of the prophet of God can remain in tact while still being influenced by cultural attitudes and getting it wrong on occasion.  Overall, what these prophets did was good and praiseworthy and inspired/revealed.  I believe the Lord directed them in prophetic ways.  I don’t think we should be afraid to use our judgment to to distinguish inspired from uninspired teachings.  Especially where those teachings may be causing confusion and are not coherent with current teachings, despite noble efforts to make them appear so with lots of squinting and blurring.  That is my opinion.  CV75 is free to have his, but I strongly disagree with it.  That is ok.  We can still be in good fellowship with each other.  

That is how this is all supposed to work.  We all have to test the seeds of the prophets for ourselves.  We are never all going to agree, but we can, as Joseph Smith implored, 

Yes👍👍👍👍

[CV75]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Most certainly there were different attitudes and cultures about this back then.  That is my point.  I am not judging them for being influenced by their culture.  We are all susceptible to that.  In fact, I am not judging “them” at all.  My judgment is in regard to if this was a commandment and covenant (and one that is still in effect today), or merely a cultural attitude.  Aren't we commanded to make these judgments for ourselves - to decipher for ourselves what is right and wrong.  That is in no way a personal judgment of any individual. It is a judgment of principle - to hold it in the balance.

I certainly find the current policy, hands-off approach, and teachings of the church on this matter as “liberated” from the teachings and attitudes that existed.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to go back to that way of life, or try to prop up those principles as if we should live by them today.  There is nothing wrong with appreciating modern progress and enjoying the liberating nature of todays church teachings.  That is not a judgment on them.  We are all susceptible to current cultural perspectives, but we shouldn’t be afraid to embrace new and different ideas out of fear of offending a people that have passed on, or modern people who still cling to their mentality and way of life.  I want to embrace the progress that the Lord and his prophets have provided without getting entangled in old cultural mindsets.

I want to establish that the mantle of the prophet of God can remain in tact while still being influenced by cultural attitudes and getting it wrong on occasion.  Overall, what these prophets did was good and praiseworthy and inspired/revealed.  I believe the Lord directed them in prophetic ways.  I don’t think we should be afraid to use our judgment to to distinguish inspired from uninspired teachings though; especially where those teachings may be causing confusion, unnecessary guilt, and are not coherent with current teachings, despite noble efforts to make them appear so with lots of squinting and blurring.  That is my opinion.  CV75 is free to have his, but I strongly disagree with it.  That is ok.  We can still be in good fellowship with each other. 

That is how this is all supposed to work.  We all have to test the seeds of the prophets for ourselves.  We are never all going to agree, but we can, as Joseph Smith implored, be tolerant of different beliefs. 

I appreciate that, but my position on this not based in a sense of prophetic infallibility or a need to defend and protect their statements. I would say exactly the same thing had Jesus Christ (and not Elder Cannon, for example) said it. Not because He is infallible, but because there is context to everything He says. The inspired teaching on commandments, keeping the spirit therein (allowing for so-called exceptions), for me, apply no matter who said them or how fallible they are, or how infallible Jesus is. The cause of confusion, unnecessary guilt and alleged incoherency with current teachings is not the speaker/Speaker.

[Dario_M]

Edit. Nevermind. 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Dario_M

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

My other interlocutors keep hammering on that quote, saying that there are people out there who do take it as the standard (with no exceptions), and so that is the basis of my points with them. I meet people where they are.

The big problem is that somtimes even folks who believe everyone should follow their personal testimonies will not let others do so.

You have a legitimate testimony of a 6 day creation 6 thousand years ago, no evolution and a literal flood, I believe God told you that.

We all have different paths, and nobody can "prove" you wrong!

Even Positivest atheist logician Bertrand Russell said one could not "prove" that the world did NOT pop into existence 5 minutes ago and all our memories were implants.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#:~:text=The five-minute hypothesis is,other signs of history included.

"The five-minute hypothesis is a skeptical hypothesis put forth by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, that proposes that the universe sprang into existence five minutes ago from nothing, with human memory and all other signs of history included. It is a commonly used example of how one may maintain extreme philosophical skepticism with regard to memory and trust in evidentially derived historical chronology.^[16][17]"

Edited January 5, 2023 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I appreciate that, but my position on this not based in a sense of prophetic infallibility or a need to defend and protect their statements. I would say exactly the same thing had Jesus Christ (and not Elder Cannon, for example) said it. Not because He is infallible, but because there is context to everything He says. The inspired teaching on commandments, keeping the spirit therein (allowing for so-called exceptions), for me, apply no matter who said them or how fallible they are, or how infallible Jesus is. The cause of confusion, unnecessary guilt and alleged incoherency with current teachings is not the speaker/Speaker.

Right, our disagreement is over whether or not these are indeed commandments and covenants of God (still in effect today) or whether these are examples of cultural attitudes influencing the interpretation of actual commandments and scriptures like "multiply and replenish the earth".  For me, it is the latter.  For you, it is the former.   I don't know if we will ever meet eye to eye on this, but it is interesting to discuss. 

I do have some concerns that if these teachings in regard to birth control are correct in principle and are indeed commandments that we are expected to obey (with exceptions that all commandments might have - which are typically pretty rare) or suffer being cursed by the Lord; if these are "covenants" we have promised to obey and are binding upon us, don't you think it should be important for the modern church to emphasize that for younger members and the next generation who may not even be aware of these old teachings?  The commandment is not in any current manuals.  It is not explicit in scripture.  It is not outlined explicit in the proclamation to the family.  It is not found in the General Handbook of Instructions.  Nowhere in modern teachings is there a clear and unambiguous commandment against birth control stated.  That seems concerning to me if the consequences are so potentially severe for disobedience.  That is concerning to me that most of the young membership are likely making a "mockery of God" without even knowing it.   It seems that it is the standard and practice of the church to make explicit the commandments, covenants and expectations of God that are binding upon us (that is something we all deserve to know up-front, just like the members deserved to know in older generations).  They are particularly careful and explicit with commandments in regarding the creation of life, family, and warn against the use of sacred powers of procreation outside of the bounds the Lord has created.  If using birth control for the first year of marriage is generally considered "outside the bounds the Lord has created", should the next generation have the benefit of understanding this? 

I am convinced that there are close to 0% of the younger generation of newly married Latter-day Saints who do, or will not practice birth control at some point in their marriage.  I also convinced that it has not even crossed their mind that they might be sinning (despite their knowledge of the command to multiple and replenish the earth).  Never in a million years are they going to interpret that to mean that birth-control is a sin in general.   It is a pretty much a ubiquitous practice.  We simply don't see young families having 10-14 children like we used to.  If people were obeying the commandments on birth control, and had half-a decent sex life, then were are the fruits of it?  Where are all the offspring?  The church seems to be ok with, or at least silently suffering with the fact that we are all ignorantly violating our sacred covenants and not picking up on the correct principles taught in the proclamation and Handbook that you think so directly teach us that birth control is a sin.  Why not make those principles more clear if they know that we are all mocking God by violating our covenants and are being cursed for it?  How are you ok with that?

It seems much more likely to me that the church realizes that these were cultural interpretations of general principles/scriptures and that there is no such revelation/commandment/covenant on the matter of birth control that is binding on the membership of the church, and thus they rightly have learned to take a hands-off approach and leave it as an extremely personal and private matter.  

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by pogi

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Right, our disagreement is over whether or not these are indeed commandments and covenants of God (still in effect today) or whether these are examples of cultural attitudes influencing the interpretation of actual commandments and scriptures like "multiply and replenish the earth".  For me, it is the latter.  For you, it is the former.   I don't know if we will ever meet eye to eye on this, but it is interesting to discuss. 

I do have some concerns that if these teachings in regard to birth control are correct in principle and are indeed commandments that we are expected to obey (with exceptions that all commandments might have - which are typically pretty rare) or suffer being cursed by the Lord; if these are "covenants" we have promised to obey and are binding upon us, don't you think it should be important for the modern church to emphasize that for younger members and the next generation who may not even be aware of these old teachings?  The commandment is not in any current manuals.  It is not explicit in scripture.  It is not outlined explicit in the proclamation to the family.  It is not found in the General Handbook of Instructions.  Nowhere in modern teachings is there a clear and unambiguous commandment against birth control stated.  That seems concerning to me if the consequences are so potentially severe for disobedience.  That is concerning to me that most of the young membership are likely making a "mockery of God" without even knowing it.   It seems that it is the standard and practice of the church to make explicit the commandments, covenants and expectations of God that are binding upon us.  They are particularly careful and explicit with commandments in regarding the creation of life, family, and warn against the use of sacred powers of procreation outside of the bounds the Lord has created.  If using birth control for the first year of marriage is generally considered "outside the bounds the Lord has created", should the next generation have the benefit of understanding this? 

I am convinced that there are close to 0% of the younger generation of newly married Latter-day Saints who do, or will not practice birth control at some point in their marriage.  It is a pretty much a ubiquitous practice.  We simply don't see young families having 10-14 children like we used to.  If people were obeying the commandments on birth control, and had half-a decent sex life, then were are the fruits of it?  Where are all the offspring?  The church seems to be ok with, or at least silently suffering with the fact that we are all ignorantly violating our sacred covenants and not picking up on the correct principles taught in the proclamation and Handbook that you think so directly teach us that birth control is a sin.  Why not make those principles more clear if they know that we are all mocking God by violating our covenants and are being cursed for it?  How are you ok with that?

It seems much more likely to me that the church realizes that these were cultural interpretations of general principles/scriptures and that there is no such revelation/commandment/covenant on the matter of birth control that is binding on the membership of the church, and thus they rightly have learned to take a hands-off approach and leave it as an extremely personal and private matter.  

 

There is also the allowance of divorce to consider, both in Christ's day and today. The divine standard of marriage was the same in Christ's day as in Moses' and prior dispensations back to Adam and Eve, as it is today. I see the command(s) to multiply and steward in the same way. And in all of these there are exceptions to be made in the mortal condition.

[mfbukowski]

This is a reply to @pogi

mistakenly sent to CV, regarding concerns about "doctrinal drift" regarding birth control and covenants over time.

---‐‐-------‐--------‐------------

This is a logical problem with the whole idea of an open Canon, and it seems no one figured that out until recently.

When I first joined I thought that every member MUST then understand that what is true can vary in time, but boy was I wrong.

This church REQUIRES postmodern logic but no one seems to know it. It is a great mystery to me, and a central paradox.

The missionaries teach that we need prophets for "TODAY" but no members seem to believe it!

I still don't see how the BOM can be considered "true" without such a view, and this is the source of losing members.

People read something on the internet and suddenly the church is no longer "true"? How can that be?  Today's truth may be tomorrow's error, even in "infallible " science 

Pragmatism always works

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There is also the allowance of divorce to consider, both in Christ's day and today. The divine standard of marriage was the same in Christ's day as in Moses' and prior dispensations back to Adam and Eve, as it is today. I see the command(s) to multiply and steward in the same way. And in all of these there are exceptions to be made in the mortal condition.

The difference is that there is no ambiguity about the commitments and covenants we made in regards to marriage and sealing for all eternity.  There is perfect clarity in what we are covenanting.  Such is not the case for the younger generation who have not been exposed to the old teachings/"commandments", "covenants" on birth control.  They have no idea what they are getting into in regards to that.  There is no idea whatsoever that there is a general expectation for them to produce like rabits without birth-control until their natural cycles prevent them from having any more children.  Shouldn't they know with clarity what they are covenanting to do, like with eternal marriage/sealing?  

Edited January 5, 2023 by pogi

[CV75]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is a logical problem with the whole idea of an open Canon, and it seems no one figured that out until recently.

When I first joined I thought that every member MUST then understand that what is true can vary in time, but boy was I wrong.

This church REQUIRES postmodern logic but no one seems to know it. It is a great mystery to me, and a central paradox.

The missionaries teach that we need prophets for "TODAY" but no members seem to believe it!

I still don't see how the BOM can be considered "true" without such a view, and this is the source of losing members.

People read something on the internet and suddenly the church is no longer "true"? How can that be?  Today's truth may be tomorrow's error, even in "infallible " science 

Pragmatism always works

 

This is the second time in this thread my name appears as the author of a quoted post as a reply to 'me" (not me). No wonder people think I'm twisting things around! -- LOL -- This is someone else's statement, not mine. Hopefully they see it.

[Rain]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is the second time in this thread my name appears as the author of a quoted post as a reply to 'me" (not me). No wonder people think I'm twisting things around! -- LOL -- This is someone else's statement, not mine. Hopefully they see it.

I've seen the quote thing happening a lot the last couple of days.  

The tech thing doesn't concern what I have to say though to other posters as I reply to their post and not a quote in their post.  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

The difference is that there is no ambiguity about the commitments and covenants we made in regards to marriage and sealing for all eternity.  There is perfect clarity in what we are covenanting.  Such is not the case for the younger generation who have not been exposed to the old teachings/"commandments", "covenants" on birth control.  They have no idea what they are getting into in regards to that.  There is no idea whatsoever that there is a general expectation for them to produce like rabits without birth-control until their natural cycles prevent them from having any more children.  Shouldn't they know with clarity what they are covenanting to do, like with eternal marriage/sealing?  

Ambiguity and no ambiguity? Are those the only two choices we have in accepting the commitments and covenants we make? I don't think so! 

I am glad you enjoy perfect clarity. I am glad past generations had perfect clarity and knowledge of what they were getting into when making marriage covenants. Eight-year-olds at baptism, for that matter.

I think you need to come up with better arguments and questions. Is the glass seen through half clearly or half darkly?

 

[CV75]

Just now, Rain said:

I've seen the quote thing happening a lot the last couple of days.  

The tech thing doesn't concern what I have to say though to other posters as I reply to their post and not a quote in their post.  

I know but they may miss it -- and someone certainly thinks they need to see it -- if they typically look only at posts that reply to them, as I often do.

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Ambiguity and no ambiguity? Are those the only two choices we have in accepting the commitments and covenants we make? I don't think so! 

I am glad you enjoy perfect clarity. I am glad past generations had perfect clarity and knowledge of what they were getting into when making marriage covenants. Eight-year-olds at baptism, for that matter.

If I have covenanted to reproduce unrestricted like a rabbit or suffer sore cursing, dang straight I want to know with clarity if that is a promise I have made.  If there are promised blessings that I am missing out on, dang straight I want to know about it.  If the church KNOWS that is a covenant we are making and a commandment we are EXPECTED to obey, then choosing to not tell fill us in on that really important and pertinent information is on them.  Nope, that is not what I signed up for.  Sorry.  I cannot be held accountable for being duped like that. 

Quote

  “A covenant … is a sacred promise with God. He fixes the terms. Each person may choose to accept those terms. If one accepts the terms of the covenant and obeys God’s law, he or she receives the blessings associated with the covenant.”

-President Nelson

Covenants are not tricks.  The Lord doesn't trick or manipulate us through being intentionally unclear about the terms and conditions of the covenant to get us to sign on the dotted line like some sleazy vacuum door-to-door sales man.  That is not a free choice if we don't understand the terms.  There is no agency in that.  It cannot be binding as a covenant without my willing consent.  The Lord fixes the terms and explains them to us on our level so that we can understand them on our level.  Even for 8 year old's, every effort should be made for them to understand what they are promising and the conditions of the covenant.   If the terms are known by the church and intentionally withheld, that is a form of deception. 

Quote

I think you need to come up with better arguments and questions.

No need to get snarky. I think my arguments and questions are just fine.  Judging by how others respond, they seem to resonate with more people on these forums then your arguments which don't seem to really be convincing to anybody, it seems.  

Quote

Is the glass seen through half clearly or half darkly?

I don't know what you are talking about.

Edited January 5, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I've seen the quote thing happening a lot the last couple of days.  

The tech thing doesn't concern what I have to say though to other posters as I reply to their post and not a quote in their post.  

It usually happens when someone uses a quote in another’s post rather than tracking back to the original (just in case someone isn’t aware of what causes it).

Edited January 5, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

, they seem to resonate with more people on these forums then your arguments which don't seem to really be convincing to anybody

I am afraid I am not even sure I understand CV’s arguments to agree or disagree with him on those points. I am not sure how he could be more clear though as I think I am missing steps in his logic. 

I have been on the receiving end of blank stares and “how did you get there?” enough I don’t assume that means the argument is weak or anything. 

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am afraid I am not even sure I understand CV’s arguments to agree or disagree with him on those points. I am not sure how he could be more clear though as I think I am missing steps in his logic. 

I have been on the receiving end of blank stares and “how did you get there?” enough I don’t assume that means the argument is weak or anything. 

I agree.  Making ones arguments understandable and convincing is part of what makes them a good argument though - being right is not enough.  In fact, it is not even necessary for a good argument. 

What I do understand is that he thinks that birth control is evil (generally speaking), and that the standard and general rule of the church is that we should not delay or limit the birth children through the use of birth control.  This is in fact a covenant that we have entered into. 

Edited January 5, 2023 by pogi

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

If I have covenanted to reproduce unrestricted like a rabbit or suffer sore cursing, dang straight I want to know with clarity if that is a promise I have made.  If there are promised blessings that I am missing out on, dang straight I want to know about it.  If the church KNOWS that is a covenant we are making and a commandment we are EXPECTED to obey, then choosing to not tell fill us in on that really important and pertinent information is on them.  Nope, that is not what I signed up for.  Sorry.  I cannot be held accountable for being duped like that. 

Covenants are not tricks.  The Lord doesn't trick or manipulate us through being intentionally unclear about the terms and conditions of the covenant to get us to sign on the dotted line like some sleazy vacuum door-to-door sales man.  That is not a free choice if we don't understand the terms.  There is no agency in that.  It cannot be binding as a covenant without my willing consent.  The Lord fixes the terms and explains them to us on our level so that we can understand them on our level.  Even for 8 year old's, every effort should be made for them to understand what they are promising and the conditions of the covenant.   If the terms are known by the church and intentionally withheld, that is a form of deception. 

No need to get snarky. I think my arguments and questions are just fine.  Judging by how others respond, they seem to resonate with more people on these forums then your arguments which don't seem to really be convincing to anybody, it seems.  

I don't know what you are talking about.

Your first two paragraphs are strawman fallacies, the third a bandwagon / appeal to popularity fallacy. If you cannot address my points straightforwardly, or if you don't know what I am talking about, seek clarification with good questions. I won't provide critical adjectives on your tone or behavior, though!

Often the saying, "we see through a glass darkly" (which I take to include living with ambiguity) is used in discussions over how we make and keep the covenants through a particle of faith and hope, and with limited knowledge and explanations. So, when you suggest "there is no ambiguity about the commitments and covenants we made in regards to marriage and sealing for all eternity" -- claiming to see through the glass clearly -- but there is ambiguity in the command(s) to multiply and steward the earth -- claiming we (especially younger generations) see through the glass darkly -- it comes across as ...convenient. 

I think seeing through a glass darkly wins out, since a) seeing is the operative word; and b) there are exceptions to commandments whether given by fallible prophets or Christ Himself. And if you think the current generation is confused about something an unambiguous marriage, rest assured they can be just as confused about unambiguous multiplying and stewardship. I read the Liahona Young Adult sections (digital only!), and they are chock-full of testimony in this regard to these and finer points of "adulting" in the covenant path.

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Your first two paragraphs are strawman fallacies, the third a bandwagon / appeal to popularity fallacy. If you cannot address my points straightforwardly, or if you don't know what I am talking about, seek clarification with good questions. I won't provide critical adjectives on your tone or behavior, though!

Often the saying, "we see through a glass darkly" (which I take to include living with ambiguity) is used in discussions over how we make and keep the covenants through a particle of faith and hope, and with limited knowledge and explanations. So, when you suggest "there is no ambiguity about the commitments and covenants we made in regards to marriage and sealing for all eternity" -- claiming to see through the glass clearly -- but there is ambiguity in the command(s) to multiply and steward the earth -- claiming we (especially younger generations) see through the glass darkly -- it comes across as ...convenient. 

I think seeing through a glass darkly wins out, since a) seeing is the operative word; and b) there are exceptions to commandments whether given by fallible prophets or Christ Himself. And if you think the current generation is confused about something an unambiguous marriage, rest assured they can be just as confused about unambiguous multiplying and stewardship. I read the Liahona Young Adult sections (digital only!), and they are chock-full of testimony in this regard to these and finer points of "adulting" in the covenant path.

It is not a strawman if you think the church knows that this is a commandment and covenant that we have entered and are expected to obey but is intentionally not teaching/revealing that to us.  That is deceptive, if what you say is true.  That is a hurdle you have to address and haven't.

My tone has been perfectly fine, civil, and cordial, even reaching out the arm of fellowship in disagreement, up until I get attacked with mocking and snarky remarks by you and Bernard.  I am fine with different perspectives and beliefs.  I am not fine with personal attacks.  I know I should turn the other cheek, but I am human.  Something I need to work on. Let's both try to move on. 

The ambiguity of seeing through a glass darkly comes in our limited perspective, I don't believe we can know anything with absolute certainty in this life.  That is very different from intentionally concealing information to make something intentionally ambiguous. 

This is not a question of exceptions.  It is about making the terms of covenants known.  It is about the essential nature of making our covenants, and the terms of those covenants, as clear as humanly possible.  The exceptions only take effect AFTER all of that.   I don't think there is any confusion about the covenant of marriage being for eternity in temple sealings.  The church makes every effort to make that as clear as humanly possible.  Birth control, on the other hand, our members have NO IDEA, if that truly is a covenant, as you claim.   

Quote

 

Because keeping our covenants is essential to our happiness now and to eventually receiving eternal life, it is important to understand what we have promised our Heavenly Father.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2012/07/understanding-our-covenants-with-god?lang=eng

 

 

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Your first two paragraphs are strawman fallacies, the third a bandwagon / appeal to popularity fallacy. If you cannot address my points straightforwardly, or if you don't know what I am talking about, seek clarification with good questions. I won't provide critical adjectives on your tone or behavior, though!

Often the saying, "we see through a glass darkly" (which I take to include living with ambiguity) is used in discussions over how we make and keep the covenants through a particle of faith and hope, and with limited knowledge and explanations. So, when you suggest "there is no ambiguity about the commitments and covenants we made in regards to marriage and sealing for all eternity" -- claiming to see through the glass clearly -- but there is ambiguity in the command(s) to multiply and steward the earth -- claiming we (especially younger generations) see through the glass darkly -- it comes across as ...convenient. 

I think seeing through a glass darkly wins out, since a) seeing is the operative word; and b) there are exceptions to commandments whether given by fallible prophets or Christ Himself. And if you think the current generation is confused about something an unambiguous marriage, rest assured they can be just as confused about unambiguous multiplying and stewardship. I read the Liahona Young Adult sections (digital only!), and they are chock-full of testimony in this regard to these and finer points of "adulting" in the covenant path.

It is not a strawman if you think the church knows that this is a commandment and covenant that we have entered and are expected to obey but is intentionally not teaching/revealing that to us.  That is deceptive, if what you say is true.  That is a hurdle you have to address and haven't.

My tone has been perfectly fine, civil, and cordial, even reaching out the arm of fellowship in disagreement, up until I get attacked with mocking and snarky remarks by you and Bernard.  That last comment came out of left-field from you.  I am fine with different perspectives and beliefs.  I am not fine with personal attacks about the weakness of my arguments/questions etc.  I know I should turn the other cheek, but I am human and sometimes stand up for myself. Let's both try to move on. 

The ambiguity of seeing through a glass darkly comes in our limited perspective, I don't believe we can know anything with absolute certainty in this life.  That is very different from intentionally concealing information to make something intentionally ambiguous. 

This is not a question of exceptions.  It is about making the terms of covenants known.  It is about the essential nature of making our covenants, and the terms of those covenants, as clear as humanly possible.  The exceptions only take effect AFTER all of that.   I don't think there is any confusion about the covenant of marriage being for eternity in temple sealings.  The church makes every effort to make that as clear as humanly possible.  Birth control, on the other hand, our members have NO IDEA, if that truly is a covenant and expectation of the Lord, as you claim.   

Quote

Because keeping our covenants is essential to our happiness now and to eventually receiving eternal life, it is important to understand what we have promised our Heavenly Father.

The following is an overview of the covenants we make in association with saving ordinances and suggestions for where you can learn more.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2012/07/understanding-our-covenants-with-god?lang=eng

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by pogi

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree.  Making ones arguments understandable and convincing is part of what makes them a good argument though - being right is not enough.  In fact, it is not even necessary for a good argument. 

What I do understand is that he thinks that birth control is evil (generally speaking), and that the standard and general rule of the church is that we should not delay or limit the birth children through the use of birth control.  This is in fact a covenant that we have entered into. 

I've said more than once that "preventing the birth of children" can be a form of inspired exception to the commandments to multiply and steward, and at the same time "preventing the birth of children" is evil when not an inspired exception. This how I read your quotes from past prophets, especially with @Bernard Gui's fuller quotes from the same speaker(s) and additional samples showing context. Whether anyone wants to call it "preventing the birth of children" or "birth control" makes no difference, and it is not incumbent upon fallible prophets of infallible Jesus to discuss exceptions to their proscriptions in every address.

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is not a strawman if you think the church knows that this is a commandment and covenant that we have entered and are expected to obey but is intentionally not teaching/revealing that to us.  That is deceptive, if what you say is true.  That is a hurdle you have to address and haven't.

My tone has been perfectly fine, civil, and cordial, even reaching out the arm of fellowship in disagreement, up until I get attacked with mocking and snarky remarks by you and Bernard.  I am fine with different perspectives and beliefs.  I am not fine with personal attacks.  I know I should turn the other cheek, but I am human.  Something I need to work on. Let's both try to move on. 

The ambiguity of seeing through a glass darkly comes in our limited perspective, I don't believe we can know anything with absolute certainty in this life.  That is very different from intentionally concealing information to make something intentionally ambiguous. 

This is not a question of exceptions.  It is about making the terms of covenants known.  It is about the essential nature of making our covenants, and the terms of those covenants, as clear as humanly possible.  The exceptions only take effect AFTER all of that.   I don't think there is any confusion about the covenant of marriage being for eternity in temple sealings.  The church makes every effort to make that as clear as humanly possible.  Birth control, on the other hand, our members have NO IDEA, if that truly is a covenant, as you claim.   

 

These are not good arguments.

[pogi]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

I've said more than once that "preventing the birth of children" can be a form of inspired exception to the commandments to multiply and steward, and at the same time "preventing the birth of children" is evil when not an inspired exception. This how I read your quotes from past prophets, especially with @Bernard Gui's fuller quotes from the same speaker(s) and additional samples showing context. Whether anyone wants to call it "preventing the birth of children" or "birth control" makes no difference, and it is not incumbent upon fallible prophets of infallible Jesus to discuss exceptions to their proscriptions in every address.

I know what you believe in exceptions to all commandments.  So do I.  That doesn't answer my concern.  You are not addressing my point.  

You keep making this about exceptions and are not addressing my arguments about the importance of making the terms of covenants as clear as humanly possible.  What do you have to say about that?  Do you disagree?  Why doesn't the church make a concerted effort to help the rising generation understand the terms of their covenants in regard to birth control?

 

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

These are not good arguments.

Bye.  I'm done if you are going to be like that.