Birth control

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

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?

Yes, the conversation has changed from how the teachings were interpreted and whether the teachings have changed to whether we (parents, members, Church, prophets) are doing enough for the rising generation. My short answer is the Liahona articles I mentioned above seem like a concerted effort to me, on all topics of concern. The longer answer is that personal clarity is far more a function of what the prophets cannot do than what they can do (I think life experiences and agency hold far more sway). "As clear as humanly possible" entails fallibility even if it were possible to standardize its application, so I don't see putting all our eggs in one basket as reasonable.

Edited January 6, 2023 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

3 hours 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.

Omigosh, I apologize, my fault; I have tended to do that lately.  The post is usually very long when I make the mistake, I just read the text and don't think about double checking the author; I am simply reacting to what is said in the text in front of me.

Very sorry; the reply was meant to go to @pogi.  I was agreeing with his point.

I promise to check twice before I hit the save button 

 

[pogi]

“Oh really, I honestly didn’t realize I was under covenant to not use birth control and intentionally limit the number of children I have.  Why wasn’t this made known to me before I entered the covenant?  Why wasn’t I informed of the terms of the covenant?  Literally, no one I know was told this or practices this”

”That is a stupid question!”

”But it seems kind of important doesn’t it?  What if I don’t want to be bound by this covenant?”

”Too late, you already entered it through ordinance”

”I don’t have a choice in the matter?”

”Nope, you are part of the covenant now and are obligated to obey your end of the agreement especially now that you understand it!

”But I didn’t know that at the time…”

”That’s a stupid argument because there are exceptions that may or may not apply to you.”

”What if they don’t apply to me?”

”Stupid question!  Just do as you are told and stop saying stupid stuff.  You can’t back out of this.  You signed on the dotted line.”

 

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by pogi

[Dario_M]

@Pyreaux Really? You are giving me a heart only because of that little post of mine?? That also whas just an mistake anyway. 🎭

[Pyreaux]

11 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

@Pyreaux Really? You are giving me a heart only because of that little post of mine?? That also whas just an mistake anyway. 🎭

Yeah, was just happy to see you swimming around in the deep end of the pool. Hope you don't mind me teasing you.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

“Oh really, I honestly didn’t realize I was under covenant to not use birth control and intentionally limit the number of children I have.  Why wasn’t this made known to me before I entered the covenant?  Why wasn’t I informed of the terms of the covenant?  Literally, no one I know was told this or practices this”

”That is a stupid question!”

”But it seems kind of important doesn’t it?  What if I don’t want to be bound by this covenant?”

”Too late, you already entered it through ordinance”

”I don’t have a choice in the matter?”

”Nope, you are part of the covenant now and are obligated to obey your end of the agreement especially now that you understand it!

”But I didn’t know that at the time…”

”That’s a stupid argument because there are exceptions that may or may not apply to you.”

”What if they don’t apply to me?”

”Stupid question!  Just do as you are told and stop saying stupid stuff.  You can’t back out of this.  You signed on the dotted line.”

 

 

 

 

I would ask the person initiating this conversation to back up a second and say to them, "Since we covenant to keep God’s commandments at baptism, and renew this covenant each week with the sacrament, and the command, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it…” is important and of concern to you, which I presume gives rise to your question, the following resources are helpful in answering questions concerning it: The Family Proclamation, Gospel Topics and the Handbook. Let's review them together."

Edited January 6, 2023 by CV75

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I would ask the person initiating this conversation to back up a second and say to them, "Since we covenant to keep God’s commandments at baptism, and renew this covenant each week with the sacrament, and the command, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it…” is important and of concern to you, which I presume gives rise to your question, the following resources are helpful in answering questions concerning it: The Family Proclamation, Gospel Topics and the Handbook. Let's review them together."

And they respond:

"Wait, what!?  NOW you want to sit down and explain it to me???  It is a little late for that!  I have already signed on the doted line.  There are no take-backs with God."

“You are telling me this is my fault for not understanding that these are the terms of the covenant I entered?   The church knew this and never told me and it is my fault???  I’ve been taught all of those things from birth, but nobody ever said anything about birth control or that it is a sin to delay having children for a year until we are done with school, or that intentionally limiting my family to 3-4 children is a grave sin.  That simply is not stated in those sources you mention.  Like, at all!  But you are telling me I have to obey that if I don’t want to be cursed, that there is no way out without violating the covenant, or hope that I am a lucky exception for some mysterious and inexplicable reason?”

“My devout parents used birth control.  They encouraged me to wait and have kids until after school.  My bishop and Stake president chose to only have 2 and 4 kids.  They know we are waiting and never said a thing.  I don’t see many general authorities with 12 kids.  Most GA’s have relatively small families compared to those who never use birth control.  Are they all defective or not having sex, or are they all using birth control?  Are they all exceptions to the rule except for the 1 or 2 who have 10+ kids?  It seems like the rule is the exception!  Most prophets only have a few children.  How was I expected to pick up on this if virtually nobody is exemplifying unrestricted procreation or teaching it?  

“Multiply” doesn’t imply “unrestricted reproduction without any delay”.   Why would you expect me to interpret it that way?  Not even close. I was always taught that the church just leaves it up to us as to how many children we have.  They never told me about any expectations or standards.  Why not? I thought the command to replenish was a group effort and not that I was single-handedly supposed to populate the earth! Is it our collective fault that we never would have imagined that we were sinning in a million years based on the sources you are referring to?”

“Why do I feel duped?”  “I feel manipulated and tricked into terms that were never even attempted to be explained to me in a way that I could understand.”    

“I did not agree to these conditions of my own free will.  There is no way in hell I would have agreed to unrestricted procreation if I had a choice!”  I’ve been duped!  “I thought that I could do my part in multiplying and replenishing the earth after school and with 3-4 kids”

Edited January 6, 2023 by pogi

[pogi]

 

Either the general authorities never got the memo that birth control is a BIG sin, or they are knowingly violating covenant, or their marriages are sexless, or they have some biological defect, or the rule is actually the exception.  Ooorrr...there is no expectation, no commandment, and birth control isn't perceived as a sin by the church! 

 

 

https://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2018/05/20/family-size-and-church-leadership/

Edited January 6, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Let's review them together.

And if they say “no thanks, the Handbook says it’s between us and the Lord”?

[Dario_M]

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Yeah, was just happy to see you swimming around in the deep end of the pool. Hope you don't mind me teasing you.

Aaawh sweet, another heart.  💜   Oooh wait!! Somebody have givin you a heart. Not me. Ooops confussed. I am just waking up. And still half sleeping. 😴

Edited January 6, 2023 by Dario_M

[CV75]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

And they respond:

"Wait, what!?  NOW you want to sit down and explain it to me???  It is a little late for that!  I have already signed on the doted line.  There are no take-backs with God."

“You are telling me this is my fault for not understanding that these are the terms of the covenant I entered?   The church knew this and never told me and it is my fault???  I’ve been taught all of those things from birth, but nobody ever said anything about birth control or that it is a sin to delay having children for a year until we are done with school, or that intentionally limiting my family to 3-4 children is a grave sin.  That simply is not stated in those sources you mention.  Like, at all!  But you are telling me I have to obey that if I don’t want to be cursed, that there is no way out without violating the covenant, or hope that I am a lucky exception for some mysterious and inexplicable reason?”

“My devout parents used birth control.  They encouraged me to wait and have kids until after school.  My bishop and Stake president chose to only have 2 and 4 kids.  They know we are waiting and never said a thing.  I don’t see many general authorities with 12 kids.  Most GA’s have relatively small families compared to those who never use birth control.  Are they all defective or not having sex, or are they all using birth control?  Are they all exceptions to the rule except for the 1 or 2 who have 10+ kids?  It seems like the rule is the exception!  Most prophets only have a few children.  How was I expected to pick up on this if virtually nobody is exemplifying unrestricted procreation or teaching it?  

“Multiply” doesn’t imply “unrestricted reproduction without any delay”.   Why would you expect me to interpret it that way?  Not even close. I was always taught that the church just leaves it up to us as to how many children we have.  They never told me about any expectations or standards.  Why not? I thought the command to replenish was a group effort and not that I was single-handedly supposed to populate the earth! Is it our collective fault that we never would have imagined that we were sinning in a million years based on the sources you are referring to?”

“Why do I feel duped?”  “I feel manipulated and tricked into terms that were never even attempted to be explained to me in a way that I could understand.”    

“I did not agree to these conditions of my own free will.  There is no way in hell I would have agreed to unrestricted procreation if I had a choice!”  I’ve been duped!  “I thought that I could do my part in multiplying and replenishing the earth after school and with 3-4 kids”

The person doesn't seem to want to review the materials with me. I assumed the person was initiating the conversation with me as a trusted resource (one limitation of a hypothetical designed for refutation). I find that it is better to wait than to pressure someone (friendly or not) into reviewing materials with me, actively listen* to them, thank them for sharing their concerns with me, and assure them that I am available when they want to review the materials with me. 

* as much as practicable, this person doesn't seem to take a breath.

 

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

And if they say “no thanks, the Handbook says it’s between us and the Lord”?

Then they don't want to review the material with me, but instead (according to the opening statement) ask rhetorical questions and vent. In that case, I would ask them what they wanted to discuss, and if it turns out to be a monologue instead, I would have to decide how long to sit there. But I would try to be civil about it.

[Dario_M]

@SeekingUnderstanding Oh my....why are you giving me a heart for that post? 💗  My post whas just an mistake you know. 🥰

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

@SeekingUnderstanding Oh my....why are you giving me a heart for that post? 💗  My post whas just an mistake you know. 🥰

Best kind of posts. 

[pogi]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The person doesn't seem to want to review the materials with me.

Again, this info should be provided to all BEFORE entering eternal binding covenants.  A little too late. What kind of reaction were you expecting?

You have it backwards.  The church doesn’t want to clarify or expound on this material in relation to birth control.  In fact, they have made it a policy not to.

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I assumed the person was initiating the conversation with me as a trusted resource (one limitation of a hypothetical designed for refutation). I find that it is better to wait than to pressure someone (friendly or not) into reviewing materials with me, actively listen* to them, thank them for sharing their concerns with me, and assure them that I am available when they want to review the materials with me.

These are not hypothetical or rhetorical questions or concerns for this person.

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

* as much as practicable, this person doesn't seem to take a breath.

 

This person just found out that they have committed to not limit the number of children they have and are now bound to fulfill that commitment or suffer a curse from God.  They are a little disconcerted about that.  Panicky actually.  They are angry and feel duped.  Your efforts to tell them what they committed to AFTER they sign on the dotted line, rather than EXPLAINING to the the terms of the covenant BEFORE agreeing to them, is a deceptive practice that literally binds in captivity through trickery and disrespects the agency of man by negligent on the principle of informed consent.  

Edited January 6, 2023 by pogi

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, pogi said:

Again, this info should be provided to all BEFORE entering eternal binding covenants.  A little too late. What kind of reaction were you expecting?

You have it backwards.  The church doesn’t want to clarify or expound on this material in relation to birth control.  In fact, they have made it a policy not to.

These are not hypothetical or rhetorical questions or concerns for this person.

This person just found out that they have committed to not limit the number of children they have and are now bound to fulfill that commitment or suffer a curse from God.  They are a little disconcerted about that.  Panicky actually.  They are angry and feel duped.  Your efforts to tell them what they committed to AFTER they sign on the dotted line, rather than EXPLAINING to the the terms of the covenant BEFORE agreeing to them, is a deceptive practice that literally binds in captivity through trickery and disrespects the agency of man by negligent on the principle of informed consent.  

A hypothetical person can have only hypothetical questions, and they come across as rhetorical (to me), which makes sense given your design of the scenario. I have no problem with that, but my approach remains the same, especially when they turn out to be disconcerted, panicky, angry and expressing betrayal. They need some time to process those barriers to learning and personal revelation.

I unbiasedly took their questions at face value and in good faith, so I did not think to ask how and why they believe / conclude they have committed to never use birth control or suffer a curse from God. It doesn't really matter anyway, if they are not open to reviewing the material with me and I'd have to take the same approach.

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Best kind of posts. 

Aaawh that is sweet of you. 

God bless you. ✝️💕⬅️

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I unbiasedly took their questions at face value and in good faith, so I did not think to ask how and why they believe / conclude they have committed to never use birth control or suffer a curse from God.

Now I am really confused as to what your position is.  Are you suggesting that we didn't covenant to multiply and replenish the earth in the way you and older prophets interpret it to mean (unrestricted procreation)?  I posted a quote stating that seeking to limit the number of children we have is a violation of temple covenant.  You said it was all true in principle. 

Did we enter a covenant to multiply and replenish the earth (unrestricted procreation), or not?

My responses to you have been based on this premise as you have presented it to me.  

Edited January 6, 2023 by pogi

[JAHS]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

 

Either the general authorities never got the memo that birth control is a BIG sin, or they are knowingly violating covenant, or their marriages are sexless, or they have some biological defect, or the rule is actually the exception.  Ooorrr...there is no expectation, no commandment, and birth control isn't perceived as a sin by the church! 

 

 

https://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2018/05/20/family-size-and-church-leadership/

Those early years of the Church may have been affected by polygamy (more wives = more kids). Many of the current GAs were not GAs when they were young enough to have kids or maybe they weren't members at all. 
In the early days of the Church there was the expectation to have a lot of kids according to the leaders and direction from God at that time. Now we follow our current leaders direction which God has determined is best for our time.
 

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

Now I am really confused as to what your position is.  Are you suggesting that we didn't covenant to multiply and replenish the earth in the way you and older prophets interpret it to mean (unrestricted procreation)?  I posted a quote stating that seeking to limit the number of children we have is a violation of temple covenant.  You said it was all true in principle. 

Did we enter a covenant to multiply and replenish the earth (unrestricted procreation), or not?

My responses to you have been based on this premise as you have presented it to me.  

Being true in principle doesn't mean the principle operates in isolation from all other true principles.

In principle, the covenant to keep God's commandments at baptism tracks through all ordinances and covenants, so yes, the temple marriage, like the sacrament, is a covenant to keep God's commandments, including the one to multiply and replenish the earth (and subdue it). I don't think older prophets interpreted that to mean "unrestricted procreation" -- your term -- since they (and their audience, and we, and the Lord) know that no true principle operates in isolation from all other true principles such as that of exeption. Discovering, reinterpreting or understanding in a new way a commandment is bound to happen, hopefully as a matter of spiritual growth and happiness and not as a crisis.

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Those early years of the Church may have been affected by polygamy (more wives = more kids).

I agree.  Certainly polygamy affected those earlier numbers significantly.  

8 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Many of the current GAs were not GAs when they were young enough to have kids or maybe they weren't members at all. 

I think there are probably extremely few GA's who were not members during their childbearing years.  I think these numbers are nor a reflection of how many children they have had during their callings as GA's, but is a reflection of how many children they have had throughout their lifetime.   This was intended to reflect that the expectation of unrestricted procreation in todays church (a claim by CV75) seems to be practiced as an exception rather than the rule, even for those who have been called as GA's.  

8 minutes ago, JAHS said:

In the early days of the Church there was the expectation to have a lot of kids according to the leaders and direction from God at that time. Now we follow our current leaders direction which God has determined is best for our time.

I am not convinced that this was direction from God at the time.  I think it was their version of truth, but I am not convinced it was God's version of truth.  There is no claim of revelation on the matter.  It is based entirely on interpretations of a few passages of scripture, which interpretations seem to be heavily influenced by cultural thinking of the time - in that way, it is very reminiscent of the justification for restricting the priesthood from blacks based on culturally based interpretations of scripture at the time, rather than any claimed revelation from God.

[MustardSeed]

In other words, since times change, in order to maintain sanity and be a faithful member of the church, it’s good to be flexible and not rigid.  Embrace change.  Abandon all or nothing thinking.  Allow for flexibility of the leaders’ positions which are influenced by culture.  
And in our particular church, don’t expect anyone to say “we did it wrong before”.  Just, go with the flow. 

I can see how remaining faithful could be difficult for those who are uncomfortable with change, and also those who expect accountability statements.  
 

Personally I expect change, I welcome it, and in this church I don’t expect statements.  I’d love them, but will never get them, so no expectations means less disappointment.  

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

The person doesn't seem to want to review the materials with me. I assumed the person was initiating the conversation with me as a trusted resource (one limitation of a hypothetical designed for refutation).

Good luck.

Try discussing Empirical Theology 

"Empirical theology is a twentieth-century movement, largely in the United States, that argues that religious ideas must be tested and thereby justified against human experience."

In other words, Alma 32.

 

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don't think older prophets interpreted that to mean "unrestricted procreation" -- your term -- since they (and their audience, and we, and the Lord) know that no true principle operates in isolation from all other true principles such as that of exeption.

That is exactly how they interpreted it as the rule, not the exception.  They were pretty explicit in that.  That is the rule.  That is the covenant we enter.  Any exceptions are just exceptions to the rule.

The church today is no where near explicit as to that rule, which you claim is still the rule.  If it is the rule and a covenant we enter, then they are explicitly being negligent in their obligation towards the eternal and spiritual principles of informed consent in relation to agency and covenants.  What you are saying is not clear to the rising generation who are entering these covenants.  They would be shocked if what you are saying is true.  They would feel duped.  There would be a mass faith crisis and withdrawal from church membership if they felt that they were duped into promising to not use birth control as a rule with only the hope that they are a lucky enough to be an exception.  All trust would be gone, and for good reason.  That is not trustworthy behavior. 

Thank goodness I, and most members, don't believe you.   That is not our experience.  It is not our truth.  We don't believe that is God's will for us as a general rule and guiding principle. 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Discovering, reinterpreting or understanding in a new way a commandment is bound to happen, hopefully as a matter of spiritual growth and happiness and not as a crisis.

It is bound to happen, but when it happens due to the fact that critical information needed to inform the membership of astronomically huge life-changing terms of a covenant are intentionally withheld, then there is no room for trust in a relationship with such a deceptive church.

I am so grateful that our church is not deceptive and intentionally misleading in that way.   Informed consent is important to them in relation to eternal and sacred covenants:

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

If the standard and general rule was to procreate without restriction, then to simply say "it is personal and private and left between the couple and the Lord" is to withold important information.  The proclamation and Handbook is not sufficient for and educated informed consent if that truly is the rule.    Thankfully, it isn't the rule. 

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by pogi

[CV75]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Good luck.

Try discussing Empirical Theology 

"Empirical theology is a twentieth-century movement, largely in the United States, that argues that religious ideas must be tested and thereby justified against human experience."

In other words, Alma 32.

 

 

Less work for me!