Birth control

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, telnetd said:

The church's topic of birth control says "The decision of how many children to have and 
when to have them is a private matter for the husband and wife ... Those who are physically 
able have the blessing, joy, and obligation to bear children and to raise a family ... 
Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with 
each married couple".

If it's a private matter between husband and wife on the number of children to have, then
what negative consequences are there if a husband (with the consent of his wife) chooses
to use condoms to reduce the chance of pregnancy after they mutually agree to have only 2
children?

I also don't read that as particularly negative consequences. Obviously if you stop at 2, you may miss out on a 3rd kid. But that consequence can be both negative or positive depending the couple. So can BC methods. So can having 6 kids. All decisions of bringing children into a home will come with consequences that we may or may not fully anticipate. And anyone who plans on having kids will have to weigh those potential concerns and outcomes as they go. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have tried many many different ones because of all the negative side effects of everything else you mention.  They all suck in my opinion!  You are entitled to yours.  My wife agrees with me big time.  I got snipped.  Life is better now.  My wife agrees. 

Bravo for you not dumping it on your wife to take care of. Men who are okay with their wife getting sick on the pill or having painful periods with IUDs or having significant surgery with tubal ligation because they won’t lose their manhood with a little anesthesia and snip are selfish whiny wimps, imo, the very opposite of machoness.  Hopefully not as common these days as in the past. 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I hve never used one in my entire life. We have been trying to make a baby for 49 years. No joy. Paid a lot of money to some doctors too. Cherish your children. 

These kinds of conversations must be hard to read at times for you and others who want children and never got a chance, I am guessing. I wanted four and managed two and still get very baby hungry and start crying when I look at their baby pictures. It would be much sadder if I didn’t have those.  I feel very lucky even with all the problems that came with pregnancies and my daughter’s major issue (I will never have to worry about being an empty nester). I hope you have all the children you can hope for in the next life. 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Hormonal birth control can be so hard in women. We went to strictly condoms for years until I got a tubal during my last c-section (figured there were in there anyway) because I refused to deal with hormonal BC after my second. 

I think it's wrong for women to have to take birth control pills or other means other than the condom, so difficult for women IMO. 

Condoms are the way to go! 

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think it's wrong for women to have to take birth control pills or other means other than the condom, so difficult for women IMO. 

Condoms are the way to go! 

My wife had to take the pill at times just to regulate her periods to keep her from becoming anemic. 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think it's wrong for women to have to take birth control pills or other means other than the condom, so difficult for women IMO. 

Condoms are the way to go! 

Not if you want to be really sure though. Cervical caps or diaphragms with spermicide are relatively easy (though some may be sensitive to the spermicide) and have lower failure rates than condoms. Plus there is the option to do both to be super safe. 

[Tacenda]

Just now, JAHS said:

My wife had to take the pill at times just to regulate her periods to keep her from becoming anemic. 

Oh, I understand. I just should say personally, luckily I didn't have to worry about those things. Thanks for the reasons that are needed for it. I do remember friends that had to go on the pill for different reasons other than birth control in either Jr. High or High School. 

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not if you want to be really sure though. Cervical caps or diaphragms with spermicide are relatively easy (though some may be sensitive to the spermicide) and have lower failure rates than condoms. Plus there is the option to do both to be super safe. 

Yes, it isn't the end all be all. 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Tacenda

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

My wife had to take the pill at times just to regulate her periods to keep her from becoming anemic. 

My daughter used them for a short time to regulate because she has long and quite painful ones (possibly related to diabetes).  Unfortunately they just gave her one long period that pretty much never really stopped, though less painful.  She would actually like a hysterectomy at this point, but so many other things are going on she hasn’t talked about it with the doctors. She figures if she was ever able to take care of kids, she will adopt. She is in her thirties now, so I am thinking it may not be a bad idea (there is no social life for her even on the horizon at this point and her health picture is so complicated, pregnancy is not a good risk).

Edited December 30, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I hve never used one in my entire life. We have been trying to make a baby for 49 years. No joy. Paid a lot of money to some doctors too. Cherish your children. 

Thank you!  No better advise could ever be given. 

My wife and I struggled with infertility for 10 years.  We too spent lots of money with different lab procedures and surgeries for endometriosis.  We went through the emotional roller-coaster of hopes and shattered dreams.  We were told that we will likely never have children and to move on.  When we started classes for fostering, along came our first surprise.  3 years later came our second surprise.  All of those experiences make every second I have with my children that much more meaningful to me.  I am always mindful of just how precious they are, and I do cherish them.  Most of my friends kids have drivers licenses and some are graduated from high school.  Now, at 43 with 2 young special-needs children under 6, we both felt a firm confirmation that these two need all that we have.  I cherish the 2 that I have enough to know that it was time to stop.  So condoms are relatively new to me too.  I have hated every single one I used, so has my wife.  No other alternative worked for my wife.  So, here I am all snipped up and happy as a clam. 

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by pogi

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Where do you put the batteries?

You only need one of those if you use a smart condom. Yes, they exist. No, I don’t know why. They keep stats on your technique and prowess and you can share it with others because if there is one thing we really want to share…….okay, why do these exist? 

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, telnetd said:

That's what I'm asking.  When I saw the term "consequence", it implied something negative.

This may relate to Catholicism and their prohibition against birth control.  Does that still exist?

The belief was that the purpose of intercourse was making children, therefore it was considered sinful to have intercourse which was intended to avoid conception. This might have been the "negative consequence"  - the allegedly sinful spiritual consequences.  I believe this belief results from a celibate priesthood who do not understand that sex causes men and women to draw closer and emotionally strengthen their bonds, thereby adding an additional legitimate "purpose" for sex other than conceiving children, thereby not making it about pleasure alone and therefore sinful.

I believe this originated with Augustine iirc

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I believe this belief results from a celibate priesthood who do not understand that sex causes men and women to draw closer and emotionally strengthen their bonds, thereby adding an additional legitimate "purpose" for sex other than conceiving children, thereby not making it about pleasure alone and therefore sinful.

So if something is about pleasure alone it is sinful?

I didn’t get that memo. I am so damned.

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Oh, I understand. I just should say personally, luckily I didn't have to worry about those things. Thanks for the reasons that are needed for it. I do remember friends that had to go on the pill for different reasons other than birth control in either Jr. High or High School. 

To be fair the topic was birth control, not hormonal regulation, etc... 

[Meadowchik]

I appreciated the example shared in a Relief Society meeting years ago. A bishop interviews two sisters one after the other one evening. One has struggled with infertility for years and is fighting despair. The other had five children in as many years and is fighting despair, too. 

 

 

[Eschaton]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You only need one of those if you use a smart condom. Yes, they exist. No, I don’t know why. They keep stats on your technique and prowess and you can share it with others because if there is one thing we really want to share…….okay, why do these exist? 

Just don't use the Tesla version. The self drive mode will take you to places you don't want to go, and then it ends up with the battery exploding. 

[pogi]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This may relate to Catholicism and their prohibition against birth control.  Does that still exist?

The belief was that the purpose of intercourse was making children, therefore it was considered sinful to have intercourse which was intended to avoid conception. This might have been the "negative consequence"  - the allegedly sinful spiritual consequences.  I believe this belief results from a celibate priesthood who do not understand that sex causes men and women to draw closer and emotionally strengthen their bonds, thereby adding an additional legitimate "purpose" for sex other than conceiving children, thereby not making it about pleasure alone and therefore sinful.

I believe this originated with Augustine iirc

 

We had the same beliefs and prohibition exited in our church up until relatively recently.   It was based on the idea that the command to multiply and replenish the earth is still in effect.  Many grave and disturbing warnings ensued over the years.  It wasn't until 2020 that language in the handbook on vasectomy was softened.

Quote

“Amongst His earliest commands to Adam and Eve, the Lord said: ‘Multiply and replenish the earth.’ He has repeated that command in our day. He has again revealed in this, the last dispensation, the principle of the eternity of the marriage covenant. …

Quote

“The Lord has told us that it is the duty of every husband and wife to obey the command given to Adam to multiply and replenish the earth, so that the legions of choice spirits waiting for their tabernacles of flesh may come here and move forward under God’s great design to become perfect souls, for without these fleshly tabernacles they cannot progress to their God-planned destiny. Thus, every husband and wife should become a father and a mother in Israel to children born under the holy, eternal covenant” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1942, 11–12).

Quote

"Those who attempt to pervert the ways of the Lord, and to prevent their offspring from coming into the world...are guilty of one of the most heinous crimes in the category. There is no promise of eternal salvation and exaltation for such as they... " (Joseph Fielding Smith, Relief Society Magazine, 3:267-368, July 1916)

Quote

“There is one thing that I am told is practiced to some extent among us, and I say to you that where it is practiced and not thoroughly repented of the curse of God will follow it. I refer to the practice of preventing the birth of children. I want to lift my voice in solemn warning against this, and I say to you that the woman who practices such devilish arts, or the man who consents to them, will be cursed of God. Such persons will be cursed in their bodies, cursed in their minds, cursed in their property, cursed in their offspring. God will wipe them out from the midst of this people and nation. Remember it. Mothers, teach this to your daughters, for I tell you it is true. I need not pronounce any curse, whatever my authority may be, but I say to you that women who take this course, and men who consent to it, will be cursed of God Almighty, and it will rest upon them until their generation shall be blotted out, and their name shall be lost from the midst of the Saints of God, unless, as I have said, there is deep, thorough and heartfelt repentance.”  (Apostle George Q. Cannon, Collected Discourses, v. 5, October 7, 1894)

Quote

“The world teaches birth control. Tragically, many of our sisters subscribe to its pills and practices when they could easily provide earthly tabernacles for more of our Father's children. We know that every spirit assigned to this earth will come, whether through us or someone else. There are couples in the Church who think they are getting along just fine with their limited families but who will someday suffer the pains of remorse when they meet the spirits that might have been part of their posterity.”  (Prophet Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, April 1969, p. 12)

Quote

“It is contradictory to this covenant to prevent the birth of children if the parents are in good health.
“Thirty-five years ago when I first started practicing medicine, it was a rare thing for a married woman to seek advice about how she could keep from having babies. When I finished practicing medicine, it was a rare thing, except for some faithful Latter-day Saint women, for a married woman to want to have more than one or two children, and some did not want any children. We in the Church must not be caught up in the false doctrines of the world that would cause us to break sacred temple covenants.”  (Seventy J. Ballard Washington, April 1995 General Conference)

Quote

In his influential 1956 treatise Doctrines of Salvation, then apostle Joseph Fielding Smith called birth control a wickedness which leads to damnation and caused the downfall of nations. He further stated that an LDS couple that deliberately prevents themselves from having more children after their second or third child is guilty of iniquity which must be punished.

Quote

The 1958 edition of Bruce R. McConkie's popular book Mormon Doctrine stated that all those using condoms or other artificial contraception are "in rebellion against God and are guilty of gross wickedness."

Quote

The BYU Honor Code in 1968 stated that "the Church does not approve of any form of birth control."

Quote

 In 1969 the first and only First Presidency statement on birth control was released; it reemphasized that it was "contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children

Quote

Ezra Taft Benson, who became a church president. He stated that those that advocate for birth control perpetuate types of government that cause famine,  that couples should not prevent births for selfish reasons, and that a sterilization operation could "jeapordiz[e] your exaltation

Quote

As recently as 2003 a church manual was published containing a quote from the late church president Spencer W. Kimball stating that the church does not "condone nor approve of" measures of contraception which greatly "limit the family".

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

We had the same beliefs and prohibition exited in our church up until relatively recently.   It was based on the idea that the command to multiply and replenish the earth is still in effect.  Many grave and disturbing warnings ensued over the years.  It wasn't until 2020 that language in the handbook on vasectomy was softened.

 

 

 

Wow thanks!

I have only been a member for 44 years, so what do I know?

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

We had the same beliefs and prohibition exited in our church up until relatively recently.   It was based on the idea that the command to multiply and replenish the earth is still in effect.  Many grave and disturbing warnings ensued over the years.  It wasn't until 2020 that language in the handbook on vasectomy was softened.

 

 

 

I see no contradiction between these quotes and the current Handbook.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I see no contradiction between these quotes and the current Handbook.

So you think the church still upholds the teaching that if not "thoroughly repented of" using birth control will bring "the curse of God"?  That they will be cursed "in their bodies, cursed in their minds, cursed in their property, cursed in their offspring."  And that "God will wipe them out from the midst of this people and nation." And that this curse "will rest upon them until their generation shall be blotted out, and their name shall be lost from the midst of the Saints of God".

You don't think that such teachings are contrary to the message in the Handbook?

Quote

The decision about how many children to have and when to have them is extremely personal and private. It should be left between the couple and the Lord.

Would it not be contradictory for the church to try and intervene in these "personal and private" decisions which "should be left between the couple and the Lord" by putting out a First Presidency about birth control which states that it is "contrary to the teachings of the Church to curtail or prevent the birth of children".  It would be contradictory to promise that "cursing" will follow.  It would be contradictory to suggest that it is in violation of "covenant" with God and requires "deep, thorough and heartfelt repentance".  Such comments are meant to create a standard, a doctrine to follow.  They are a warning.  That is FAR FROM leaving this matter "between the couple and the Lord".  That is saying "this is the standard, follow it."  It is placing the church between the couple and the Lord. 

The current handbook is very much a deviation from previous teachings, and was meant to shut such teachings up, once and for all.  Any bishop or church leader who tried to teach such things today would be reprimanded and silenced, because such teachings are contrary to the handbook which leave it between the couple and the Lord.  

Edited December 30, 2022 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

So you think the church still upholds the teaching that if not "thoroughly repented of" using birth control will bring "the curse of God"?  That they will be cursed "in their bodies, cursed in their minds, cursed in their property, cursed in their offspring."  And that "God will wipe them out from the midst of this people and nation." And that this curse "will rest upon them until their generation shall be blotted out, and their name shall be lost from the midst of the Saints of God".

You don't think that such teachings are contrary to the message in the Handbook?

Would it not be contradictory for the church to try and intervene in these "personal and private" decisions which "should be left between the couple and the Lord" by putting out a First Presidency about birth control which states that it is "contrary to the teachings of the Church to curtail or prevent the birth of children".  It would be contradictory to promise that "cursing" will follow.  It would be contradictory to suggest that it is in violation of "covenant" with God and requires "deep, thorough and heartfelt repentance".  Such comments are meant to create a standard, a doctrine to follow.  They are a warning.  That is FAR FROM leaving this matter "between the couple and the Lord".  That is saying "this is the standard, follow it."  It is placing the church between the couple and the Lord. 

The current handbook is very much a deviation from previous teachings, and was meant to shut such teachings up, once and for all.  Any bishop or church leader who tried to teach such things today would be reprimanded and silenced, because such teachings are contrary to the handbook which leave it between the couple and the Lord.  

I said "Handbook" but I meant the “Gospel Topic” of Birth Control from the OP, where your quoted phrases correspond to the essay’s phrase, “contrary to the commandments of God.” Just stronger language, such as that used in the Family Proclamation: “the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.” Elective abortion as a method of birth control and other ways, motivations and attitudes concerning other forms and practices of birth control that disintegrate families (including downplaying the issues of physical and mental health and capacity to provide the basic necessities) are on a par in this regard. The cursing for the adversarial spirit and intent with which these things are done is just a matter of degree.

Checking the Handbook 21. Selected Church Policies and Guidelines (churchofjesuschrist.org), I found that the context for policy limits the discussion to: “should… “be left between the couple and the Lord,” “Church members should not judge one another in this matter,” and “Married couples should also understand…” So, I do not find the quotes to offered to be contrary to Gospel Topics, The Family Proclamation, or the Handbook in a practical sense.

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I said "Handbook" but I meant the “Gospel Topic” of Birth Control from the OP, where your quoted phrases correspond to the essay’s phrase, “contrary to the commandments of God.” Just stronger language, such as that used in the Family Proclamation: “the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.” Elective abortion as a method of birth control and other ways, motivations and attitudes concerning other forms and practices of birth control that disintegrate families (including downplaying the issues of physical and mental health and capacity to provide the basic necessities) are on a par in this regard. The cursing for the adversarial spirit and intent with which these things are done is just a matter of degree.

Checking the Handbook 21. Selected Church Policies and Guidelines (churchofjesuschrist.org), I found that the context for policy limits the discussion to: “should… “be left between the couple and the Lord,” “Church members should not judge one another in this matter,” and “Married couples should also understand…” So, I do not find the quotes to offered to be contrary to Gospel Topics, The Family Proclamation, or the Handbook in a practical sense.

The Gospel Topics article states the same thing as the Handbook:

Quote

The decision of how many children to have and when to have them is a private matter for the husband and wife.

The only thing the Gospel Topics article specifically mentions as contrary to the commandments of God is "abortion" as a form of birth control.   

Anything above and beyond that is a contradiction and is overly invasive/influential in these "extremely personal and private" matters.  For the church to create a blanket standard on all birth control is not leaving the matter between the couple and the Lord. It is taking the matter in their own hands and warning its members of consequences for not following the church's standard.   That is a contradiction to the Gospel Topics essay and the Handbook.  

For anyone to think that those quotes are in harmony with the current teachings of the church, makes me vomit a little in my mouth. 

Do you agree that if some of those quotes were repeated by leaders today, they would be reprimanded and silenced?

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The Gospel Topics article states the same thing as the Handbook:

The only thing the Gospel Topics article specifically mentions as contrary to the commandments of God is "abortion" as a form of birth control.   

Anything above and beyond that is a contradiction and is overly invasive/influential in these "extremely personal and private" matters.  For the church to create a blanket standard on all birth control is not leaving the matter between the couple and the Lord. It is taking the matter in their own hands and warning its members of consequences for not following the church's standard.   That is a contradiction to the Gospel Topics essay and the Handbook.  

For anyone to think that those quotes are in harmony with the current teachings of the church, makes me vomit a little in my mouth. 

Do you agree that if some of those quotes were repeated by leaders today, they would be reprimanded and silenced?

 

The four sources agree in principle, their various forms of style, presentation and expression notwithstanding.

The commonality I see between “elective abortion” from the article and other forms of birth control from the “Handbook” (and "abortion" elsewhere in the Handbook, discussed in another thread I believe) is the consequence of “disintegration of the family” from the Proclamation. I think the best comparison between “then” and “now” would use proclamation-, handbook- and essay-like presentations of doctrine and policy from the respective time periods.

Are you suggesting a Church leader would repeat or otherwise use out-of-date speech and oratory techniques with a modern audience*, when we have the Proclamation, the Handbook and the Gospel Topics article? If so, are you asking about a “Brad Wilcox” type of reprimand and silencing or something stronger – however severe (the censuring/censoring or your vomiting!), I have no serious opinion on that.

*ETA: this reminds me of Elder Holland's musket analogy: he carefully described its historical origins and interpreted it for the modern audience, and not as a policy speech but to encourage university personnel to share his sense of moral responsibility.

Edited December 31, 2022 by CV75

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Just don't use the Tesla version. The self drive mode will take you to places you don't want to go, and then it ends up with the battery exploding. 

The destination may involve a burn ward but trust me: The journey is worth it.

Edited December 31, 2022 by The Nehor

[pogi]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

The four sources agree in principle, their various forms of style, presentation and expression notwithstanding.

The commonality I see between “elective abortion” from the article and other forms of birth control from the “Handbook” (and "abortion" elsewhere in the Handbook, discussed in another thread I believe) is the consequence of “disintegration of the family” from the Proclamation. I think the best comparison between “then” and “now” would use proclamation-, handbook- and essay-like presentations of doctrine and policy from the respective time periods.

Are you suggesting a Church leader would repeat or otherwise use out-of-date speech and oratory techniques with a modern audience*, when we have the Proclamation, the Handbook and the Gospel Topics article? If so, are you asking about a “Brad Wilcox” type of reprimand and silencing or something stronger – however severe (the censuring/censoring or your vomiting!), I have no serious opinion on that.

*ETA: this reminds me of Elder Holland's musket analogy: he carefully described its historical origins and interpreted it for the modern audience, and not as a policy speech but to encourage university personnel to share his sense of moral responsibility.

I am not talking about "various forms of style, presentation and expression".  I am talking about the principles and standards set forth in the different sources from yesteryear and today. 

The church would never set up a principle/standard on birth control to follow, which places itself between the couple and the Lord in these decisions, like it did in the past. 

To dismiss the differences in principles and standards they taught as mere differences in "style, presentation and expression" is really troubling and leads the modern couple to believe that any use of contraceptive is against the commandments of God and a violation of covenant.  That is not ok.  It is time to accept that the brethren are fallible and stop defending every single word they ever said.  What they said was wrong.  Period.  Accept it and move on.  To try and reconcile everything would suggest that they were correct in principle when they said that all contraceptive is a violation of God's commandments.   That is false doctrine.

Edited December 31, 2022 by pogi