posted
Absolutley Kat, as far as I can tell, studying the history of this the last really major revelation on birth control was in 1969 when the basic concluesion was "it's not evil in and of itself, but you should not choose to curtail the birth of your children unless it's absolutley necesary". Since then most of the statments have been rather inspecific but "it's your choice, not ours" would be the general tone of them.
posted
Kat--it's the brilliant "Personal Purity" talk by Elder Holland. I just love him. He gives the best explanation of chastity I have ever heard before. The General Conference link is here: "Personal Purity"--Elder Holland
The original talk was given at a BYU devotional, called "Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments." I need to go soon so I won't find the link, but I've found it on the internet before (recently, because I was helping with a youth chastity program, which used cheesy quotes to frighten the young women into being chaste. Elder Holland's talk is much, much better.)
I can't recap it because I'm short on time. But I think this is the one Kat was looking for.
Hobbes: "Since then most of the statments have been rather inspecific but "it's your choice, not ours" would be the general tone of them." Well, yeah, that has been the general tone. That means that the official stance is that it's between the Lord and the couple.
posted
I don't know if I'd rely more on the authority of that site, Jon Boy - those are quotes from Relief Society Magazine and personal correspondance. Neither of those sources are official church doctrine.
A search of statements by prophets and apostles reveals statements like the ones on the lightfoot page, which are all documented as being scriptural sources.
I was just searching, actually, for the very talk that Kat cited above (by Elder Holland, not Elder Eyring). It seems that the version of it that I read was titled "Of Symbols, Souls and Sacraments." I think it gives one of the most profound explanations on the reasons for chastity and the purposed of marital intimacy.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The comments have certainly gotten softer, but I haven't heard a single talk that change's the Church's position that not having children is wrong if you can have children.
posted
Except for the part about the decision being up to the couple and the Lord, in which case, it may be that "not right now" would be an answer, and that wouldn't be wrong.
Yes, it's between the couple and the Lord, that doesn't mean the Church hasn't set down some pretty clear guidlines for it, just means that you have to make the final choice. As you do with all things...
posted
You found it already! I should have read before I posted. But it's Elder Holland, I think, not Elder Eyring.
On birth control: what Katharina said. It's between you, your husband, and the Lord, and the goal is a family. I personally am not emotionally capable of being a good mother to many small children at a time. I can't do the four small children under the age of four thing the way other women I know do. And more power to them; that's great for them. But I would go crazy, literally. As long as I'm working towards the goal of raising a good family, I don't think protecting my sanity through birth control is a sin.
Posts: 189 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, it's between the couple and the Lord, that doesn't mean the Church hasn't set down some pretty clear guidlines for it, just means that you have to make the final choice. As you do with all things...
Hobbes, I'm concerned about this, because I don't believe that it is the same kind of "it's up to you" as in the case of free agency.
If the current guidelines are less clear, that means there's no exacting requirements, not that there are exacting requirements and the church is afraid to lay them out.
--
And Emily said it so much better than I did. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Kat, there are clear guidlines. Just because the talks are from a long time ago doesn't change that the Church did set down guidlines. I mean, the BOM of Mormon is thousands of years old and I know you don't think it invalidates it. If modern revelation actually changes past opinions on it (like polygamy) then the age of it matters and whatever the most recent revelation on the matter is the one to pay attention to. But saying "it's between the couple and the Lord" does, in no way, invalidate all the previous words that have been spoken on the topic by Prophets.
posted
Hobbes, that DOES change it. Saying "It's between the couple and the Lord" takes precedence over "It's wrong to use birth control."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know if I'd rely more on the authority of that site, Jon Boy - those are quotes from Relief Society Magazine and personal correspondance. Neither of those sources are official church doctrine.
Okay, so I didn't read that site very thoroughly, either. The quotes I was most interested in was the one from the current Church Handbook of Instructions.
Posts: 586 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a revelation recently (as in the last 50 years) in which the Church issued revelation saying that birth control is not inherintly evil, nor is it evil to use it. However, the Church also said that you must be very careful, and that in most cases it is wrong to use it. The statments today are not a contradiction of that, they simply say you must ask the Lord if it is right for you.
posted
I'm glad someone (Snarky/Jon Boy?) posted the relevant section of the current Handbook of Instructions, which clearly states that "The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter."
This language, in my opinion, clearly allows for the judicious use of birth control.
My opinion, based on my reading of all previous statments by Church leaders on the subject, is that 1) it is wrong to put off or limit the number of children for selfish reasons, such as wanting more freedom, wealth, etc., but 2) there is nothing wrong with planning one's family to ensure that one has the necessary resources (physical, financial, emotional, etc.) to properly care for them. There is no duty incumbent upon members of the Church to have as many children as their bodies are physically capable of producing.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"it is wrong to put off or limit the number of children for selfish reasons, such as wanting more freedom, wealth, etc., but 2) there is nothing wrong with planning one's family to ensure that one has the necessary resources (physical, financial, emotional, etc.) to properly care for them"
What is the distinction between these two things?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) would be choosing not to have children, or to have no more children, because you think you wouldn't be able to afford the luxuries you want, or because it would impinge on your recreational pursuits or free time, or because you want to retire early and be DONE with kids by the time you're fifty, just as examples.
2) means that, when deciding when and whether to have (more) kids, you should take into account your financial resources (can you reasonably afford to feed, clothe, house, educate and give proper medical care to a(nother) child?), your physical limitations (do you or your spouse have a health condition that would make (another) pregnancy or childbirth dangerous, or would make raising a child exceedingly difficult?), your emotional capacity (do you have the mental/emotional capacity to give the proper time, attention, discipline, etc. to another child without having a nervous breakdown?). Things like that.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But how do we define a luxury? If you can raise five children on hand-me-downs and macaroni, or three children on new clothes and health food, which is better? What if you have seven children, but the macaroni is provided by the state?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I suppose the Word of God would certainly help in a situation like that. Shame He hasn't got a newsletter. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If you can raise five children on hand-me-downs and macaroni, or three children on new clothes and health food, which is better?"
Well, I was really talking about luxuries for the parents (high-end electronics, cars, boats, jewelry, club memberships, trips), but the principle works with kids, too. The question is one of reasonableness -- what does it take to be a good parent? I would say you can dress your kids in decent hand-me-downs and still be a good parent, but you can't just give them macaroni all the time.
"What if you have seven children, but the macaroni is provided by the state?"
I know parents like this, who think that they are doing what they're supposed to by having so many children. But one of my qualifications was the ability to provide financially for your children. Government (or Church) aid does not constitute providing for your children! If you can't pay your own way, you can't properly provide for the children. Work harder, get more education, whatever, and then you may have the resources to have more kids.
This doesn't work retroactively, of course. Once you already have the kids, there may be unforeseen circumstances that reduce your means to the point where you need to rely on aid from government or others. That's not your fault, you just do the best you can. But before the fact, you do need to do the planning.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I understand correctly, it is one's duty to ALWAYS have the antenna up and dish set to receive, even if it would be inconvenient. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, kat, I thought -- based on your immediately previous response -- that you already got that joke. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to think of a jokey response here, but I can't. I didn't. It didn't even occur to me.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
as for birth control, I don't see anything wrong with it inside of a marriage. Within a marriage sex is not immoral, nor does it lead to problems such as disease, not to mention the emotional costs of sexual promiscuity.
It is simply a couple who have made a commitment to God to be faithful to each other, showing that love.
Of course, this is preventative birth control I am talking about, not things such as abortion.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Just wanted to make it clear I wasn't trying to judge anyone who had or does use birth control. I think most people in the Church aren't aware that their Church has issued some defenitive statments in regard to it's usage and I think it's a good idea to be informed.
posted
"It's like...it's like you're using humor to deflect the conversation."
Except that I firmly believe that it is vitally -- VITALLY -- important to have a sense of humor about sex. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
From your link on the previous page, Hobbes:
quote: "It is contradictory to [the temple marriage] covenant to prevent the birth of children if the parents are in good health."
Which is why I asked if you were using birth and conception interchangably. The author of that site cited this as an example of the Church's stance on birth control, but to me it sounds like a stance on abortion, which isn't the same thing. Preventing birth implies that conception has already occured, and thus there is a birth to be preventing. Preventing conception is a totally seperate issue. Unless you're equating the two distinct concepts.
Is that how I should be interpreting? Because just reading that link makes no sense to me, knowing what the words mean.
posted
But Hobbes, according to my own research and what kat has verified, the policy has definitely become more lenient than the strong language included on that lightplanet site.
I don't know how to describe in words, how much that entire lightplanet site bothers me, on what they have on other topics as well. It reeks of a lunatic fringe among the LDS, quite like the lunatic fringe in fundamentalist protestant christianity.
It is like they are destroying the spirit of the teaching with the legalistic letter of the teaching.
posted
Hobbes, I don't agree with you. The church doesn't hide definitive stances. If a definitive statement from a previous prophet has been replaced with an enjoinder to make the decision yourself, then that's the stance. It means the less concrete one IS the current stance, not that you search back to find one.
It's definitely not a matter of the church being shy, or unwilling to take a definitive stance. If it's been softened, then it's because it needed to be.
Tom: It is okay to talk about prayer. It doesn't have to make you uncomfortable.
Banna: I actually don't like to take as, well, gospel, anything that doesn't come from the scriptures or else official LDS sites. Every site and information source has an editor, and every editor inevitably has an agenda. That includes the LDS ones, of course, but at least those, if you disagree with the agenda, you can rightly blame the church for it. I really, really get squicky about other sources, even (especially, sometimes) books from Deseret Book written by former General Authorities.
posted
kat, it only makes me uncomfortable because it puts me in the position of telling people whom I don't want to upset that I think they're at least mildly delusional. I'm not that confrontational of a person....
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
? Tom mention s his religious experiences, including prayer, pretty regularly. He's not uncomfortable with it that I've ever seen. We've been talking about sex in this thread, and he saw a pretty obvious joke on the theme. I thought it was rather funny.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it would SHAKE them; I think it would offend them. Much like telling someone that birth control is universally immoral, I don't think voicing my skepticism is likely to change anyone's behavior -- but might tick 'em off.
When people say they're basing their decisions on the Word of God, and I don't think they ARE talking to God, it's much more diplomatic of me to not say anything.
-----
P.S. Thanks, fugu. *grin* I thought it was funny, too.
posted
Well, if we can call you on bad antenna equipment, you can call us on being delusional, I suppose. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's your perogative, but I'd hate to think that people would get huffy over someone's else's doubt. The very nature of personal revelation is that other people didn't feel the same thing you did - it isn't their life, so they wouldn't. But you can get revelation for your own life.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Or the antenna isn't up.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
