Birth control

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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. 

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:

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. 

 

You seem to see past (ETA: prophets'] explicitness where I don’t, even in the words in Genesis. Multiply and replenish and subdue are not synonymous with “unrestricted procreation” (your term). Hence, I see no contradiction between what they said then and what they say now. The more one sees explicitness, the more frustrated they seem prone to get.

It’s semantic anyway, since “unrestricted procreation” can mean no restrictions on the choice to procreate.

Edited January 6, 2023 by CV75

[Meadowchik]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You seem to see past explicitness where I don’t, even in the words in Genesis. Multiply and replenish and subdue are not synonymous with “unrestricted procreation” (your term). Hence, I see no contradiction between what they said then and what they say now. The more one sees explicitness, the more frustrated they seem prone to get.

It’s semantic anyway, since “unrestricted procreation” can mean no restrictions on the choice to procreate.

I think alot of this is splitting hairs when basically it's a procreation-centered worldview that in the first instance does not balance out with other important values like quality of life or individual personal desires.

What that results in imo is people who are abundantly capable of balance foregoing balance, because they see the clear prioritisation of procreation in the doctrine and they want to be faithful to the doctrine.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Meadowchik

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think alot of this is splitting hairs when basically it's a procreation-centered worldview that in the first instance does not balance out with other important values like quality of life or individual personal desires.

What that results in imo is people who are abundantly capable of balance foregoing balance they see the clear prioritisation of procreation. 

There are all kinds of people, however simplistic your world view of others' world views and your assessment of their prioritization within their world views may be. What you describe is a problem for some, obviously.

Edited January 6, 2023 by CV75

[Dario_M]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There are all kinds of people, however simplistic your world view.

Okay but still. You know how the church think about these kind of thinks. Birth Control is a big no no. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You seem to see past (ETA: prophets'] explicitness where I don’t, even in the words in Genesis. Multiply and replenish and subdue are not synonymous with “unrestricted procreation” (your term). Hence, I see no contradiction between what they said then and what they say now. The more one sees explicitness, the more frustrated they seem prone to get.

It’s semantic anyway, since “unrestricted procreation” can mean no restrictions on the choice to procreate.

How would you define the rule as explained by earlier prophets in the quotes I listed (including their full context if you wish) in relation to birth control (not the exceptions to it) in your words?

In my words, my interpretation is that the rule they wanted us to understand is that birth control is evil.  Again, I am not interested in the exceptions right now, I want to make sure we are on the same page as to how we interpret the rule in relation to birth control as explained by them. 

In their own words this is the rule and the only stated exceptions to it:

Quote

When the husband and wife are healthy, and free from inherited weaknesses and diseases that might be transmitted with injury to their offspring the use of contraceptives is to be condemned.

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

Okay but still. You know how the church think about these kind of thinks. Birth Control is a big no no. 

OK (it depends).

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

How would you define the rule as explained by earlier prophets in the quotes I listed (including their full context if you wish) in relation to birth control (not the exceptions to it) in your words?

In my words, my interpretation is that the rule they wanted us to understand is that birth control is evil.  Again, I am not interested in the exceptions right now, I want to make sure we are on the same page as to how we interpret the rule in relation to birth control as explained by them. 

In their own words this is the rule and the only stated exceptions to it:

 

I don’t think they established a rule. The original rule of course is the commandment to Adam and Eve. The “rule” as you esteem it to be with this cherry-picked quote simply doesn’t happen to mention another / every exception, but we can expect there to be some as we meet all that can happen in life. “Healthy” can mean a lot of things, too!

It helps to read the whole talk: Conference reports of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints : The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Speaking of cherry-picking, the line before the one you provided reads, “Intelligence and mutual consideration should be ever-present factors in determining the coming of children to the household.” And the predominating context is a population paradigm, not individual gametes.

I'm not saying the dishonesty and lack of full disclosure in the arguments you've been making are intentional and in bad faith, but they do seem at least to be the result of bias and not considering important factors. Sometimes our research can be limited to quotes and cut-and-pastes that someone cobbled together on some website, and sometimes we study things out more carefully. Sometimes, as you point out, our understanding is limited to passively interpreting an authority in the most facile way possible, and sometimes we are quick to observe and integrate all we have learned from them, others, the Spirit, etc.

[The Nehor]

So if you determine you are a genetic cesspool contraception is okay. Good to know.

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So if you determine you are a genetic cesspool contraception is okay. Good to know.

Especially if you're experimenting.

Edited January 6, 2023 by CV75

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Okay, but still. You know how the church think about these kind of things. Birth Control is a big no no. 

I think that may be more a local cultural thing than a church wide attitude unless it is the permanent surgical versions of tubal ligation or vasectomy, which is taught as being really sure it is the right thing to do and abortion.

Even in my distant babymaking years (40-30 years ago) I never had a bishop tell me anything but it was between my husband, myself and the Lord, though there were many talks in conference and other places about how that decision should be made.  Don’t be selfish and go for a second home instead of a second kid kind of thing.  Don’t put off a family for an education was the one I heard most being at university early on…and I didn’t.  It unexpectedly took me 3 years to finish my last two requirements for graduating, which were a freshman level English writing class that I put off because I just didn’t see it as necessary given my already decent research and writing skills and a freshman level PE/health class I had put off as long as I could because it required a running/jogging fitness test as a final.  I am not so not a runner and even jogging kills me, has always made me nauseous and burned my lungs out, but I would walk everywhere rather than taking the bus or ride my bike for hours for fun.  If they just measured how long you could walk before collapsing, that would have been done my first semester.  Managed a C in the PE class.  Humiliated by the final running fitness test as expected.  Can you tell I still resent having to jump through those hoops? .  Got there in the end though.

Due to my health issues our second child was intentionally 8 years after our first (he was pretty independent by then, so if anything went wrong, he could take care of himself mostly along with Dad’s help) and she was also our last.  Never once had any leader ask about why there was such a long gap or why only two kids, even those who didn’t know about my health issues.  No one raised an eyebrow if somehow the fact I was religious at using birth control came up.  In fact among the women members, we often compared methods as we looked for advice on the best to use.  I knew quite a few who had even gone the vasectomy route due to mom’s health or having hit as many as they felt they could handle financially.

So my experience in the US and Canada from the 80s into 2000’s from any church members or even across the pulpit was either indifferent or supportive of using birth control for the reasons we used it.  I knew quite a few who spaced their kids out so they could recover between them as well as make it easier to balance the family needs.  And being curious, I frequently checked the handbook on this and other things (no straw in the building for Halloween celebrations to avoid mice, no food open left in nursery cupboards to avoid attracting mice, no actual cooking in kitchens to avoid code violations) and never saw anything that made me wonder if I or any of my friends were sinning by using birth control,

The only birth control that was seen as wrong except in extreme cases was abortion (one woman even put off her cancer treatments until her baby was born), same as now.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Especially if you're experimenting.

Always remember to experiment responsibly.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don’t think they established a rule. The original rule of course is the commandment to Adam and Eve. The “rule” as you esteem it to be with this cherry-picked quote simply doesn’t happen to mention another / every exception, but we can expect there to be some as we meet all that can happen in life. “Healthy” can mean a lot of things, too!

It helps to read the whole talk: Conference reports of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints : The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Speaking of cherry-picking, the line before the one you provided reads, “Intelligence and mutual consideration should be ever-present factors in determining the coming of children to the household.” And the predominating context is a population paradigm, not individual gametes.

I'm not saying the dishonesty and lack of full disclosure in the arguments you've been making are intentional and in bad faith, but they do seem at least to be the result of bias and not considering important factors. Sometimes our research can be limited to quotes and cut-and-pastes that someone cobbled together on some website, and sometimes we study things out more carefully. Sometimes, as you point out, our understanding is limited to passively interpreting an authority in the most facile way possible, and sometimes we are quick to observe and integrate all we have learned from them, others, the Spirit, etc.

I have read the full talk multiple times now.  I have read a dozen other talks in full context that come to the same conclusion.   In several sources they all say the same thing - except in poor health or where congenital disease might be passed on, contraception should be condemned.  That is the rule.  It is very clear. 

Because, as each principle should be considered in the context of the other, this phrase "intelligence and mutual consideration should be ever present factors..." is to be taken within the context of the following sentence - "when the husband and wife are healthy, and free from inherited weaknesses and diseases that might be transmitted with injury to their offspring the use of contraceptives is to be condemned."  You are attempting to dismiss the second second and uphold the first.  That is not a fair reading.  A fair reading would read each sentence in light of the other.  In other words, "intelligence and mutual consideration" should be in considered in context of the "health" and other exceptions noted in regards to the mother and offspring.  The first sentence doesn’t negate or alter the rule, it simply expresses how the exceptions noted in the rule should be considered.

Joseph Fielding Smith actually called it a "rule" and noted that "the exceptions only strengthen the rule" in regards to artificial contraception.  He further stated that in those rare exceptions that abstinence was the only acceptable form of birth control.  I will have to find the quote.  

I have so many talks we can review in full context.  They all come to the same conclusion.  Contraception is evil when used to delay childbirth or limit childbirth except in conditions of health, etc.  But the exceptions only strengthen the rule. 

I am going to ignore the accusations of “dishonesty”.  P.S. dishonesty cannot be dishonesty without intentionality.  That would be better described as an unintentional innacuracy.

P.P.S If there was no rule, then why are you noting exceptions?  Exceptions to what?

 

Edited January 7, 2023 by pogi

[Dario_M]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

OK (it depends).

I am now talking about the LDS church. No other church offcourse. 😌

[Dario_M]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

 

(Pssst Dario here, this is a long *** post as an reaction on my modest little post man.) 

@Calm said: "I think that may be more a local cultural thing than a church wide attitude unless it is the permanent surgical versions of tubal ligation or vasectomy, which is taught as being really sure it is the right thing to do and abortion."

 

Like i said. I am talking about the LDS church. I am not making this up or so. Nor did i said that i whas agree with it. (wich i don't.) But that is just how it is. 

The same with gay marrage. Is also something that the church don't approve. Unfortunately for me. 🎭 

You can say that it is a local thing. Or a cultural thing. But that is not true. This is within the whole church. The church just don't approve these type of things. It is in the system. 

 

11 hours ago, Calm said:

 

So. A bit more Calmness and peachness please. I am just waking up and i have a terible headache allready. I am sure you would understand? 

God bless you dear Calm. ✝️

Edited January 7, 2023 by Dario_M

[CV75]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

I have read the full talk multiple times now.  I have read a dozen other talks in full context that come to the same conclusion.   In several sources they all say the same thing - except in poor health or where congenital disease might be passed on, contraception should be condemned.  That is the rule.  It is very clear. 

Because, as each principle should be considered in the context of the other, this phrase "intelligence and mutual consideration should be ever present factors..." is to be taken within the context of the following sentence - "when the husband and wife are healthy, and free from inherited weaknesses and diseases that might be transmitted with injury to their offspring the use of contraceptives is to be condemned."  You are attempting to dismiss the second second and uphold the first.  That is not a fair reading.  A fair reading would read each sentence in light of the other.  In other words, "intelligence and mutual consideration" should be in considered in context of the "health" and other exceptions noted in regards to the mother and offspring.  The first sentence doesn’t negate or alter the rule, it simply expresses how the exceptions noted in the rule should be considered.

Joseph Fielding Smith actually called it a "rule" and noted that "the exceptions only strengthen the rule" in regards to artificial contraception.  He further stated that in those rare exceptions that abstinence was the only acceptable form of birth control.  I will have to find the quote.  

I have so many talks we can review in full context.  They all come to the same conclusion.  Contraception is evil when used to delay childbirth or limit childbirth except in conditions of health, etc.  But the exceptions only strengthen the rule. 

I am going to ignore the accusations of “dishonesty”.  P.S. dishonesty cannot be dishonesty without intentionality.  That would be better described as an unintentional innacuracy.

P.P.S If there was no rule, then why are you noting exceptions?  Exceptions to what?

 

I note exceptions because as a rule, there are exceptions to rules. Except perhaps with some rare, cosmic-level exceptions. People perceive rules and exceptions differently or course. For example, the account in Mark 2, which concludes with: "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath, Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." Here we have the resolution to a conflict in perceptions of the sabbath. Likewise, the command, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the dearth, and subdue it..." was made for man, and not for the command, therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the command. We are free to act with the Lord in the same way the disciples were when the He said this.

I think a disconnect between what prophets said then an what they say today are in the mind of the reader. Fallibility of the prophets seemed to be a big deal earlier on in your arguments, but they are no less fallible today than they were before. The restoration rolls out not because they are less fallible, but because of grace. Jesus was the same way, He grew grace for grace, which is mostly why He didn’t start His mission until He was around 30 years old. But He was never fallible. The beauty of the gospel is that everyone else can still do the same.

Changing the mind of the reader is ultimately between them and the Lord, so maybe a walk through the field and plucking some corn is a useful exercise.

 

Edited January 7, 2023 by CV75

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Likewise, the command, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the dearth, and subdue it..."

I think it would help me if you could show how you logically get from the above to this: “preventing the birth of children is a sin with dire consequences”

The two statements are not synonymous (not even close) based on language as I understand it, but you seem to treat them as functionally equivalent. Why? And how?

It’s like I tell my son, be productive. And then you tell him that means refusing a higher paying job is a dire sin. How does one follow the other. I just don’t see it. 
 

Please talk slow, use small words, and show your steps. I’m dumb and need help to follow.

 

[Meadowchik]

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

There are all kinds of people, however simplistic your world view of others' world views and your assessment of their prioritization within their world views may be. What you describe is a problem for some, obviously.

Not that I said others views are simplistic at all, but you do remind me of an important point. 

For most of us in the church, the current has been one of marrying young and procreating immediately. And this age range is often even before 21 when we've become fully formed adults. 

It's later that most people develop an independent view of life and strong sense of personality, but for those faithful who've already obeyed and succeeded in making babies, the most important decisions of their lives are already made.

Consider the implications of what follows, what this means. It means we've exercised the powers of creation without a basic understanding of our adult selves. If we're fortunate, we stumbled into the partner and situations that are manageable, which we can support long term. But should we be relying on luck?

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think it would help me if you could show how you logically get from the above to this: “preventing the birth of children is a sin with dire consequences”

The two statements are not synonymous (not even close) based on language as I understand it, but you seem to treat them as functionally equivalent. Why? And how?

It’s like I tell my son, be productive. And then you tell him that means refusing a higher paying job is a dire sin. How does one follow the other. I just don’t see it. 
 

Please talk slow, use small words, and show your steps. I’m dumb and need help to follow.

 

I think that we could just as easily say that the quoted (in your reply) results in the conclusion that it's a sin to exercise procreative powers prematurely. Furthermore, being married in the temple does not give us maturity.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I note exceptions because as a rule, there are exceptions to rules.

Now you are back to saying there was a rule.   I give up.

You have consistently noted that there are exceptions.  I stated that if there are exceptions to birth control (as you note) then what is the rule in your own words?  You replied “I don’t think they established a rule”.  So, I naturally followed that up with “then what were the exceptions to birth control about that you note”.  You reply, “they are exceptions to the rule.”

Do you honestly believe that these prophets were not trying to establish a standard/rule for the members to follow in relation to birth control?

 I have read dozens of talks now on it, the message is loud and clear to me.  It appears that even with the church leaders backing off of direct teachings and standard setting on birth control the old standard/rule has endured through the ages and it appears that even brand new converts in Portugal are STILL perceiving that old standard in effect today.  Dario appears to be entirely convinced that is the position of the church even today - “I am not making this up. That is just how it is.”  He insists.  
If they were truly not attempting to create a standard and rule for the church, then they failed miserably in communicating that, at least.
 

Edited January 7, 2023 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

....(waving arm)

WHY HAS NO ONE, ESPECIALLY CATHOLICS, MENTIONED ONAN?

[CV75]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think it would help me if you could show how you logically get from the above to this: “preventing the birth of children is a sin with dire consequences”

The two statements are not synonymous (not even close) based on language as I understand it, but you seem to treat them as functionally equivalent. Why? And how?

It’s like I tell my son, be productive. And then you tell him that means refusing a higher paying job is a dire sin. How does one follow the other. I just don’t see it. 
 

Please talk slow, use small words, and show your steps. I’m dumb and need help to follow.

 

These statements are made for man, not man for these statements. I’m sure that what you really mean to convey to your son over time is, “Be productive. That requires that you train, work, rest and recreate in wisdom and in order.” But you do not say that every time, and depending on the situation, you can rightly tell him that refusing (or taking) a higher paying is a dire mistake. You don’t say each thing every time. He may tune you out or not get what you are saying. This is how I understand the counsel of the prophets then and now and find them non-contradicting.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Not that I said others views are simplistic at all, but you do remind me of an important point. 

For most of us in the church, the current has been one of marrying young and procreating immediately. And this age range is often even before 21 when we've become fully formed adults. 

It's later that most people develop an independent view of life and strong sense of personality, but for those faithful who've already obeyed and succeeded in making babies, the most important decisions of their lives are already made.

Consider the implications of what follows, what this means. It means we've exercised the powers of creation without a basic understanding of our adult selves. If we're fortunate, we stumbled into the partner and situations that are manageable, which we can support long term. But should we be relying on luck?

I am not into discussing the general, societal pros and cons of birth control, just why I think our prophetic guidance has been consistent in principle all along.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Now you are back to saying there was a rule.   I give up.

You have consistently noted that there are exceptions.  I stated that if there are exceptions to birth control (as you note) then what is the rule in your own words?  You replied “I don’t think they established a rule”.  So, I naturally followed that up with “then what were the exceptions to birth control about that you note”.  You reply, “they are exceptions to the rule.”

Do you honestly believe that these prophets were not trying to establish a standard/rule for the members to follow in relation to birth control?

 I have read dozens of talks now on it, the message is loud and clear to me.  It appears that even with the church leaders backing off of direct teachings and standard setting on birth control the old standard/rule has endured through the ages and it appears that even brand new converts in Portugal are STILL perceiving that old standard in effect today.  Dario appears to be entirely convinced that is the position of the church even today - “I am not making this up. That is just how it is.”  He insists.  
If they were truly not attempting to create a standard and rule for the church, then they failed miserably in communicating that, at least.
 

I understand your position and how you reinforce your bias for it. My best advice is to follow the rule of Alma 32 the best you can, on this or any other topic of concern.

When prophets state or establish a rule, they also establish its exceptions, whether they explicitly state them or not, since exceptions are inherent with a rule. So, depending on the error you are making, I point you to the balancing principle. How do you think I would phrase this in terms of birth control?

I honestly believe these prophets were reminding people of the commandments and warning them of uninspired pressure (external pressures, e.g., social pushes) and tendencies (internal pressures, e.g., selfishness) to make contrary exceptions. The same with modern prophets. Different generations and stages of the restoration, so different words and approaches.

Feel free to share with anyone you feel needs it.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

....(waving arm)

WHY HAS NO ONE, ESPECIALLY CATHOLICS, MENTIONED ONAN?

"Cleanup in aisle 10!"

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"Cleanup in aisle 10!"

Oh my gosh.  I can't breathe.🤣😂😅😆😜🤪