Birth control

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

To be quite honest, you are the type of individual who would benefit from a disavowal. Many members on this thread have moved on from the toxic rhetoric of the past, but you seem to cling to it and seek to harmonize it. You presumedly interact with others in your ward in both casual and leadership roles, and the attitudes you’ve expressed in this thread likely continue to do harm. A disavowal from the brethren would inform both you and those who you interact with that your views are in error. 

Given Posted 19 hours ago , I understand how commandments have exceptions, and I appreciate both. 

[MustardSeed]

50 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That is a semantic distinction. 

Ok.  I disagree with you on this topic.  I state this not to change your mind but for anyone lurking who may be questioning whether or not it’s a sin to decide to have sex with their partner and to prevent pregnancy. It’s not. 

Edited January 4, 2023 by MustardSeed

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Ok.  I disagree with you on this topic.  I state this not to change your mind but for anyone lurking who may be questioning whether or not it’s a sin to decide to have sex with their partner and to prevent pregnancy. It’s not. 

I always mentioned the "exception clause". I know this will irritate you. But under what exceptions would it be a sin to decide to have sex with your partner and to prevent pregnancy? 

Edited January 4, 2023 by CV75

[MustardSeed]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I always mentioned the "exception clause". I know this will irritate you. But under what exceptions would it be a sin to decide to have sex with your partner and to prevent pregnancy? 

Unmarried, or non consensual. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Everytime a woman says “no” to her husband, she is potentially “preventing the birth of children”. In what exceptions is it acceptable to say no? This is a relationship question, not a "preventing the birth of children question." What are the guiding principles? 

Abstinence is actually the most effective way of preventing the birth of children. Every time one chooses to abstain, it’s another instance of preventing the birth of children. Yet you declare it a “relationship” question. How convenient for you. As I said I don’t have a PhD in spiritual pretzel making so I guess I just can’t follow the logic here. 

Edited January 4, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

It depends on what you mean by DIRECT: 

I mean something to the effect of “preventing the birth of children is a grievous sin”. 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

"We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force [so disobedience would be a sin]...

This doesn’t cut the mustard I’m afraid. Multiply and replenish? Given the world wide population, having a single child could fulfill this requirement. No where does this command indicate that birth control and family planning are a grievous sin. A family of three would be fine with this command, but not with “preventing children is a grievous  sin.” You can’t seriously be suggesting the two are somehow equivalent? 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Everytime a woman says “no” to her husband, she is potentially “preventing the birth of children”. In what exceptions is it acceptable to say no? This is a relationship question, not a "preventing the birth of children question." What are the guiding principles? "Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities." And abiding by the rest of the Family Proclamation.

I cannot get the above to not be bold - I just want to differentiate between it and below as I am not speaking to it.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You state “preventing the birth of children is a sin with dire consequences”. You state this is a principle still held by the modern church. Please provide the most recent direct quote from from a prophet (Q of 12 or FP) in an official setting (general conference) where this principle is DIRECTLY taught as clearly as your statement above. It depends on what you mean by DIRECT: "We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force [so disobedience would be a sin]... We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God [dire consequence 1]. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets [dire consequence 2]."

Why are there no questions about circumstantial or conditional exceptions to commandments?

Using birth control ≠not multiplying and replenishing the earth. The two may often be related, but they are not the same.  For many, especially members of our church, birth control is a way to help make sure that the timing is right for the parents, the baby and other children.  For others it means making a way possible for the mother to have the health to have children at all.  For others it means still having children, but not as many - still multiplying.

And for those of you like @rodheadlee who have struggled and have been in pain about not having children please know I am thinking about you.  I know you would be considered the exceptions that many talk about, but I also know it sometimes while knowing something intellectually the emotions are still are to deal with.  

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Why are there no questions about circumstantial or conditional exceptions to commandments?

What are the conditional exceptions to obeying the commandments and counsel of the prophets as explained by Latter-day prophets?

Edited January 4, 2023 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Unmarried, or non consensual. 

See? Exceptions!

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Abstinence is actually the most effective way of preventing the birth of children. Every time one chooses to abstain, it’s another instance of preventing the birth of children. Yet you declare it a “relationship” question. How convenient for you. As I said I don’t have a PhD in spiritual pretzel making so I guess I just can’t follow the logic here. 

If one chooses to abstain and the other doesn't know this, that's primarily a relationship issue. You can rephrase the question and make it less transactional. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I mean something to the effect of “preventing the birth of children is a grievous sin”. 

This doesn’t cut the mustard I’m afraid. Multiply and replenish? Given the world wide population, having a single child could fulfill this requirement. No where does this command indicate that birth control and family planning are a grievous sin. A family of three would be fine with this command, but not with “preventing children is a grievous  sin.” You can’t seriously be suggesting the two are somehow equivalent? 

I am talking about commandments having exceptions. That is why part of my reply was, Why are there no questions about circumstantial or conditional exceptions to commandments? Not everyone can or is willing to accept that as part of the conservation and calculus.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I cannot get the above to not be bold - I just want to differentiate between it and below as I am not speaking to it.

Using birth control ≠not multiplying and replenishing the earth. The two may often be related, but they are not the same.  For many, especially members of our church, birth control is a way to help make sure that the timing is right for the parents, the baby and other children.  For others it means making a way possible for the mother to have the health to have children at all.  For others it means still having children, but not as many - still multiplying.

And for those of you like @rodheadlee who have struggled and have been in pain about not having children please know I am thinking about you.  I know you would be considered the exceptions that many talk about, but I also know it sometimes while knowing something intellectually the emotions are still are to deal with.  

 

See: Posted just now

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

What are the conditional exceptions to obeying the commandments and counsel of the prophets as explained by Latter-day prophets?

They pretty much leave the specifics up to the individual and only intervene when counseling with individuals or a membership council are in order. But we have some general guidance in the current materials that have been cited thus far (Proclamation, Gospel Topics, Handbook).

[MustardSeed]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

See? Exceptions!

I’m not sure what’s happening here but ok. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

They pretty much leave the specifics up to the individual and only intervene when counseling with individuals or a membership council are in order. But we have some general guidance in the current materials that have been cited thus far (Proclamation, Gospel Topics, Handbook).

They were pretty specific about the only exceptions that were allowed in birth control in the past.   They didn't leave it up to the individual.  The only exceptions were in matters of health or possibility of passing on genetic disease to off-spring.  Period.  No other exceptions were noted.   The church set the standard.  We were to follow them.  It was not left between us and the Lord, it was an expectation that we do as the prophet says, and don't even think to question the Lord about it, because that is pointless:

Quote

I assure you, however, that the spirit of the Lord will never direct a person to take a position in opposition to the counsel of the Presidency of His Church. Such could not be….

There were no exceptions left between the couple and the Lord expressed in previous teachings.  Just follow the prophet.  Don't question.  Obey.  The standard was set and clear.  Don't use birth-control.  Have large families.  If you are infertile, it is most likely your fault, just stop being so anxious.  Don't delay childbearing.  To delay it for school or debt or other struggles was just selfish and we need to just buck up.  The Lord will not be mocked!  Now...the timing and number of children is expressly stated that it is extremely private and personal and is none of the churches business.   That is a big change. 

The proclamation says nothing about birth control.  The handbook is a big change from previous teachings.  It differs in the core principle of church involvement and influence in the matter. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m not sure what’s happening here but ok. 

You said it’s not a sin to have sex and prevent pregnancy. I asked if there are any exceptions and you provided them. Likewise, it is a sin to have sex and prevent pregnancy, also with exceptions.

You gripe about people taking Elder Cannon’s quote as the be-all, end-all on having children, but you can’t help them when you can’t recognize that there are always faithful exceptions to the commandments.

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

They were pretty specific about the only exceptions that were allowed in birth control in the past.   They didn't leave it up to the individual.  The only exceptions were in matters of health or possibility of passing on genetic disease to off-spring.  Period.  No other exceptions were noted.   The church set the standard.  We were to follow them.  It was not left between us and the Lord, it was an expectation that we do as the prophet says, and don't even think to question the Lord about it, because that is pointless:

There were no exceptions left between the couple and the Lord expressed in previous teachings.  Just follow the prophet.  Don't question.  Obey.  The standard was set and clear.  Don't use birth-control.  Have large families.  If you are infertile, it is most likely your fault, just stop being so anxious.  Don't delay childbearing.  To delay it for school or debt or other struggles was just selfish and we need to just buck up.  The Lord will not be mocked!  Now...the timing and number of children is expressly stated that it is extremely private and personal and is none of the churches business.   That is a big change. 

The proclamation says nothing about birth control.  The handbook is a big change from previous teachings.  It differs in the core principle of church involvement and influence in the matter. 

I take every quote you’ve provided, and every interpretation and assertion you’ve offered to be softened by the principles of spirit of inspired counsel and inspired exceptions to inspired counsel.

These decisions were left up to the individuals in a practical sense as long as they did not affect their terms of membership. I would be interested in who was disfellowshipped or excommunicated over it, which is where “church involvement and influence” matter on a membership level. I’m not talking about personal perceptions and social interaction.

I think the proclamation speaks to birth control and the handbook consolidates previous teachings and core principles. So there!

But you don't, so your mission (that's an observation, not an assignment!) is to reach out to those running with Elder Cannon’s quote without recognizing that there are always faithful exceptions to the commandments. I'm an advocate of the council approach in such endeavors.

Edited January 4, 2023 by CV75

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

What are the conditional exceptions to obeying the commandments and counsel of the prophets as explained by Latter-day prophets?

When the Spirit tells you you are an exception.

[MustardSeed]

I’m sorry you cannot convince me to take Cannons words as the standard for which there are mere exceptions. 

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m sorry you cannot convince me to take Cannons words as the standard for which there are mere exceptions. 

My other interlocutors keep hammering on that quote, saying that there are people out there who do take it as the standard (with no exceptions), and so that is the basis of my points with them. I meet people where they are.

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/1/2023 at 1:37 AM, The Nehor said:

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

Carol Lynn has always been cutting edge.

[Chum]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Everytime a woman says “no” to her husband, she is potentially “preventing the birth of children”.

Or maybe she is asking if she can not service her husband tonight because she is exhausted after after a day's employment, picking up the kids, getting everyone sorted and starting on homework, starting dinner, cleaning the messes left by the morning rush, serving dinner, spending the 200th hour trying to turn the kids medical insurance into an actual appointment, calling everyone on her ministering list, organizing the next auxiliary function, policing the kids, laundry, dishes, more laundry, trying to decipher the kids baffling homework assignments, repackage the kids shoes for return because the vendor changed suppliers and the new shoes fall apart right away, research and find a new vendor for shoes, answering work emails after hours, more laundry, greet husband who's home late after some church meeting, heating up serving husband his dinner, plunge the kids toilet which revealed why there are never any pencils around, clean up after husband's dinner, get all the kids occupied so the husband can do some late work in quiet, triple check homework for the 4th time, work out kids' lunches for tomorrow's field trip to the water treatment plant, make an emergency run to the store to get one of the 3 things she knows her kid will eat, more laundry, scoop up the cat barf and clean the rug, walk the dog herself because the kids never do and maybe have time for a shower before bed. Bad wife for not being properly presentable for evening husband.

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, Chum said:

Or maybe she is asking if she can not service her husband tonight because she is exhausted after after a day's employment, picking up the kids, getting everyone sorted and starting on homework, starting dinner, cleaning the messes left by the morning rush, serving dinner, spending the 200th hour trying to turn the kids medical insurance into an actual appointment, calling everyone on her ministering list, organizing the next auxiliary function, policing the kids, laundry, dishes, more laundry, trying to decipher the kids baffling homework assignments, repackage the kids shoes for return because the vendor changed suppliers and the new shoes fall apart right away, research and find a new vendor for shoes, answering work emails after hours, more laundry, greet husband who's home late after some church meeting, heating up serving husband his dinner, plunge the kids toilet which revealed why there are never any pencils around, clean up after husband's dinner, get all the kids occupied so the husband can do some late work in quiet, triple check homework for the 4th time, work out kids' lunches for tomorrow's field trip to the water treatment plant, make an emergency run to the store to get one of the 3 things she knows her kid will eat, more laundry, scoop up the cat barf and clean the rug, walk the dog herself because the kids never do and maybe have time for a shower before bed. Bad wife for not being properly presentable for evening husband.

YIKES! You are responding to what was originally the preface to @SeekingUnderstanding's question [see here: Posted 10 hours ago] which I copied for convenience in answering them (my answer is in bold) [see here: Posted 7 hours ago ].

And as your answer illustrates, this is really a relationship issue, unrecognized as such due to the mechanical/transactional level of understanding, attitude and perspective about keeping the commandments and marital intimacy.

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 12/31/2022 at 5:52 PM, 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.

The full quote…

Quote

Now in relation to virtue. While I think we compare very favorably with many communities, I fear that there is too great a laxity in some quarters in this direction. I know however, that God will cleanse that element from our midst. One of the inevitable consequences of the practice of unchastity is the departure of the Spirit of God from those who indulge in it. They become weak in the faith, and are severed from the Church of Christ. This has been the case from the beginning; it will continue to be the case, for this work has within itself the power of purification. The principles of the Gospel have the effect of self-purification. The Church is kept cleansed by the power that is within it. Those who do wrong and continue therein lose the Spirit of God and go into darkness. 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. God will also cleanse the adulterer from our midst. The man that is an adulterer and the woman that is an adulteress God will curse. The Lord's vengeance will be kindled against such, and it will follow them unless they repent with full purpose of heart. I warn you, therefore, on this day of our Lord, in this solemn assembly, against these practices. A man cannot look upon a woman to lust after her without losing the Spirit of God, unless he repent with all his heart. God will have a pure people. He will have a people in whom His Holy Spirit can take up its abode; their tabernacles must be pure; their thoughts must be pure; their words must be pure; all their actions must be holy or God will reject them. Hear it, ye Latter-day Saints! for I tell you it is true. Girls, shun vice and the society of the vicious. Do not hope that you can convert a wicked man. Go with those who are disposed to be pure and virtuous men. Choose them for your companions, and shun the society of the evil-doer. Both sexes should do this. Do not go with those who drink, or with those who gamble, or with those who swear. Go with those who want to serve God. These are things that our young people should observe.

Perhaps there were different attitudes towards sex among members of the Church in the 1800s and we are judging them from our “liberated” point of view? If the purpose of monogamous and plural marriages was to raise children for the Lord, anything that would hinder or debase that purpose would be discouraged.
 

For example, see the next post for some interesting comments by Brother Brigham on this subject…

Edited January 5, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

See the next post for some interesting comments by Brother Brigham on this subject…

https://jod.mrm.org/9/31
     The Saints like a plurality of wives, and the sinners like a plurality of men and women. I will say to the sisters that I have heard but very few women, and not a great many men, ever talk sensibly upon the plurality of wives. When they begin to talk about it, they exhibit, almost without an exception, passion instead of principle. Were we to appeal to passions of the people, we should promote the doctrine of a plurality of men and of women.

     But when we address ourselves to the Saints of the Most High God, it is very different and in a different light. It is for my sisters to be mothers of holy men and holy women—to receive and conceive in the name and by the power of the Holy Ghost—to bring forth their fruits to the praise and honor of the God of heaven. But what are the people doing here? “I want another wife,” and almost universally passion is exhibited instead of principle.

     If the plurality of wives is to pander to the low passions of men and women, the sooner it is abolished the better. “How far would you go in abolishing it?” I would say, “if the Lord should reveal that it is his will to go so far as to become a Shaking Quaker [ie., celibate], Amen to it, and let the sexes have no connection.” If so far as for a man to have but one wife, let it be so.

     The word and will of the Lord is what I want—the will and mind of God. He has revealed his mind and will. The time is coming when the Lord is going to raise up a holy nation. He will bring up a royal Priesthood upon the earth, and he has introduced a plurality of wives for that express purpose, and not to gratify lustful passion in the least. I would rather take my valise in my hand today, and never see a wife or a child again, and preach the Gospel until I go into the grave, than to live as I do, unless God commands it.
     
    I never entered into the order of plurality of wives to gratify passion. And were I now asked whether I desired and wanted another wife, my reply would be, “It should be one by whom the Spirit will bring forth noble children.” I am almost sixty years old; and if I now live for passion, I pray the Lord Almighty to take my life from the earth.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Bernard Gui