Is a vasectomy or getting your tubes tied an abomination to God and His plan?

[JohnsonJones]

45 minutes ago, Vort said:

True. But the wording in the Handbook seemed to portray a decision to sterilize oneself as deserving of significantly more sober thoughtfulness and divine revelation than a decision to remove an infected appendix.

There are MANY things in this life that I have strong feelings towards.  There are things I am of the opinion which should be more heavily weighted and more thought pondered than normally is given (one of my big peeves in what people sometimes treat far too flippantly would be divorce, for example).  However, when dealing with things in church matters, it is best to rely on what is actually written rather than personal opinion.  There are MANY things people take lightly that I would rather they think far more heavily upon before making an decision.  However, personal opinion on such items is no reason to say something is allowed or not allowed or is going to make someone a good member or not a good member.

Otherwise I'd condemn everyone in the ward who has gotten a divorce for a reason other than adultery or criminal abuse.  Not a good thing.  In these matters, it is best to stick with what is actually there. 

Some things are best left between the individual and the Lord.

Edited March 28, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Vort]

49 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

When @anatess2 quoted Vort in this manner, am I the only one who squirmed a bit?

LOL

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

However, personal opinion on such items is no reason to say something is allowed or not allowed or is going to make someone a good member or not a good member.

Has someone in this conversation suggested such a thing?

[JohnsonJones]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Has someone in this conversation suggested such a thing?

Some people get rather close when asking if something is allowed or not allowed (question that was posed earlier in the thread).

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Some people get rather close when asking if something is allowed or not allowed (question that was posed earlier in the thread).

I've reviewed the thread but haven't found any posts that look to me like they fit your description. Can you be more specific?

[Guest MormonGator]

 

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

I've reviewed the thread but haven't found any posts that look to me like they fit your description. Can you be more specific?

In fairness Vort it might have been just an observation that JJ saw somewhere else. It's a good observation, and it was a good place/time/thread to bring it up. He wasn't naming names or being accusatory. 

Edited March 28, 2017 by MormonGator

[MrShorty]

I was the one who introduced "allowed" (in quotes) earlier (post 15 if I counted correctly, I wish this software would number posts like others did sometimes). It was early, and I had not fully thought through the implications of that word and such (still working through my own thoughts on this).

The way the CHI excerpt is written, it seems to be more than just "please think this through carefully". The wording in the CHI is rather specific. One should NOT undergo this kind of surgery unless "competent medical judgement" believes there are risks to life and health from future pregnancies or someone is completely incompetent to bring a child into the world. Without trying to judge individual cases, it seems that most of the cases I am aware of were more along the lines of "we've had ___ children, we don't want any more, and don't believe God has anymore reserved for us."

Perhaps JohnsonJones divorce example is good -- is this something that we take too casually. The other example, perhaps because the language seems similar, is abortion and the exceptions that the Church "allows" (there's that word again) for abortion. Of course, abortion we tend to take very seriously (sometimes it seems like we barely acknowledge the exceptions, perhaps because many of our allies in the anti-abortion movements don't acknowledge those exceptions). Perhaps we take divorce too casually, and perhaps our attitudes towards birth control are too casual.

 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

However, personal opinion on such items is no reason to say something is allowed or not allowed or is going to make someone a good member or not a good member.

@MrShorty clarified what was meant; sorry for missing it.

I guess I think that when someone asks for opinions (as I interpreted the OP to do), we're going to get lots of opinions. God's may be the only opinion that really matters, but sometimes we ask for other feedback so we can try to sort out our options, give them some pondering, and ask God whether his opinion matches Opinion X. I assume that no one will read these responses and attribute them as the official position of the Church. (Well, I'm sure that someone somewhere will do just this, but s/he shouldn't. And I don't think it's reasonable that we write everything we converse about here with disclaimers on every sentence that we aren't speaking for God. That should be understood. At some point, we need to assume any readers are reasonably informed and intelligent.)

[anatess2]

8 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I was the one who introduced "allowed" (in quotes) earlier (post 15 if I counted correctly, I wish this software would number posts like others did sometimes). It was early, and I had not fully thought through the implications of that word and such (still working through my own thoughts on this).

The way the CHI excerpt is written, it seems to be more than just "please think this through carefully". The wording in the CHI is rather specific. One should NOT undergo this kind of surgery unless "competent medical judgement" believes there are risks to life and health from future pregnancies or someone is completely incompetent to bring a child into the world. Without trying to judge individual cases, it seems that most of the cases I am aware of were more along the lines of "we've had ___ children, we don't want any more, and don't believe God has anymore reserved for us."

Perhaps JohnsonJones divorce example is good -- is this something that we take too casually. The other example, perhaps because the language seems similar, is abortion and the exceptions that the Church "allows" (there's that word again) for abortion. Of course, abortion we tend to take very seriously (sometimes it seems like we barely acknowledge the exceptions, perhaps because many of our allies in the anti-abortion movements don't acknowledge those exceptions). Perhaps we take divorce too casually, and perhaps our attitudes towards birth control are too casual.

 

I understand what you're saying here and agree with it in spirit.

What I'm still scratching my head on this is the impression you and Vort seem to have that ligation and vasectomy are treated casually, even as casually as divorce.  We are in the modern age where birth control can be 99% guaranteed with a pill or an injection once a year.  I've been through tubal ligation.  I'd rather take the injection 100 times over than go through ligation!  That 1% chance is just not large enough to go under the knife!  But, alas, when you see the grim reaper's shadow hanging over the birth of your child, you tend to take the doctor's counsel over your wishes for a family basketball team.  

I just couldn't understand the thinking that such decisions that involve such great risks to one's life and is such a big hit on one's wallet can be approached as casually as.... say, even elective abortion... when modern medicine has reached the point it has today on the effectiveness of artificial birth control at such a low cost with almost zero risk.  There has to be a much more compelling reason to eliminate that last 1% chance forever  in such a life-risky and expensive manner than just casual thought or even just a short moment of soberness.

[Vort]

39 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

What I'm still scratching my head on this is the impression you and Vort seem to have that ligation and vasectomy are treated casually, even as casually as divorce.

This is my impression. I was not speaking of you, or of anyone else specifically. It's my general impression that people, even Latter-day Saints, take the issue of self-sterilization much too casually. Perhaps "casually" is the wrong word, since I'm sure it's not something they do on the spur of the moment, like a bad tattoo. But my impression is that many people say, hey, you know, I'm done having children, I don't want any more, my fertility is really more of a burden than a blessing, so let's just cut it off.

Might my impression be wrong? Sure. But that's what it is, right or wrong, so that's where my thoughts are coming from.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Vort

[person0]

Is there any point in known history when God introduced or espoused a mechanism to prevent the birth of children?  Excepting for those born without the physical capacity to do so, I think not.

All methods of contraception and sterilization are inventions of man.  Widespread contraception in any form is relatively modern in the history of the world.  Sterilization is even more modern.  Modern prophets have opined that the prevention of children being brought into this world is an abomination. They have also stated that to continue bringing children into this world at the risk of the life of the mother (especially against a competent physicians recommendation) is also not appropriate to the purposes of the Lord.

The topic is a serious matter that should be considered by individual couples because the underlying principles will affect everyone differently.  It is not inherently right nor wrong and so requires the specific direction of the Lord in each and every case.

[JohnsonJones]

Said some sarcastically dark humor pertaining to Noah and those around him, another on Onan, and yet another on Israel and the conquest of Canaan, probably too dark for the board.  Self editing it out as it is probably the wiser course of action.

Edited March 29, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[MrShorty]

10 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I understand what you're saying here and agree with it in spirit.

What I'm still scratching my head on this is the impression you and Vort seem to have that ligation and vasectomy are treated casually, even as casually as divorce.  We are in the modern age where birth control can be 99% guaranteed with a pill or an injection once a year.  I've been through tubal ligation.  I'd rather take the injection 100 times over than go through ligation!  That 1% chance is just not large enough to go under the knife!  But, alas, when you see the grim reaper's shadow hanging over the birth of your child, you tend to take the doctor's counsel over your wishes for a family basketball team.  

I just couldn't understand the thinking that such decisions that involve such great risks to one's life and is such a big hit on one's wallet can be approached as casually as.... say, even elective abortion... when modern medicine has reached the point it has today on the effectiveness of artificial birth control at such a low cost with almost zero risk.  There has to be a much more compelling reason to eliminate that last 1% chance forever  in such a life-risky and expensive manner than just casual thought or even just a short moment of soberness.

I certainly did not mean to imply that every person who has undergone the procedure has done so casually. I'm sure there are many cases where a couple had to wrestle with the very real conflict between health and fertility. I do not know how many LDS have undergone such procedures after such a serious wrestle and how many have done so more casually.

One thing I see in your response is that you have taken the very female-centric view of it. True that ligation for women (especially when done as a stand-alone procedure -- having it done during a C-section is supposedly a simple addition to the C-section) is a significant surgery. For men, however (jokes about cringing at the word snip aside), a vasectomy is a very simple, low risk, outpatient procedure. A few hours in the outpatient clinic, a couple of days with some ice packs, and life resumes. For a woman, you are correct that it takes some serious consideration of various options before going under the knife. For a man, the surgery is minor, the risks are small, and the inconvenience minimal. Other than the CHI's counsel against having the surgery and one's personal feeling about future children/fertility, there is much less to consider.

8 hours ago, lds_person_0 said:

Is there any point in known history when God introduced or espoused a mechanism to prevent the birth of children?  Excepting for those born without the physical capacity to do so, I think not.

I'm not sure. The challenge with this is that all of modern medicine (with notable rare exceptions like Elder Nelson's experience with Pres. Kimball's heart) comes about from a scientific process. How much of this process is "inspired by God" can be difficult to say. Are cancer treatments inspired by God? Vaccines (a hot button topic)? Unlike the Amish, we mostly embrace medical advances as "good", so I would be careful making this a "God cannot possibly have been behind birth control technologies."

[person0]

2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not sure. The challenge with this is that all of modern medicine (with notable rare exceptions like Elder Nelson's experience with Pres. Kimball's heart) comes about from a scientific process. How much of this process is "inspired by God" can be difficult to say. Are cancer treatments inspired by God? Vaccines (a hot button topic)? Unlike the Amish, we mostly embrace medical advances as "good", so I would be careful making this a "God cannot possibly have been behind birth control technologies."

I actually agree with you here and I had considered the idea you present while writing that post.  That is why I made sure to include that I wasn't saying it was objectively evil, but my main point in that portion of my statement was that we have no evidence or direct revelation from God that outlines any specific or appropriate use, similar to how each person pays tithing based on revelation between them and the Lord.

[NeuroTypical]

9 hours ago, lds_person_0 said:

Is there any point in known history when God introduced or espoused a mechanism to prevent the birth of children?  Excepting for those born without the physical capacity to do so, I think not.

Well, to the best of my knowledge, He never introduced or espoused a mechanism to [insert list of every single medical advance ever made by man, unless you find it specifically mentioned in the scriptures] either. 

Other than the emphasis on learning and knowledge and growth, using our stewardships wisely, and that we shouldn't wait to be commanded in all things, that is...

[person0]

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, to the best of my knowledge, He never introduced or espoused a mechanism to [insert list of every single medical advance ever made by man, unless you find it specifically mentioned in the scriptures] either. 

Other than the emphasis on learning and knowledge and growth, using our stewardship wisely, and that we shouldn't wait to be commanded in all things, that is...

See my previous post that showed up right before you posted this one.  That being said, there are a few rare exceptions, such as the fact that modern prophets have revealed that euthanasia is objectively wrong in all cases.

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

This is my impression. I was not speaking of you, or of anyone else specifically. It's my general impression that people, even Latter-day Saints, take the issue of self-sterilization much too casually. Perhaps "casually" is the wrong word, since I'm sure it's not something they do on the spur of the moment, like a bad tattoo. But my impression is that many people say, hey, you know, I'm done having children, I don't want any more, my fertility is really more of a burden than a blessing, so let's just cut it off.

Might my impression be wrong? Sure. But that's what it is, right or wrong, so that's where my thoughts are coming from.

I understand.  And I guess I may be naive on this one.  I mean... I grew up in a predominantly Catholic country where condoms are hidden in the back of specialty shops with the porn magazines.  My world view started with birth control as serious stuff that requires involvement of the family, the doctor, and the priest!

[anatess2]

22 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I certainly did not mean to imply that every person who has undergone the procedure has done so casually. I'm sure there are many cases where a couple had to wrestle with the very real conflict between health and fertility. I do not know how many LDS have undergone such procedures after such a serious wrestle and how many have done so more casually.

One thing I see in your response is that you have taken the very female-centric view of it. True that ligation for women (especially when done as a stand-alone procedure -- having it done during a C-section is supposedly a simple addition to the C-section) is a significant surgery. For men, however (jokes about cringing at the word snip aside), a vasectomy is a very simple, low risk, outpatient procedure. A few hours in the outpatient clinic, a couple of days with some ice packs, and life resumes. For a woman, you are correct that it takes some serious consideration of various options before going under the knife. For a man, the surgery is minor, the risks are small, and the inconvenience minimal. Other than the CHI's counsel against having the surgery and one's personal feeling about future children/fertility, there is much less to consider.

 

Even with a c-section, this is still not that simple.  You can't just decide while you're giving birth that you want a tubal ligation to go with your c-section.  A tubal ligation approval has to be signed and contracted as part of pre-natal care.  And even with the signed document, the doctor still has to ask for your consent after the c-section is done and before he performs the ligation... which, at that point, you are still under anesthesia and stressed out from just having a baby that the doctor has to make the call that you are lucid when you gave consent... lots of doctors have lost all their money from ligations after a c-section... I guess it's like a woman suing a man for rape for giving consent and then retracting it right before the act.

On the vasectomy, my husband gave me the impression that it's a very big deal.  It is such a big deal to him that he won't even let our dogs get neutered!

 

 

[MrShorty]

I expect those are true for emergency C-sections, but not all C-sections are unplanned. If a woman and her doctor anticipate the C-section (because planning the C-section before letting natural labor start is medically indicated), then one can get all those permissions lined up before the procedure.

I am not sure where your husband is coming from. Medically, vasectomy is not a big deal. Perhaps he is including the spiritual/theological ramifications like we are considering here and suggesting that those theological considerations are what make the medically insignificant procedure so significant.

[omegaseamaster75]

10 hours ago, lds_person_0 said:

Is there any point in known history when God introduced or espoused a mechanism to prevent the birth of children?  Excepting for those born without the physical capacity to do so, I think not.

All methods of contraception and sterilization are inventions of man.  Widespread contraception in any form is relatively modern in the history of the world.  Sterilization is even more modern.  Modern prophets have opined that the prevention of children being brought into this world is an abomination. They have also stated that to continue bringing children into this world at the risk of the life of the mother (especially against a competent physicians recommendation) is also not appropriate to the purposes of the Lord.

The topic is a serious matter that should be considered by individual couples because the underlying principles will affect everyone differently.  It is not inherently right nor wrong and so requires the specific direction of the Lord in each and every case.

Highlighted portion by me. Please provide your reference for this statement.

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I expect those are true for emergency C-sections, but not all C-sections are unplanned. If a woman and her doctor anticipate the C-section (because planning the C-section before letting natural labor start is medically indicated), then one can get all those permissions lined up before the procedure.

I am not sure where your husband is coming from. Medically, vasectomy is not a big deal. Perhaps he is including the spiritual/theological ramifications like we are considering here and suggesting that those theological considerations are what make the medically insignificant procedure so significant.

Mine was planned.  Consent signed during one of the pre-natal visits after a few months of the doctor advising ligation.  Consent signed again at the hospital when I showed up for the scheduled c-section.  And another verbal consent request while my stomach was still wide open after the c-section.

Dunno about my husband.  Spiritual/theological would make sense except that there's no spiritual/theological reason to keep our dogs intact.

[person0]

12 hours ago, Person0 said:

Modern prophets have opined that the prevention of children being brought into this world is an abomination.

1 hour ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Highlighted portion by me. Please provide your reference for this statement.

 

Forgive me if I post too many, I tend to beat a dead horse with these things.  I apologize in advance as I believed it was common knowledge.

Quote

“Those who have taken upon themselves the responsibility of wedded life should see to it that they do not abuse the course of nature; that they do not destroy the principle of life within them, nor violate any of the commandments of God. The command which he gave in the beginning to multiply and replenish the earth is still in force upon the children of men. Possibly no greater sin could be committed by the people who have embraced this gospel than to prevent or to destroy life in the manner indicated. We are born into the world that we may have life, and we live that we may have a fullness of joy, and if we will obtain a fullness of joy, we must obey the law of our creation and the law by which we may obtain the consummation of our righteous hopes and desires -- life eternal.”

- Prophet Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p. 276

Quote

“Officers, members of the Relief Society, herein you have the word of the Lord, on this subject. Can anything be clearer or more emphatic? It is a very strange thing that people can believe that the Lord of Life could countenance for one moment, the refusal of his children to comply with the first commandment given to Adam and Eve. It is so easy to avoid parenthood, if people wish to do so, and that, too, innocently, even if selfishly. Men and women can remain unmarried. That is all there is too it.”

- First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, Charles W. Penrose), Relief Society Magazine, v. 4, no. 2, February 1917, pp. 68-69

Quote

“When the husband and wife are healthy, and free from inherited weaknesses and diseases that might be transmitted with injury to their offspring the use of contraceptives is to be condemned.”

- Prophet David O. McKay, Conference Report, October 1943, p. 30

Quote

“Any effort or desire on the part of a married couple to shirk the responsibility of parenthood reflects a condition of mind antagonistic to the best interests of the home, the state, and the nation. No doubt there are some worldly people who honestly limit the number of children and the family to two or three because of insufficient means to clothe and educate a large family as the parents would desire to do, but in nearly all such cases, the two or three children are no better provided for than two or three times that number would be. Such parents may be sincere, even if misguided; but in most cases the desire not to have children has its birth in vanity, passion, and selfishness. Such feelings are the seeds sown in early married life that produce a harvest of discord, suspicion, estrangement, and divorce. All such efforts, too, often tend to put the marriage relationship on a level with the panderer and the courtesan. They befoul the pure fountains of life with the slime of indulgence and sensuality. Such misguided couples are ever seeking but never finding the reality for which the heart is yearning.”

- Apostle David O. McKay, Relief Society Magazine, v. 3, no. 7, July 1916 (note: McKay was an apostle at the time)

Quote

“Those who attempt to pervert the ways of the Lord, and to prevent their offspring from coming into the world in obedience to this great command, 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, for by their acts they prove their unworthiness for exaltation and unfitness for a kingdom where the crowning glory is the continuation of the family union and eternal increase which have been promised to all those who obey the law of the Lord. It is just as much murder to destroy life before as it is after birth, although man-made laws may not so consider it; but there is One who does take notice and his justice and judgment are sure.
“I feel only the greatest contempt for those who, because of a little worldly learning or a feeling of their own superiority over others, advocate and endeavor to control the so-called ‘lower classes' from what they are pleased to call "indiscriminate breeding."
“The old colonial stock that one or two centuries ago laid the foundation of our great nation, is rapidly being replaced by the ‘lower classes' of a sturdier and more worthy race. Worthier because they have not learned, in these modern times, to disregard the great commandment given to man by our Heavenly Father. It is indeed, a case of survival of the fittest, and it is only a matter of time before those who so strongly advocate and practice the pernicious doctrine of ‘birth control' and the limiting of the number of children in the family, will have legislated themselves and their kind out of this mortal existence.”

- Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Relief Society Magazine, v. 3, no. 7, July 1916

Quote

“[W]e declare it is a grievous sin before God to adopt restrictive measures in disobedience to God's divine command from the beginning of time to ‘multiply and replenish the earth.' Surely those who project such measures to prevent life or to destroy life before or after birth will reap the whirlwind of God's retribution, for God will not be mocked.”

- Prophet Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, October 1972, p. 63

I can provide more examples as well, but I would assume that is more than enough.

[omegaseamaster75]

54 minutes ago, Person0 said:

Forgive me if I post too many, I tend to beat a dead horse with these things.  I apologize in advance as I believed it was common knowledge.

I can provide more examples as well, but I would assume that is more than enough.

So not a commandment and not doctrine....thx, with the most current from 1972, interesting that Harold B Lee would make those comments while Roe V. Wade was being decided by the courts.  Not coincidence.

[person0]

15 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

So not a commandment and not doctrine....thx, with the most current from 1972, interesting that Harold B Lee would make those comments while Roe V. Wade was being decided by the courts.  Not coincidence.

Obviously you didn't read what I wrote accurately:

Quote

. . . Modern prophets have opined. . .

At what point did I say it was anything more than their opinion?  At what point did I indicate that it is official doctrine that it is an abomination?

BTW since 1972 was too long ago for you, here is a more recent one that is accessible on lds.org from General Conference:

Quote

“It is contradictory to this covenant to prevent the birth of children if the parents are in good health. . .Thirty-five years ago when I first started practicing medicine, it was a rare thing for a married woman to seek advice about how she could keep from having babies. When I finished practicing medicine, it was a rare thing, except for some faithful Latter-day Saint women, for a married woman to want to have more than one or two children, and some did not want any children. We in the Church must not be caught up in the false doctrines of the world that would cause us to break sacred temple covenants.”

- Seventy J. Ballard Washburn, April 1995 General Conference

 

[Guest]

Multiply = Increase.  So, as long as we're above replacement rate, then I think we're good.

Since there are those who cannot have more children for whatever reasons, and others who choose not to have children for whatever reasons, we who can try to have a little over replacement rate.

Replacement rate is, what, 2.1 or 2.2 or so?  I don't know how many couples can have 0.1 or 0.2 children.  Actually, I do.  ZERO.  So, I always felt like I needed to have at least three children to satisfy the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. 

But once I started having children, quoth I:

Quote

The world must be peopled!

They're just such great kids... the world needs more awesome kids.  We just happen to be having some.  I mean... they are MY kids after all... (a-hem).  So, we just kept having more.  But we're older now.  I'M really getting older and slower.  I'm just not able to handle more.  We've got seven as it is.

We made a decision that a procedure for me would be less intrusive than a procedure for her. So, I was going to do it.  But the doctor did a prelim exam.  He explained to me that I would not be able to go through the simpler out-patient procedure.  For me and my physiology, I'd have to do a major surgery.  So, I didn't go through with it.

But this was definitely not a light decision.  Yet, many would argue if we "needed" to stop having kids.  All I can say is that we feel we've obeyed the commandments, and we did what was best for our family.