Suzie

That's my whole point from the start.

There are dozens and dozens of quotes by early leaders condemning any sort of birth control. So yes, it changed in the last few generations.

Folks, we already established that those who have health related issues cannot have children. Nobody is "judging" anyone. The comment of replacing children for dogs is common knowledge in today's world (or are we saying that's a fallacy?) and further brought up by an Apostle. What I am arguing is the point that bearing children (IF you are able to do so and you're healthy to do so) is a COMMANDMENT. Full stop. If anyone disagrees, I would like some debate on that particular point. So the comment of someone not "wanting" to have any children at all (even though they ARE able to do so) goes against Lord's commandments. Simple as that.

If God is all powerful he will stop people from killing... If God is all powerful he will make drugs disappear... If God is all powerful he will..... The reasoning doesn't hold.

A scratching ticket they usually give you FOR FREE to win burgers or fries is gambling? Nonsense. I think sometimes like Pharisees we focus so much on the outside but our inside are rottening. "Oh no, I don't drink Coke or use a scratch ticket to win a free burger, those things are very wrong!" "But hey, I haven't done my Home Teaching for the past two years". So silly.

I don't know, why would I know? I don't go around asking couples why they have/don't have children. The point I was making of children being replaced by dogs was an example I heard in General Conference by Elder Oaks but I suppose you see him as "judging" as well?: Unselfish Service

That's why I mentioned the reasons why some people have a dog over a child. I am aware that not everyone gets a pet for the same reasons. I miss your point. What judging has to do with anything? We're merely pointing out a commandment, we discussed the reasons why someone cannot/should not have a child, etc and at the end we're discussing the fact that those who do not have health issues, who understand the plan of salvation and that by choice decide not to have children are going against God's will. That's not my opinion or conclusion or being judgmental, it's a fact.

Yes, adopting pets is a good thing but using them as a replacement for children because they dont talk back, you don't have to change their diapers or take them to school is not a good thing (again, taking into consideration they're members of the church who understand the plan of salvation and the purpose of families).

I agree. I posted this quote in the other thread: LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Evils of Gambling

Also in my opinion another reason the leaders ask us not to contend with other religions is because most members are not fully aware/do not know much of our Church doctrine and Church history and when a topic (they do not know about) is brought up into the discussion by the other party (you know, the most controversial stuff: Blood atonement, Calling and Election, Blacks and the Priesthood, etc) they are not able to give a proper explanation.

That's why I said "taking into consideration there are no health issues, etc". Other than that, it has become an excuse and children being replaced by dogs.

It was easier back then for the enemies of the Church to add poison to wine (due to the color), they couldn't do the same thing with water. Joseph Smith was poisoned once and his jaw was dislocated.

Of course is their choice but if they're members of the Church and they have the knowledge that we all have a commandment from God to do the opposite (taking into consideration there are no health issues, etc) then they're rebelling against God's wishes. Yes, their choice.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks: LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Evils of Gambling

If they lived polygamous lives why would they have to choose one wife? I don't understand the reasoning.

Actually, it took several years after the Manifesto. Many church leaders continued living in polygamy post-manifesto.

Nondoctrinal? I have to respectfully disagree with that. We are sealing more than one wife to one man in the Temple (work for the dead). Just because a doctrine is not presently practiced among the living, it doesn't make it nondoctrinal. As far as I know, Doctrine and Covenants 132 still part of Church doctrine. The Law of Consecration is part of Church doctrine even though we're asked to live the Law of Tithing.

This thread reminds me to the other one about doctrine. It is all good if a person desires not to watch R rated movies or no drink Coke, etc but if in the process of focusing in these small little things they don't do their Home Teaching/VT every month and in this way they do not look after the welfare of their brothers and sisters... in what way it profits them? I think most of the time, we miss the bigger picture.