Birth control

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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.

I don't take your quotes (which aren't formal proclamations or policy anyway, and not comparing apples to apples) to refer to any/all uses, any/all forms or any/all circumstances. There is always a setting for these kinds of instructions, and context (which you seem to conflate with reconciliation). The prophets taught/teach true principles and the couples in Zion governed/govern themselves. We know there are always exceptions and flexibilities as the Lord guides our paths through the words of the prophets. This is why you can complete the principle and say, "all contraception is a violation of God's commandments" when [fill in the blank]. Or not, when [fill in the blank]." Some couples take longer to learn this than others, but that's life today just as it was 200 years ago.

It seems you feel strongly about combating the effects of Church leaders' fallibility and defending their errors, but I'm sure you must have more current and practical examples from your personal experience with which to examine these principles. I don't see their fallibility and error at play on this general topic. No need for all the shoe banging.

[telnetd]

On 12/30/2022 at 4:29 AM, mfbukowski said:

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

Yes.  https://www.catholic.com/tract/birth-control

But I don't think sex for pleasure only is a sin for married couples.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

he prophets taught/teach true principles and the couples in Zion governed/govern themselves. We know there are always exceptions and flexibilities as the Lord guides our paths through the words of the prophets. This is why you can complete the principle and say, "all contraception is a violation of God's commandments" when [fill in the blank]. Or not, when [fill in the blank]." Some couples take longer to learn this than others, but that's life today just as it was 200 years ago.

But it wasn’t the couples teaching this, but prophets; so by your description this below is a true principle, correct?

Quote

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. 

Even if one assumes he would allow for exceptions instead of assuming it was the Will of God to send a child to a sick woman no matter what happens to the mother or child or insisting abstinence is the only birth control allowed (not sure he even allows for that as that is preventing the birth of children), for example, you appear to be okay with the very rare exception that might be allowed in his view becoming today’s standard rule.  How does that work? (Serious question as your reasoning isn’t clear, it is too abstract for me)

Edited December 31, 2022 by Calm

[JAHS]

Quote

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. 

This quote was from an Apostle back in 1894.  Personally I have not seen any of the cursing going on that he said would happen for couples that practice birth control. They have not been wiped out from the midst of this people and nation. I think it was more of a scare tactic to get the members to not do such things. 
The general idea of birth control for convenience sake is something God does not approve of. But over time both the members and prophets learn line upon line about such things and latter-day revelation brings about changes that make it more clear and applicable to the conditions and abilities of the people in our time. 
Issues like polygamy and the word of wisdom have also undergone changes over time according to God's will. 

 

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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. 

 

 

So the answer is people should decide how many children they should have and nobody and no church should pretend that they know what some god may want.  Butt out.  Get out of my bedroom and my life. I feel for those who want children and cannot. But that does not mean that those who can need to breed like rabbits.  We have four children and wanted each.  We could have had more because we both seemed pretty fertile and every time we wanted to have a baby we were able to do so.  Would we have had 4 children without the Church influence?  I have no idea.  The 4th one was a late one but we wanted her.  The youngest of the first three is 9 years older.  So a big gap.  I sure am glad we have our number 4 child.  She is a delight not at 27 years old but she gave us hell up till about 23.  I did pressure my wife for a fourth one because I thought God had another spirit to send to us. It took two years to persuade her.

[Teancum]

23 hours 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.

Another issue on which God could not seem to get it straight with his so called prophets.  Either the earlier teaching were wrong, or they are correct and the current leaders are wrong. Another feather in my cap on why LDS leaders are pretty worthless for life issue directions and we are best left to make our own decisions.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

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

🤣🤣

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Another issue on which God could not seem to get it straight with his so called prophets.  Either the earlier teaching were wrong, or they are correct and the current leaders are wrong. Another feather in my cap on why LDS leaders are pretty worthless for life issue directions and we are best left to make our own decisions.

Or, maybe sometimes what was right for some generations isn't right for all generations.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don't take your quotes (which aren't formal proclamations or policy anyway, and not comparing apples to apples) to refer to any/all uses, any/all forms or any/all circumstances.

Apples and oranges or not, you have stated that there is no contradiction in principle between these different sources.  In principle, you are suggesting that the core messages are apples and apples.  Are you backing out of your claim, or are you going to try and defend your claim that they are principally the same message?

Many of the quotes leave no room for exceptions:

Quote

When a man and a woman are married and they agree, or covenant, to limit their offspring to two or three, and practice devices to accomplish this purpose, they are guilty of iniquity which eventually must be punished…

Others leave only extremely limited room for exception:  

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.

That is the standard the church upheld.  That is the official and formal letter/message that the First Presidency signed off on and sent to all Bishops and Stake Presidents. 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

There is always a setting for these kinds of instructions,

No.  There is no room for this type of instruction in today's church.  None.  

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The prophets taught/teach true principles and the couples in Zion governed/govern themselves.

They don't always teach true principles.  They are fallible.  They have made mistakes.  

To suggest that these old teachings are "true principles", which create a standard to follow, then that is invasively getting between the couple and the Lord. 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

We know there are always exceptions and flexibilities as the Lord guides our paths through the words of the prophets. 

The point I am making, and which you seem to acknowledge here is that the prophets were indeed trying to "guide our paths" in relation to birth control.  That is contrary to current instructions.  Any bishop or stake president who attempted to uphold a general standard that birth control is condemned by the church, with very few exceptions - they would be reprimanded by the church.  such teachings are a violation and contradiction of current policy which leaves such matters between the couple and the Lord. 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

It seems you feel strongly about combating the effects of Church leaders' fallibility and defending their errors, but I'm sure you must have more current and practical examples from your personal experience with which to examine these principles. I don't see their fallibility and error at play on this general topic. No need for all the shoe banging.

I disagree.  I know for a fact that these teachings (which you claim are true in principle) are still alive and well and influential in the church today.  So many members refuse to acknowledge the mistakes of previous leaders.  It makes it more difficult when the church won't acknowledge when they made mistakes.  It leaves members to try and reconcile old teachings with new teachings, without dismissing out-right false teachings from the past.  I know several families from different wards who believe that birth control is against the commandments of God and have 12-14 children because of it.  I have personally felt back-lash and shame from my own family when they found out that I received a vasectomy.  Thick shame.  Not cool. 

When will the influence of these false principles/teachings ever be overcome when people like you insist that they are true and consistent with teachings of the church today?  What you are doing is reinforcing their influence. 

Edited December 31, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Another issue on which God could not seem to get it straight with his so called prophets.  Either the earlier teaching were wrong, or they are correct and the current leaders are wrong. Another feather in my cap on why LDS leaders are pretty worthless for life issue directions and we are best left to make our own decisions.

The problem I have with this approach is that it is just as black and white as those who pretend that everything the prophets say is God's will, but on the opposite extreme of "pretty worthless"  I don't find that helpful at all because there is no perfect man on earth.  Where will you turn for instruction?   We all make mistakes.   Should we dismiss all instruction from outside sources as "pretty much worthless" because they have all made mistakes in the past?  No, we don't need to dismiss all counsel of wise and often inspired men/women, as "pretty worthless" because they make mistakes.  

 

Edited December 31, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think it was more of a scare tactic to get the members to not do such things. 

You don’t think he believed it when he said it?

Quote

But over time both the members and prophets learn line upon line about such things and latter-day revelation brings about changes that make it more clear and applicable to the conditions and abilities of the people in our time. 

Yes, this. (Assuming you mean the same thing by “convenience” as I do  )

Edited December 31, 2022 by Calm

[Teancum]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Or, maybe sometimes what was right for some generations isn't right for all generations.

Or not.  But this is what many active members need to do to make it work for them.  Why would birth control by taboo for ever and not a ok? Your prophets direct you based on social trends though they run 20 or 30 year behind.  And birth control is just one of dozens of examples. They seem to get so much wrong. You can do quite fine without them.  I promise you, life is much more enjoyable without having to comply with men who clearly are no more in tune with some god than you or I are.

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

The problem I have with this approach is that it is just as black and white as those who view everything the prophets say as God's will, but on the opposite extreme.  I don't find that helpful at all because there is no perfect man on earth.  Where will you turn for instruction?   We all make mistakes.   Should we dismiss all instruction from outside sources as "pretty much worthless" because they have all made mistakes in the past?  No, we don't need to dismiss the counsel of wise and often inspired men/women, because they make mistakes.  

 

I now refuse to live my life based on what so called prophets and apostles say.  And you above all here should understand the issue of follow the brethren vs making your own decision.  These men have no more insight than you do or than I do.  I will live my life based on human ethics and morals.  I do not need someone who pretends god is telling them what to do and thus telling me what to do to live my life.  MIstakes are ok.  But how many from those who claim to speak fo God and tell us we need to follow them? But your LDS leader have a history of so many mistakes.  They are pretty much useless.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Or not.  But this is what many active members need to do to make it work for them.  Why would birth control by taboo for ever and not a ok? Your prophets direct you based on social trends though they run 20 or 30 year behind.  And birth control is just one of dozens of examples. They seem to get so much wrong. You can do quite fine without them.  I promise you, life is much more enjoyable without having to comply with men who clearly are no more in tune with some god than you or I are.

It's just as easy (and just as valid) to say that your "LDS leaders are pretty worthless for life issue directions" claim is what you need to do to make your new beliefs work for you though.

My only point is that "all or nothing" is not the only option.  It's the only option that seems to work for you right now so I can see why you consistently land there, but it's not the only option available to choose from.

And no disrespect in any way, but to the bold, you have not presented on here as someone who has a lot of happiness or peace in their life.  I don't think that you can promise me a more enjoyable life than what I have right now.

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

You don’t think he believed it when he said it?

I don't know if he really believed it or not, but such a proclamation seems a bit over the top even for the prophets at that time. Perhaps He was referring to the end times and the second coming when the wicked will be burned. 

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

Yes.  https://www.catholic.com/tract/birth-control

But I don't think sex for pleasure only is a sin for married couples.

It’s not.  

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I now refuse to live my life based on what so called prophets and apostles say.  And you above all here should understand the issue of follow the brethren vs making your own decision.  These men have no more insight than you do or than I do.  I will live my life based on human ethics and morals.  I do not need someone who pretends god is telling them what to do and thus telling me what to do to live my life.  MIstakes are ok.  But how many from those who claim to speak fo God and tell us we need to follow them? But your LDS leader have a history of so many mistakes.  They are pretty much useless.

Ultimately, I agree with you that we have to make our own decisions and practice our own spiritual discernment, and not just follow blindly and take their word for it.  That is actually something the prophets have taught me.   In regards to the bold - I have been uplifted, taught, edified and inspired enough by these good men to know that they often have more insight than I do.  Practically speaking, I have tested many seeds and know they are good.  I will forever be grateful for those seeds and the fruit they bear.  I will give credit where credit is due.   I have much to learn from them.   I think it is unwise to think that we have nothing to learn from other perspectives, even when we disagree with them on occasion. 

Can you show me leaders from any organization/institution that is 200 years old or older without "many mistakes"?   Should we dismiss all instruction from these institutions as "pretty much worthless/useless"? 

Edited December 31, 2022 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Another issue on which God could not seem to get it straight with his so called prophets.  Either the earlier teaching were wrong, or they are correct and the current leaders are wrong. Another feather in my cap on why LDS leaders are pretty worthless for life issue directions and we are best left to make our own decisions.

Which is what they teach. Get your own testimony.

I don't know where you get this stuff.  It is no longer 1850.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I don't know if he really believed it or not, but such a proclamation seems a bit over the top even for the prophets at that time. Perhaps He was referring to the end times and the second coming when the wicked will be burned. 

That is what I have always assumed, a spiritual cursing and the loss of posterity eternally.

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You can do quite fine without them.  I promise you, life is much more enjoyable without having to comply with men who clearly are no more in tune with some god than you or I are.

So sad that you were apparently taught this kind of nonsense.

Moroni 10:4+

Alma 32.

You don't see one iota of the sweetness available. Please try to see it in a new way.  Your way is the total opposite of the joy I feel knowing God loves me and wants to gently guide me.

I hope you will see the light and not only darkness. I think you and I are much alike, yet see it from different perspectives.

I see the whole idea of getting one's own testimony as a breath of fresh air.  I do nothing just because some earth bound person tells me; everything must come from God, or fergitaboutit.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

But it wasn’t the couples teaching this, but prophets; so by your description this below is a true principle, correct?

Even if one assumes he would allow for exceptions instead of assuming it was the Will of God to send a child to a sick woman no matter what happens to the mother or child or insisting abstinence is the only birth control allowed (not sure he even allows for that as that is preventing the birth of children), for example, you appear to be okay with the very rare exception that might be allowed in his view becoming today’s standard rule.  How does that work? (Serious question as your reasoning isn’t clear, it is too abstract for me)

Yes, it is a true principle, and given the black-and-whiteness with which some interpret these kinds of instructions, he said, “I say to you that where it is [always – not sometimes] practiced and not thoroughly repented of the curse of God will follow it. I refer to the practice of [always – not sometimes] 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 [always – not sometimes] practices such devilish arts [i.e., for devilish purposes], 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.” I don’t see this "standard rule" presenting any more of a problem for them than for those who had a more contextual understanding of the prophets’' messages. Of today, for that matter, but we express ourselves differently today.

Given that there are so many other associated guiding principles for inspired decision-making that are not included with every instruction (and who knows what else he said on this particular occasion that applies), the “standard rule” is the same today as in George Q. Cannon’s.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Apples and oranges or not, you have stated that there is no contradiction in principle between these different sources.  In principle, you are suggesting that the core messages are apples and apples.  Are you backing out of your claim, or are you going to try and defend your claim that they are principally the same message?

Many of the quotes leave no room for exceptions:

Others leave only extremely limited room for exception:  

That is the standard the church upheld.  That is the official and formal letter/message that the First Presidency signed off on and sent to all Bishops and Stake Presidents. 

No.  There is no room for this type of instruction in today's church.  None.  

They don't always teach true principles.  They are fallible.  They have made mistakes.  

To suggest that these old teachings are "true principles", which create a standard to follow, then that is invasively getting between the couple and the Lord. 

The point I am making, and which you seem to acknowledge here is that the prophets were indeed trying to "guide our paths" in relation to birth control.  That is contrary to current instructions.  Any bishop or stake president who attempted to uphold a general standard that birth control is condemned by the church, with very few exceptions - they would be reprimanded by the church.  such teachings are a violation and contradiction of current policy which leaves such matters between the couple and the Lord. 

I disagree.  I know for a fact that these teachings (which you claim are true in principle) are still alive and well and influential in the church today.  So many members refuse to acknowledge the mistakes of previous leaders.  It makes it more difficult when the church won't acknowledge when they made mistakes.  It leaves members to try and reconcile old teachings with new teachings, without dismissing out-right false teachings from the past.  I know several families from different wards who believe that birth control is against the commandments of God and have 12-14 children because of it.  I have personally felt back-lash and shame from my own family when they found out that I received a vasectomy.  Thick shame.  Not cool. 

When will the influence of these false principles/teachings ever be overcome when people like you insist that they are true and consistent with teachings of the church today?  What you are doing is reinforcing their influence. 

My short answer is the same as here: Posted just now

If you are concerned over how folks interpret and practice the Family Proclamation, Gospel Topics, the Handbook and past statements in their lives today, be their friend. If you are concerned over how they react to your interpretations and practices of the same references, be their friend.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, it is a true principle, and given the black-and-whiteness with which some interpret these kinds of instructions, he said, “I say to you that where it is [always – not sometimes] practiced and not thoroughly repented of the curse of God will follow it. I refer to the practice of [always – not sometimes] 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 [always – not sometimes] practices such devilish arts [i.e., for devilish purposes], 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.” I don’t see this "standard rule" presenting any more of a problem for them than for those who had a more contextual understanding of the prophets’' messages. Of today, for that matter, but we express ourselves differently today.

Given that there are so many other associated guiding principles for inspired decision-making that are not included with every instruction (and who knows what else he said on this particular occasion that applies), the “standard rule” is the same today as in George Q. Cannon’s.

I think you are so reading into that by believing he meant they were condemned only if they always used birth control and was okay with couples using birth control sometimes.  Have you read the history of birth control and the reactions to it back then?

[Pyreaux]

On 12/29/2022 at 11:47 AM, 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?

As a Libertarian, I often think of what morality is and whether morality should be made law. My fellow church members are Libertarian sleepers who trap themselves into presuming that because; the church is against members taking drugs, they must then vote for laws against drugs. They are presuming they are obligated to support laws that are for people's own good even if it's against their wills. Forgetting the principle of Agency, they are not thinking of the consequences other historic prohibitions that merely increased demand creating a black market and creating a new criminal class that were once and otherwise law abiding. Ending prohibition was not to say it was never vice, there were simply worse consequences to making it a law. 

Concerning morality, there are somethings that are wrong but left unwritten, "It is not meet that I should command in all things.” (D&C 58:26-29) Just because caffeine is not written in the Word of Wisdom, does not mean it is not wisdom to abstain from it. Just because you do what you feel is appropriate, doesn't mean it's always appropriate, "The right thing to do is to avoid... doing anything... that makes your brother stumble, upset, or weak." (Romans 14:21). Inversely, just because it is wise to avoid caffeinated soda, the Bishop of Hong Kong was wrong to withhold temple recommends from those who've drank caffeinated soda. Requiring of Elder Monson to go down there to meet him, whip out a Pepsi, take a sip, and then ask, "What seems to be the problem here?"

It's been to my knowledge Church policy for at least a decade or two, that Bishops stay out of the bedroom. In the words of my Bishop when counseling, "I teach correct principles and let the people govern themselves". Though other Bishops have gone beyond policy, that is not to say that council of the Bishop or Prophet, though no enforceable or condemnable, can't still be morally correct opinions.

Nature's purpose of life is to procreate. The fundamental purpose for sex is procreation, pleasure from procreating is just nature's enticement to... procreate. The chemical bonds formed during sex creates unity of the couple and ensures survival. God's purpose for humanity is to rule earth and bring righteous order to nature (till the ground, expand the garden, Temple building); and on the same hand, the only way to dominate the earth is to multiply the royal temple builders and scatter them, the earth is made to be inhabited. It's both unnatural and religiously immoral to squander the creation of new humans, every sperm is sacred, each full of potential that becomes lost. Just because it is not morally correct, it does not mean you are condemned, and a bishop should not mind his business in the bedroom. Though there could indeed be lesser consequences that might not be considered... "...Don't forget me...."

It may not be a great tragedy for a Pre-mortal spirit to be held back because of an individual's selfishness, and no one may ever condemn you, but there still might be unknown consequences for leaving tasks unfulfilled that we were foreordained to fulfill, the loss of things that might have been.

Edited January 1, 2023 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

An argument from “My Turn on Earth”. This is getting weird.