Close Topic Options

Mormons: Pregnant Again Or Not? - Page 11

Ok, there's a lot of discussion going on, and I just want to add a few of my thoughts.

Before my wife and I got married, we checked our spiritual standards and understandings of doctrines. We came along wanting children. How and when? Birth control, yea or nay? We studied and I came to the following conclusions.

I agree with LDS understanding of Elder Washburns talk, as simply being a modern repetition of an age old doctrine: it is not ok to use birth control. I'm not saying this to judge anyone, and I really hope nobody gets offended (for some reason all of our friends got very very angry at us mentioning this was our understanding). When reading especially the beginning of this thread, I noticed how it was talked a lot about "Is", as in "can I/we afford it", "my/our marriage" etc. It was a lot about concern for one self. This to me seems inconsistent with the gospel I have been taught. The gospel is about a greater us, not just me or me and my spouse. So I don't think it's right to prevent the birth of children because I think it definitely violates the covenant made in the temple. And it is based on a strong focus on a "me" or "me and my spouse." To me it's scary how God seems to be lacking in the picture here (again, I'm not accusing anybody anywhere in this thread or elsewhere using birth control to be leaving God out).

Why do you use birth control? Why only when you feel you shouldn't have children? I for one do not believe God ignores where His spirit children go. He takes care. If a family is not supposed to have children, they won't have any in my opinion, totally regarldess of whether they use birth control or not. At the same time, if we have to have children we may still get them even when practicing birth control. My best buddy is from a family of three, all three children were conceived while their parents used multiple forms of birth control. So what does that lead to? A matter of faith. Do we trust enough in the Lord to let go, and give Him the ultimate responsibility, saying "I won't meddle with Thy work Father, Thy will be done" or do we say "Thy will be done, but not right now, we just had a baby, and in five months won't work, because there's going to be a collapse in the stock market. In two years I think I', ready Lord, so yeah. Thy will be done (in two years)."
Of course, if we completely ignore Him, He may choose to send our children to another family, and if any sin or neglect of ordinances happens from their being in the "wrong" family, that sin will be upon our heads according to Brigham Young. That makes perfect sense to me.

Besides it being a question of faith, I feel it's a question of obedience. We covenant to have as many children as we can, if we start limiting in any way, it's not "as many as we can" anymore. It turns into as many as we "will" instead.

About the position of the church we discovered, that the church preached against birth control since the beginning of days until recently. Spencer W. Kimball was very outspoken against it as well. I don't think the requirements of our covenants in regards to birth control have changed at all. The church merely removed a rock of offense to some weaker members in my mind by not "parading it around" anymore so to say. But it was never officially repealed, and nothing taught to the contrary.

Besides these reasons, my wife and I started looking at the birth control methods themselves and why we wouldn't use them. We didn't like the pill, because it changes the womans hormones, and messes up a natural event. We find this to be tempering with the temple God had created. Most of the pills sold nowadays, also include various abortifacient chemicals, so these have to be ruled out for their risk of leading to a chemical abortion the user may not even be aware of. Virtually all intra-uterine devices contain the same chemicals. This information can be found in the Physicians Desk Reference between, not in the packaging labes (it's not an FDA requirement to print this on the labels). We refuse to use condoms, because the create an unnatural barrier in a very holy ordinance between husband and wife, that besides procreation, has the sense to unite. A condom divides. After that we started looking at other methods, and found some objection in all. But we found one that every form of birth control had in common: satisfaction of carnal desires. If birth control was used, sex (In our opinion) is taken from it's holy pedestal in the marriage, and derided to be used simply as a method of satisfaction of carnal desires. My wife and I found our love and marriage to holy to be giving it to a pure carnal satisfaction, while taking out it's most holy purpose: the creation of tabernacles for the children of God. It is our holy duty.

So yeah, we decided against any form of birth control, and try to follow what the early brethren taught. "Birth control is a holy principle if we let God be the control." We try and abstain from celestial union during times of pregnancy, menstruation and after the birth while the body of the woman is recovering. Besides these times of abstinence, we feel the only other time this is justified is "for prayer and fasting" as advocated by Paul.
We were scared, especially when she first got pregnant. We hoped we would get a few years for our faith, so we would be able to better provide for our first baby. But the Lord didn't only provide us with a baby, but with EVERYTHING we needed for her. We got money to move to Provo, I got a very well paying job, we got a great apartment. It almost fell into our laps this way. We believe this was because we did what we should've done. We got a lot of bad rep from friends and church leaders, but we are the happiest couple. If I would've been less informed, I might have used birth control because I wanted to wait until I'm done with school like my friends. I would've never known what great blessings I would've missed because of my ultimately selfish desire, though however utilitarian the motivation I would've given myself would have been.

To sum it up in a nice little one liner we believe
"Sex is for Procreation, not recreation"

I think this is what the prophets have always taught, what they will always teach, because I feel this is such an integral part of the gospel that I cannot see why this would be part of a changeable "policy" that would not be relevant to our salvation.

Those are my two sents, and please, nobody be offended. I don't know what I'm doing wrong because when I mention something like this people usually get offended, so I really hope ya'll understand I'm not trying to bad mouth anybody or that I think less of anyone.

Not Or Pregnant Mormons

OldSouth, I agree with most of your points. I have a couple of questions for you based on the following statements you have made:

Do you include those families who have kids and abuse them on a daily basis?

Do you feel the same way (about having as many kids as we can) knowing that each one of your kids will be born with some sort of disability? (special needs).

Mormons: Pregnant Again Or Not? Studies Doctrine Mormon

You raise good points.

your comment to my first statement goes back to the question of theodicy. Why would God allow children to be born into miserable conditions? It also goes to the question of pre-ordination. I'm sorry that my limited English hinders my efforts to clearly make my point here... I think yes, it does apply. The question now would be why, and do we not have a responsibility to prevent such child abuse? I think we will have to ask ourselves, if only those who have made covenants with God or everybody is bound by what I perceive to be correct doctrine? If we say only Gods covenant people, that would (hopefully) rule out most/all abuse situations (though I know it unfortunately doesn't). Then the other thing is pre-ordination, maybe these children need these experiences for one reason or the other. I had very bad experiences growing up (I had children persecute me for my nationality, people trying to literally blow me up etc.) and though I had suffered much am grateful for the experiences I had to learn from. I was once taught that sometimes God allows evil people to commit evils to prove their wickedness (our institute teacher taught this from the BoM, I unfortunately do not remember the reference). Or it could relate to what Br. Brigham taught; maybe some saints were not complying with His law, so He sent the spirits to parents willing to create a tabernacle, and those saints who should've righteously raised them will be responsible. As you can see, I do not have a specific answer to your inquiry, but only suggestions as to how to resolve this issue.

About the special needs children: Yes, I feel the same way. I also feel the same way even if we knew a child would only live for a very short while post-partum (like a few days or so). I feel these children are given for a reason. Remember when Christ was asked if a boy was blind because his parents sinned or because he had sinned, and Christ answered it was to prove those around him? I believe this to be true for all special needs children.

PS: I did just catch a philosophical problem with my first statement and my explanation according to Youngs teachings. Interesting question to be honest. In how far is either statement true then?

Page 11 Not Or Pregnant Mormons

You may want to check this thread where we discuss this issue When Children Are Raped, Abused & Killed

What about if these parents let's say live in a third world country like Iraq (and they're in war) and the kids are deaf, blind, autistic, down syndrome, etc and they're not able to provide with the medical help they need. Is it justified to keep having kids under these conditions? I know the example is extreme but there are people who face similar situations. Is there a situation where parents MUST limit the number of kids based on extreme circumstances?

Not Or Pregnant Mormons

I think in cases where another child might kill the woman (the previous pregnancy resulted in serious complications), then it is appropriate to take measures to stop getting pregnant if the couple decides to do so. I do not think the Bishop should be involved in this process, as it is not his business.

This is a personal issue in my family, and if it is a sin to use birth control, then I have sinned. But my wife's health at this point outweighs any admonition not to use birth control. I do think this is a situation where ecclesiastical leaders have little if any sway on me (see If the prophet says so is that enough). I am not willing at this point to risk my wife's health, possibly losing the mother of my six children, because there was a Prophet who at one time stated that the use of birth control was prohibited. Fortunately it seems that the Church is currently leaving such issues to the couple and the Lord. This seems to be one of those topics where, though I understand the views of the Prophets of the Lord, I have made a conscious choice to save the life of my wife. O me of little faith.

Mormons: Pregnant Again Or Not?

I'll check out that thread about children and rape.

Is there anything that would warrant a family limiting it's children? Good question.
dbackers post reminds me of Matthew 19:11-12 (talking about marriage, 12 referring to child birth) in the Joseph Smith translation. I don't think the updated version is in the church published KJV bible. I'm pretty certain it can be found in the Knecht text of the Joseph Smith bible translation though.

Rather off topic, but...
Sorry, I'm currently working on publishing a JST new testament version with some friends which is supposed to include all changes ever made by the prophet in one continual text, with a KJV versification if at all possible. So sometimes I may quote lesser known JST verses that are harder to find.

That also seems to have been a consensus amongst the latter-day presidents and prophets. Whenever you read quotes on them preaching against birth control, they seem to include the qualifier "if the parents are healthy." That of course would then require us to understand what is healthy. Personally I would not see it fit to apply the definition of "health" given by the SCOTUS in the Doe v. Bolton decision. I know the prophets have applied that scripture to mean for example that inherently infertile members are excused from the necessity of marriage, due to their inability to have children. And that if a pregnancy were to seriously endanger a womans health, one may be excused of the necessity to raise up (more) children. So far we have come to a conclusion of where we may decide not to have children, but not as to how this can be accomplished (besides if it was a factor known prior to courtship through not marrying) and if there is a case where it must be done.

In such cases were the pregnancy would be dangerous, I would agree that a couple may choose to limit or completely stop having children. About the method I would say you're on the safe side with abstinence. About the other methods in these cases I do not feel qualified to make a statement.

I also heartedly agree with dbackers on the bishop not having a say. A bishop should keep out of such a situation, as it is far out of his responsibilities. Especially if the husband is a bearer of the melchizedek priesthood, it's none of the bishop's business as he is called to preside over the aaronic priesthood (sometimes they seem to forget their calling in regards to that). Do other ecclesiastical leaders have a say on what you should do personally, or have a say on your decision? I would say no as well, this is a matter to be handled by the patriarch of the family. The patriarch only has the responsibility to decide in the same way the Lord or the Savior would decide in their place. As long as we follow that guideline, we're cool so to say.

But back to the third world country question. Is it justified? I say, why should it not be? Why do we have to rely on modern medicine so heavily, and think it horrible to not use it? I know of Amish who don't, and they're doing just fine (I have to say I betimes wonder and think they actually choose the better path with their refusal to accept the modern world). Children were born deaf, blind, autistic long before modern medicine found a way to really help them. Even after we figured out who would more likely be having such children, we couldn't help. Should we say these children shouldn't have been born, and the parents should've used birth control? I know this is swaying to the other extreme, but through comparisons of the extremes we can understand each position better. I don't think the children before suffered needlessly contrary to the will of God, nor do I believe any future children will suffer needlessly contrary to the will of God. To me, it basically boils down to an issue of Faith. Trust in ourselves and our wisdom above the commandments given to us by God, or trust in Him even when we're scared to do so.

I guess I don't see why we should use birth control in war situations because I don't see why we would a) want to have "half-"sex or why we would feel like having sex in the first place. I grew up in Germany, and if I look at the way Germany was right after WWII, with the rubble, the cold, the hunger, death lurking around every corner, I don't quite see me being frequently aroused to a point were I have to act on it, or being aroused enough to copulate with my spouse in the first place, you know what I mean?

As a general rule, I would stick to either abstinence or "real" sex. I think we need to be careful finding "extreme circumstances" to explain why we should not keep a commandment (which doesn't have anything to do with a prophet having said so). Joseph Smith was tarred and featherd, though this did not excuse him from his prophetic calling. He was eventually martyred for his obedience to the Gospel commandments, including the ever infamous law of Celestial Marriage.

Mormons Pregnant Or Not - Page 11

I think this is one of those issues where you need to experience firsthand to fully understand that it is not really a matter of Faith only (in my opinion). Take the example of this LDS family in Utah with 6 autistic children. The wife have been diagnosed with several mental disorders including deep depression, the husband cannot have a regular job because he needs to help out with the kids so he tries to make a living at his home. They have big kids in diapers, some non-verbal and some with severe issues. Life is very, very tough for this family. They're not having any more kids but would it be fair for them AND for the kids if they keep having more kids and they are not "healthy" enough mentally to deal with the many challenges they already face and that they can hardly deal with at the present time? Can the Lord be satisfied and happy seeing this? I have my doubts.

As a mom of special needs children (2 with special needs at the moment, another one I don't know yet) our days are extremely, extremely stressful. Stressful is a HUGE understatement actually. I always dreamed in having 6 kids (and I still do). I did not foresee that I will become a mom for special needs children but this is what the Lord had in store for me and my family and I think it is very important as mothers and fathers to discuss these things and know WHEN is your breaking point (because everyone has it) and counsel with the Lord whether keep having special needs children is what HE wants us to do despite the many, many challenges. For me, this is one of those issues that require lots and lots and lots of prayers and fasting and one that the couple (both) should feel comfortable with.

Mormons Pregnant Or Not Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 11

I do not believe this would be an option within our my marriage. Not because I think it is inherintly wrong to be abstinent within marriage (though ill advised), I just do not think that my wife or myself would choose to live that way. I infact believe this would be a less safe way of living our marriage.

I do not think that using birth control makes marital sex any less "real" as you say.

I do not understand why there should be a prohibition during that time, unless one thought that sex was only to be used for procreation (which I do not believe is the case). I have to admit that my wife wanted sex much more during pregnancy due to a rise in hormones.

President Kimball stated and I had quoted this in another thread (but it is applicable to this also):

Message Edited...
LDS_forever: I fixed your quote tags.