Birth control

[Rain]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

"The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet."  (Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, Ezra Taft Benson, 1980)

What was said in the past was right for those people at that time. What the prophet says now is for us in our time. 

I get that concept.  I don't believe it was any more wicked and sinful for people in those times as it is now. I think it's wrong to say that a woman who is struggling with health and already dealing with 10 kids is practicing a devilish art if she tries to prevent another child coming just because she lived at the time that was said.

[JAHS]

33 minutes ago, Rain said:

I get that concept.  I don't believe it was any more wicked and sinful for people in those times as it is now. I think it's wrong to say that a woman who is struggling with health and already dealing with 10 kids is practicing a devilish art if she tries to prevent another child coming just because she lived at the time that was said.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following in 1916:

"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)

Contrast this to what President Joseph F. Smith said 8 years earlier in October, 1908 in The Improvement Era:

"In a general way, and as a rule, the answer to this question is an emphatic negative. I do not
hesitate to say that prevention is wrong. It brings in its train a host of social evils. It destroys
the morals of a community and nation. It creates hatred and selfishness in the hearts of men
and women, and perverts their natural qualities of love and service, changing them to hate
and aversion. It causes death, decay, and degeneration instead of life and growth, and
advancement. And finally, it disregards or annuls the great commandment of God to man,
'Multiply and replenish the earth.'
I am now speaking of the normally healthy man and woman. But that there are weak and
sickly people who in wisdom, discretion and common sense should be counted as exceptions, only strengthens the general rule. "

He said this only 14 years after what an Apostle George Q Cannon said about the "devilish art". How do we know that Elder Cannon and Joseph Fielding Smith would not agree with what president Joseph F. Smith said regarding the health of the mother? From what references I have read it seems that the warnings and cursings are only directed at healthy individuals.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

I'm no Jordan Peterson expert, but what exactly did he mean? Or did you only read the critical headlines? Does he mean the willingness to push youths into unnecessary surgery is a fervor comparable to occultic mutilation? It's entirely possible for one to be both pro-trans and be critical of the industries that have been pushing surgical transitions with a questionable obsession equal to their conflict of interest, like money they'd make.

Jordan Peterson's popularity has come from the fact that people always mischaracterize what he says.

   

No, it comes from him telling some people what they want to hear. Itching ears and all that. People might mock someone they disagree with but it doesn’t make them popular.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Saying that a woman needs to repent about the "devilish art" or wickedness of using birth control is not content and style.  It is literally saying she has sinned/committed iniquity and will be punished for it.  It is totally about different principles because instead of saying to council with the Lord if it is right for you or not it aligns the woman and her husband with the devil.

 

Those are two separate messages, both valid in principle whether delivered in isolation or joined. Elder Cannon's quote focuses on the first principle, delivered in a content and style that posters are reminding me they find offensive and wrong. But the second principle was known and practiced among the saints in everyday living, and probably brought up by leaders from time to time, whether in isolation or in connection with other principles being taught.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Honestly if you do not understand what the LDS CHurch leaders have taught and do teach about following what they say I hardly know what to think.Would you like to explore this a bit?  I Have a great podcast for you to listen to if you are interested.

 

I am quite familiar with these passages.  How do they dispute the idea of follow the brethren and the  prophet and that message being emphasized over and over again?  Moroni 10:4 is there for the BoM and praying about it specifically.  Yes I now the part about the HG and knowing the truth of all things. 

 

You assume like others here that I have no joy.  My life is actually more joyful without having to plug into a god which may not even be there.

Perhaps we are. I would love to talk about these things with you in person.

I am glad that give you joy and happiness.

I will seriously consider it; but it is irrelevant to me what ANY MAN says; I only care what God says to me. I have looked at every philosophy mankind has come up with in the last 2500 years and this is the only one, with my interpretations, that even makes sense: I believe the Covenant Path represents the best paradigm HUMANITY has developed, with God being the "Chief Human".

I have been through atheism, Christian and Buddhism, and on the edge of others and have incorporated them all into my views; I think GA's have no special links to God we don't all have; if anything they are simply more experienced at listening to the spirit.

I will be in touch.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following in 1916:

"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)

Contrast this to what President Joseph F. Smith said 8 years earlier in October, 1908 in The Improvement Era:

"In a general way, and as a rule, the answer to this question is an emphatic negative. I do not
hesitate to say that prevention is wrong. It brings in its train a host of social evils. It destroys
the morals of a community and nation. It creates hatred and selfishness in the hearts of men
and women, and perverts their natural qualities of love and service, changing them to hate
and aversion. It causes death, decay, and degeneration instead of life and growth, and
advancement. And finally, it disregards or annuls the great commandment of God to man,
'Multiply and replenish the earth.'
I am now speaking of the normally healthy man and woman. But that there are weak and
sickly people who in wisdom, discretion and common sense should be counted as exceptions, only strengthens the general rule. "

He said this only 14 years after what an Apostle George Q Cannon said about the "devilish art". How do we know that Elder Cannon and Joseph Fielding Smith would not agree with what president Joseph F. Smith said regarding the health of the mother?

We don't know that they would agree either.   

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

From what references I have read it seems that the warnings and cursings are only directed at healthy individuals.

I specifically quoted the quotes above that did not allow for exceptions for those that are unwell.  To be honest I didn't read the content around those quotes so I don't know the context.  If I were looking at it for myself or to help others who are asking I would.  So if the content and context are different than the quotes themselves say I will take them back.

But if the quotes stand then I don't think we can say that only those unwell have exceptions. I think that it is still truly between the couple and God in those times. None of us can know if one more child will now put that woman and family at risk and to tell someone that they are sinning and need to repent when the Lord might have told them "you are healthy, but if you have one more child it will cause you to be unhealthy and unable to take care of your children" is not good.  Or if the Lord encourages them from having more because he knows that some of the children will starve because they won't have enough feed them all.  

The fact of the matter is that every family is different and will have different breaking points and this cannot always be predicted before the woman starts to show she is unwell. To tell people they are sinning unless they are showing that breaking point ignores that we have different gifts and talents and presents God as someone cruel. 

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by Rain

[Rain]

56 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Those are two separate messages, both valid in principle whether delivered in isolation or joined.

Yes.  I used both knowing they were different quotes from different people, but they both showed what I was trying to say.  I might have used more, but felt 2 was sufficient. 

56 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Elder Cannon's quote focuses on the first principle, delivered in a content and style that posters are reminding me they find offensive and wrong.

In this context I don't care at all about his "style".  I care about the actual content.  The content that says people are sinning.  That is NOT a style choice.  A church leader telling all those he leads that they have to repent for the sin of preventing children is like a church leader saying all those he leads need to repent for not reading 10 chapters of the Book of Mormon every night or not going to the temple all day long every day.

 

 

56 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But the second principle was known and practiced among the saints in everyday living, and probably brought up by leaders from time to time, whether in isolation or in connection with other principles being taught.

And has the same problems I mentioned above.

[JAHS]

40 minutes ago, Rain said:

We don't know that they would agree either.   

I specifically quoted the quotes above that did not allow for exceptions for those that are unwell.  To be honest I didn't read the content around those quotes so I don't know the context.  If I were looking at it for myself or to help others who are asking I would.  So if the content and context are different than the quotes themselves say I will take them back.

But if the quotes stand then I don't think we can say that only those unwell have exceptions. I think that it is still truly between the couple and God in those times. None of us can know if one more child will now put that woman and family at risk and to tell someone that they are sinning and need to repent when the Lord might have told them "you are healthy, but if you have one more child it will cause you to be unhealthy and unable to take care of your children" is not good.  Or if the Lord encourages them from having more because he knows that some of the children will starve because they won't have enough feed them all.  

The fact of the matter is that every family is different and will have different breaking points and this cannot always be predicted before the woman starts to show she is unwell. To tell people they are sinning unless they are showing that breaking point ignores that we have different gifts and talents and presents God as someone cruel. 

 

The problem with quote mining is that we don't have everything a particular church leader said about a certain subject. I just don't see it as fair to base our judgment on people or a certain church teaching based on a few obscure quotes made over a hundred years ago. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following in 1916:

"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)

Contrast this to what President Joseph F. Smith said 8 years earlier in October, 1908 in The Improvement Era:

"In a general way, and as a rule, the answer to this question is an emphatic negative. I do not
hesitate to say that prevention is wrong. It brings in its train a host of social evils. It destroys
the morals of a community and nation. It creates hatred and selfishness in the hearts of men
and women, and perverts their natural qualities of love and service, changing them to hate
and aversion. It causes death, decay, and degeneration instead of life and growth, and
advancement. And finally, it disregards or annuls the great commandment of God to man,
'Multiply and replenish the earth.'
I am now speaking of the normally healthy man and woman. But that there are weak and
sickly people who in wisdom, discretion and common sense should be counted as exceptions, only strengthens the general rule. "

He said this only 14 years after what an Apostle George Q Cannon said about the "devilish art". How do we know that Elder Cannon and Joseph Fielding Smith would not agree with what president Joseph F. Smith said regarding the health of the mother? From what references I have read it seems that the warnings and cursings are only directed at healthy individuals.

Can you please link to where you got the quotes from as it may help in finding greater context.

[Rain]

44 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The problem with quote mining is that we don't have everything a particular church leader said about a certain subject. I just don't see it as fair to base our judgment on people or a certain church teaching based on a few obscure quotes made over a hundred years ago. 

I didn't quote mine.  I used quotes that others brought up here.  I didn't judge the people who said the quotes.  I specifically allowed for the idea that I don't have the context and was willing to change my thoughts if the context were brought forth and the quotes meant something different.

You, however, brought up that those teachings were for the people in those times.  That was where the problem lay with my reply to you. IF those quotes say what the context would show as well then I don't see how we can be ok with what was said. 

Yes, I think that God feels some at some times are sinning when they prevent children. Certainly if God said to a couple "have a child" and they say "no way.  We want to travel" then they are sinning.  But that has so much more to do with selfishness and disobedience.  There are just way too many family circumstances for us to be ok with the idea that any time someone in the past used birth control even allowing for ill health of the mom that they were sinning, doing devilish art and needed to repent or be punished.  

Edited January 2, 2023 by Rain

[pogi]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

From what references I have read it seems that the warnings and cursings are only directed at healthy individuals.

Healthy or not, these teachings were still really horrible.  Are you convinced these teachings/cursings were based on revelation?  What revelation?  Where is it?  It seems that all of these harsh teachings/cursings were based purely on interpretation of scripture - specifically the command to multiply and replenish the earth.   It is extremely reminiscent of old and out-dated biblical justification and harsh teachings/cursings regarding black people.  Their harsh words were not true then, and they are not true today.  I feel the same false spirit when I read these old teachings on birth-control.  It feels wrong.  There is no revelatory justification for it. Just old and out-dated interpretations of scriptures that we do not believe today.  

There was no revelation revealed to, and accepted by, the general membership through common consent to make any law/cursing regarding birth-control binding on the saints.   It simply doesn't exist.  This was all based on conjecture/interpretation or there would be a revelation accepted by common consent to make the law/curse of birth-control binding.  Because there is no known law/revelation to back up such teachings/cursing, there was no revelation needed to reverse policy on birth-control.     I don't think God changed with the times.  I think we did.   We changed to better align with God's will of a less intrusive/invasive church.

Healthy couples or not, the cursings were hollow threats made up by man.  Nothing binding on the church via common consent. 

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by pogi

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

I didn't quote mine.  I used quotes that others brought up here.

Doesn't matter if it was you or someone else it is still quote mining and may not reflect an Apostle's entire opinion on the subject. They do not specifically say it is not OK to use poor health as an excuse to not have children.  I just don't want to judge the entire Church or past leaders on only a few things they said that were recorded.
And maybe it is what the saints at that time needed to hear, but in my opinion we just don't have all the information that we can refer to.
Also I think some of those very early past church leaders had a tendency to be a little harsh in the way they said things. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

That's the thing I'm seeing play out in this thread: fretting over how Church communication (content and style but not basic principle) changed since 1850 to promote living a more enlightened life than their fallibility allows is like fretting over how it will change after I am dead.

Someone once brought up in our class the fact that Church leaders make mistakes, but when I asked for examples and names, they wouldn't share. The class thought I was joking, which I kind of was. But why does social propriety take such priority over speaking one's truth? (Answer: either they realize their truth isn't worth the risk, or they know they can't express themselves acceptably). And maybe it was a social faux pas that I asked for examples!

I can't imagine this coming up in a class. Hereabouts it's all faith promoting in church, outside it may be different. The wariness comes from visitors and investigators and missionaries in class, and members who have never heard of such criticism. But the culture is different in Utah;it is not odd to be LDS and others is even a newspaper dedicated to criticizing the church.

Can you imagine an anti-Jewish newspaper in New York? Or a musical making fun any religion being the #1 successful musical?

We lived in SLC for a year, and were not happy with the culture.  I feel like church should be at least one place you should not have to defend the church.

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

IF those quotes say what the context would show as well then I don't see how we can be ok with what was said. 

I can.

No living human is perfect and it is time some of us grew up.

It is the paradigm that matters, not what some children of God say in their immaturity in not understanding the big picture.

This notion of earthly humans  being perfect has to go.  It is fundamentalism at its worst.

 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

I get that concept.  I don't believe it was any more wicked and sinful for people in those times as it is now. I think it's wrong to say that a woman who is struggling with health and already dealing with 10 kids is practicing a devilish art if she tries to prevent another child coming just because she lived at the time that was said.

Why would she be struggling? That would be ten additional workers.

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

can.

No living human is perfect and it is time some of us grew up.

 

You can reject/not be okay with something someone in the past said without rejecting the person who said it.

———-

What do you mean by “time some of us grew up”?  Are you speaking to those trying to make old teachings congruent with current understanding rather than just saying a past leader made a mistake or wasn’t clear in a teaching or to someone else?

I can’t tell if you are telling Rain to grow up or not and if you are, you need to be more explicit about why.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I can.

No living human is perfect and it is time some of us grew up.

 

You are totally misreading me if you think anything I said was against leaders and expecting them to be perfect.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It is the paradigm that matters, not what some children of God say in their immaturity in not understanding the big picture.

Exactly.  Which is why I struggle with the paradigm spoken about.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This notion of earthly humans  being perfect has to go.  It is fundamentalism at its worst.

 

This makes me wonder if you even read what I wrote.

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by Rain

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

 

You are totally misreading me if you think anything O said was against leaders and expecting them to be perfect.

Exactly.  Which is why I struggle with the paradigm spoken about.

This makes me wonder if you even read what I wrote.

 

He may be agreeing with you…I am confused though.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Rain said:

Yes.  I used both knowing they were different quotes from different people, but they both showed what I was trying to say.  I might have used more, but felt 2 was sufficient. 

In this context I don't care at all about his "style".  I care about the actual content.  The content that says people are sinning.  That is NOT a style choice.  A church leader telling all those he leads that they have to repent for the sin of preventing children is like a church leader saying all those he leads need to repent for not reading 10 chapters of the Book of Mormon every night or not going to the temple all day long every day.

And has the same problems I mentioned above.

I don't think Elder Cannon's instructions in the quote are on a par with the checklist-type items you mentioned (please CFR if someone gave this counsel).

Interesting that we see content differently, one focusing on content of principle and the other content of literal expression. I'm sure there were different interpretations in 1850 also.

[CV75]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I can't imagine this coming up in a class. Hereabouts it's all faith promoting in church, outside it may be different. The wariness comes from visitors and investigators and missionaries in class, and members who have never heard of such criticism. But the culture is different in Utah;it is not odd to be LDS and others is even a newspaper dedicated to criticizing the church.

Can you imagine an anti-Jewish newspaper in New York? Or a musical making fun any religion being the #1 successful musical?

We lived in SLC for a year, and were not happy with the culture.  I feel like church should be at least one place you should not have to defend the church.

 

Interestingly, the aforementioned class is not in Utah, but the person making statement is a transplant from there, trying to enlighten the rest of us Gentiles who accept all too well that fallibility is an inescapable requirement for leadership! Yes, very much cultural.

Edited January 2, 2023 by CV75

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s probably important to remember that (at least for me) all the crazy stuff I learned at church came from parents (who’s parents, grandparents, great grand parents etc were members), seminary teachers, institute leaders, and tons of youth leaders. As an adult convert with an outlook on truth that is orthogonal to pretty much every church leader I’ve ever interacted with, I’m not sure Mark is typical. 

Fair point.  However, my position about LDS leaders teaching that they pretty much should be followed, you know, follow the brethren, keep your eye on the prophet, the prophet cannot lead the church astray, Benson, oft repeated even recently in GC, talk on the 14 fundamentals of a prophet, etc are and can be well established.  This podcast is a fair summary of the issue I believe where RFM and Bennet has this out:

https://radiofreemormon.org/2022/11/mormonism-live-102-the-greatest-problem-in-the-lds-church/

So I honestly find it surprising for any active LDS person that listens to conference and other addresses by the GAs thinks they teach that they can be ignored if we get our own "revelation' that disagrees with them.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Teancum

[Rain]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don't think Elder Cannon's instructions in the quote are on a par with the checklist-type items you mentioned (please CFR if someone gave this counsel).

I don't understand what you mean.

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Interesting that we see content differently, one focusing on content of principle and the other content of literal expression. I'm sure there were different interpretations in 1850 also.

I'm focusing on the content of principle.  Are you saying you are focusing on expression?  Because of you are saying I'm focusing on expression I cannot see how.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Fair point.  However, my position about LDS leaders teaching that they pretty much should be followed, you know, follow the brethren, keep your eye on the prophet, the prophet cannot lead the church astray, Benson, oft repeated even recently in GC, talk on the 14 fundamentals of a prophet, etc are and can be well established.  This podcast is a fair summary of the issue I believe where RFM and Bennet has this out:

https://radiofreemormon.org/2022/11/mormonism-live-102-the-greatest-problem-in-the-lds-church/

So I honestly find it surprising for any active LDS person that listens to conference and other addresses by the GAs thinks they teach that they can be ignored if we get our own "revelation' that disagrees with them.

It's a mixed message that is sent.  There is a message of "follow the prophet", but there is a also a message of "seek for answers" as well.  Our church was founded on the idea that we can seek for answers like Joseph did.  It isn't a matter that the leader can be ignored. It's a matter of people feeling God’s answer comes first.  The problem comes when people disagree on whether it was God's answer or not because it is in conflict with a leader's answer and how we decide to handle that conflict.

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

It's a mixed message that is sent.  There is a message of "follow the prophet", but there is a also a message of "seek for answers" as well.  Our church was founded on the idea that we can seek for answers like Joseph did.  It isn't a matter that the leader can be ignored. It's a matter of people feeling God’s answer comes first.  The problem comes when people disagree on whether it was God's answer or not because it is in conflict with a leader's answer and how we decide to handle that conflict.

I fully understand the idea of personal revelation and seeking your own confirmation.  So perhaps there is tension between the two ideas. Do you disagree that there is a very strong emphasis on following the brethren?

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't understand what you mean.

I'm focusing on the content of principle.  Are you saying you are focusing on expression?  Because of you are saying I'm focusing on expression I cannot see how.

Checklist-type items like telling members how many chapters to read (10) and how much time to spend in the temple (all day, every day) -- is that a thing? CFR if so. Elder Cannon's quote doesn't have any such specification in it and is a "do not" message rather than one to "do this."