Birth control

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

Please enlighten me as to what you think my position is and how it is reinforcing my bias.

I don't think you really understand my position if you are offering Alma 32 as advice.   That makes no sense.  Alma 32 is practically a mantra for me.  It is a core guiding principle in my life. 

What is the core of my concern?  What am trying to get at here?  You claim that you understand my position and bias, so please enlighten me how personally applying Alma 32 is going to resolve this concern for me.   

 

 

Edited January 7, 2023 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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.

So that’s a no. You can’t explain how you make the logical leap. You admit one doesn’t imply the other. Maybe you should just stop then using Genesis, the family proclamation et al and pretending they all say the same thing. 

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh.  I can't breathe.🤣😂😅😆😜🤪

Here's a tissue for your issue.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Please enlighten me as to what you think my position is and how it is reinforcing my bias.

I don't think you really understand my position if you are offering Alma 32 as advice.   That makes no sense.  Alma 32 is practically a mantra for me.  It is a core guiding principle in my life. 

What is the core of my concern?  What am trying to get at here?  You claim that you understand my position and bias, so please enlighten me how personally applying Alma 32 is going to resolve this concern for me.   

 

 

I said: I understand your position and how you reinforce your bias for it (not the other way around). With Alma 32 as your mantra, what else are you supposed to do?

This topic (I wasn’t thinking “core” at the time, but maybe it is core for you) of concern (I was thinking more generally at the time, but you want me to comment on “yours”) is that “I see no contradiction between these quotes and the current Handbook,” Posted December 30, 2022 and you do.

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So that’s a no. You can’t explain how you make the logical leap. You admit one doesn’t imply the other. Maybe you should just stop then using Genesis, the family proclamation et al and pretending they all say the same thing. 

Yes, one does imply the other since, as with telling your son to be productive, you are also telling him to train, work, rest and recreate in wisdom and in order. By "tell" I don't mean a one-time transactional order. I mean that when you are conveying to him to work (or train or rest or recreate... and other principles of productivity) in wisdom and in order you are telling him to do the others as well since all are components of being productive. At least I'm assuming that is how you communicate with him, and you understand how they relate to and support each other.

Edited January 7, 2023 by CV75

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I said: I understand your position and how you reinforce your bias for it (not the other way around). With Alma 32 as your mantra, what else are you supposed to do?

This topic (I wasn’t thinking “core” at the time, but maybe it is core for you) of concern (I was thinking more generally at the time, but you want me to comment on “yours”) is that “I see no contradiction between these quotes and the current Handbook,” Posted December 30, 2022 and you do.

My main concern is that in stating that there is no contradiction, their statements will be taken at face value as the standard of today.  Our newest convert on here has proven my concern valid.   They are still perceived as the standard by some.  We need to make it CLEAR that we do not support their teachings today.  This will lead to all sorts of problems when we try to reconcile old-ideas with modern evolved teachings.  

I understand you think that they weren’t trying to set a standard in relation to birth control (at least I think that is your position, but I admit you confuse me), but I think most people who read their talks (dozens of them) in full context would agree that they were setting a standard to follow as a rule.  Some were very clear that abstinence is the only acceptable form of birth control for those who are exceptions to the rule of “no birth control”, for example.  We simply don’t support or believe that today.  Time to let it die and not pretend like these words are true in principle.  

The standards have changed and that is ok.  We need to move onward and upward.  In the spirit of moving onward and upward, this is my last post to you.  You get the last word.  

Edited January 7, 2023 by pogi

[CV75]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

My main concern is that in stating that there is no contradiction, their statements will be taken at face value as the standard of today.  Our newest convert on here has proven my concern valid.   They are still perceived as the standard by some.  We need to make it CLEAR that we do not support their teachings today.  This will lead to all sorts of problems when we try to reconcile old-ideas with modern evolved teachings.  

I understand you think that they weren’t trying to set a standard in relation to birth control (at least I think that is your position, but I admit you confuse me), but I think most people who read their talks (dozens of them) in full context would agree that they were setting a standard to follow as a rule.  Some were very clear that abstinence is the only acceptable form of birth control for those who are exceptions to the rule of “no birth control”, for example.  We simply don’t support or believe that today.  Time to let it die and not pretend like these words are true in principle.  

The standards have changed and that is ok.  We need to move onward and upward.  In the spirit of moving onward and upward, this is my last post to you.  You get the last word.  

So, the main concern remains my having stated something you oppose – the rest are concerns and justifications based on projections of your main concern.

We clarify misunderstandings to anyone we please, using whatever rationale and methods we please. Depending on where the misunderstanding lies, I choose to begin by acknowledging what is true in principle and build from there. None of them involved defending literal or transactional interpretations or getting stuck on "face value", which assessment is as subjectively determined as taking hypothetical questions at face value (and see where that got me!  ).

And I’m sure this isn’t the last word.

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Our newest convert on here has proven my concern valid.   They are still perceived as the standard by some.  We need to make it CLEAR that we do not support their teachings today.

Let it be clear to all.  It is not considered a sin by church leaders today, nor by most members (IME),  to use birth control or to tie tubes or get a vasectomy.   married couples are encouraged to enjoy a healthy active sex life with each other whether it is to procreate or recreate.  
 

Enjoy. 🌺✌️
 

[JAHS]

LDS church employees can now get birth control coverage

In a surprise move, the health insurance company for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it will provide birth control coverage for its employees.

The latest: The policy change, shared with employees last Thursday, will take effect Feb. 1, according to emails obtained by Axios.

Oral contraceptives, injections, patches, birth control rings and IUDs will be covered for medical purposes and family planning, per the email.
Yes, but: Emergency contraception, like Plan B, will not be covered and surgical sterilization will require prior approval.
Context: Previously, birth control was not paid for under the church's primary employee benefits administrator, Deseret Mutual Benefit Administrators (DMBA), despite calls from workers to cover it over the years.

The church founded DMBA in 1970. It manages the employee benefits for about 100,000 people connected to 25 employers, including Brigham Young University, Deseret News and Deseret Digital Media.
Church guidelines say the topic of birth control is "a private matter" between a married couple and God.

--------------------------------

I think this makes sense since many women have to take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, JAHS said:

LDS church employees can now get birth control coverage

In a surprise move, the health insurance company for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it will provide birth control coverage for its employees.

The latest: The policy change, shared with employees last Thursday, will take effect Feb. 1, according to emails obtained by Axios.

Oral contraceptives, injections, patches, birth control rings and IUDs will be covered for medical purposes and family planning, per the email.
Yes, but: Emergency contraception, like Plan B, will not be covered and surgical sterilization will require prior approval.
Context: Previously, birth control was not paid for under the church's primary employee benefits administrator, Deseret Mutual Benefit Administrators (DMBA), despite calls from workers to cover it over the years.

The church founded DMBA in 1970. It manages the employee benefits for about 100,000 people connected to 25 employers, including Brigham Young University, Deseret News and Deseret Digital Media.
Church guidelines say the topic of birth control is "a private matter" between a married couple and God.

--------------------------------

I think this makes sense since many women have to take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

I think it makes sense for preventing pregnancy too.  It clearly states that it is covered for "medical purposes" and "family planning".