Birth Control...

[Faerie]

I was actually referring to many people, not just you..

and sorry, the subject of adoption is very near and dear to my heart and I was dismayed that out of all the things to criticize the church on, not giving babies away for free and accusing the church of "selling babies" is ridiculous..

sorry i didn't use "quotes" too lazy lol

I went back and edited my original post..may or may not of added clarification...

[Faerie]

What I DID say is that I think THE CHURCH ought to pay the entire cost of adoption through their Social Services network, as THE CHURCH could easily afford it and/or ask attorneys to cover the costs pro bono (perhaps in lieu of tithing payments).

I believe the church doesn't pay for it all or ask for "pro bono" is for a very obvious reason. Handing out free children to whomever acts like they care can be very dangerous. If money is at stake, the adoptive couple is more likely to invest more energy and devotion and truely care about the end result. It's like handing a 16 year old a brand new mustang for free, they wreck it and get another one and no biggie. However if said 16 year old had to WORK for the car and pay for it, he's going to take much better care and drive it safer and will try his best to avoid any damages.

Anyone can enter the foster system and get a "free" kid...and there are thousands of horror stories of abuse resulting from this program. I think the church is smart in asking the adoptive couple to pay a SMALL portion of the ultimate costs...Just like no one is going to pay for me to have THIS baby, I don't think the church is obligated to pay 100% for anyone else's baby.

BUT..the church DOES pay 100% on certain adoptive cases. "Special needs children" come to members at almost no cost at all, aside from their own personal lawyer fees. This category is broad and can mean children over the age of 1, sibling groups, as well as emotionally/physically challenged children...

The point of my post was that my experience with LDS Social Services (and it was NOT a "terrible" one for me, either) indicated to me that THE CHURCH (or at least the members) are anxious for unmarried teens to give their babies up, there seemed to be little choice for the girls involved, they were made to feel deep shame for putting their families in this "situation" and were sent away to hide what they had done.  They were counseled to forget about it and not tell anyone, not even their future husbands! but to put it behind them and move on. "No-one would ever have to know"!

I know for a fact that the church no longer handles pregnant teens like this. My mother worked w/ those girls for a few years and told me some wonderful things about the LDSS process.

IMHO though, there should be shame, and yes..unmarried teens SHOULD give their babies up...those children deserve homes w/ a mother AND a father and they also deserve an eternal family...

and today, pregnant teens have a plethora of sources before them to handle the consequences of adoption..the church provides unlimited counseling (private) as well as group therapy...the cost of this is part of the portion paid by the adoptive parents

Sorry for flying off the handle, as I said...this is near and dear to my heart and I'm tired of seeing people come down on the church for the smallest thing...no matter what it is, there is always someone on this board who has to speak out against the church...i apologize for my short temper

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Faerie@May 11 2004, 02:22 PM

IMHO though, there should be shame, and yes..unmarried teens SHOULD give their babies up...those children deserve homes w/ a mother AND a father and they also deserve an eternal family...

My LDS niece was a teen pregnancy statistic. She was 14 when she got pregnant and the boy was 16. Her parents wouldn't even consider adoption, nor his parents who are Catholic - and the Branch president counseled the teens to get married at 14 and 16 years of age. The teens wanted to get married and both sets of parents gave their permission.

It has been 6 years later, they have just had their 3rd child, she is 20, he 22. And as far as I can tell (we live many hours away from each other) they are doing pretty good, considering - and their kids are so cute.

So Faerie, what do you think about having teens get married? For me personally, at the time, I was against it.

M.

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette+May 6 2004, 08:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ May 6 2004, 08:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@May 6 2004, 05:27 PM

I don't really take ANYTHING in Genesis literally, as it is full of alegory and symbolism. Therefore, to refer to "be fruitful and multiply" as some sort of literal edict for every man and woman in the 21st century, is silly.

I agree that much of Genesis is symbolic. Also, Adam and Eve (if they were literal people) had a whole planet to begin populating, of course the Lord would command them to do so. Our situation is a wee bit different.

curvy,

If you are going to take Genesis literally enough to believe that there were just two people on earth 6 thousand years ago, then you might as well take everything else in it literally too, since that is about the easiest thing to prove WASN'T literal about Genesis.

There is ample, if not conclusive, evidence that there were people all over the earth 65 thousand years ago, and the Adam and Eve of Genesis would have stood out about like two white sheep in a group of 100,000 other white sheep.

Now, since we can, therefore, be quite sure that Adam and Eve were NOT the first human beings, and that taking Genesis literally at every turn is absurd, then maybe we should also question whether the "edict" to populate the world by one self should be taken literally also.

[Cal]

Originally posted by bizabra+May 9 2004, 09:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bizabra @ May 9 2004, 09:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Faerie@May 8 2004, 06:09 PM

i'm finally pregnant w/ baby #1..but i had a very hard time getting here, so adoption may still be in our future...

and the church subsidizes a HUGE portion of adoption costs..the maximum the church charges for a newborn adoption is 10K...starts at 4K and it's based on 10% of your income...

and i agree w/ whomever pointed out the proc on the family where our current prophet upholds the "multiply and replenish the earth" commandment...

Why should THE CHURCH charge ANYTHING for sell, er, I mean, adopting out all those poor unfortunate illegitimate babies born to mormon teens? Why not just GIVE THEM AWAY? Eh?

Sorry, I WAS a pregnant mormon teenager and I WAS involved in the LDS Social Services program for pregnant teens, so I have a different take on the whole matter.

Out of the 8 girls who met in the weekly "support" group, I was the ONLY ONE living at home who was keeping her baby. The rest had been shipped out and were giving up their babies so they could spare their families the shame and embarrasment, so "no-one would have to know"!!!!!!!

Only one was older than 18 and she was the only one who truly wanted to give her baby up, the rest were all jealous of me and were FORCED to do it. Thank god I have supportive parents who would rather face the "shame" of it all than give their grandchild away. That grandchild is now 27 years old and has given ME 3 well-loved and beautiful grandchildren! THANK the goddesses (LOL) that my parents would not budge and supported what I wanted, which was to keep my baby.

It wasn't easy, but it was worth it, even IF all the RM young men never looked at me twice, except for the one who had an agreement with his folks to take out every single young woman in the STAKE (that was a high school grad, I should add) before he would choose one to marry. How humiliating is THAT!

Anyway, THE CHURCH could easily cover all the costs involved, even mormon lawyers could do the legal work pro bono. It reeks of baby selling to me.

biz--it also reeks (sp.) of "we would rather have young girls give up their kids than for it to be obvious that lots of LDS girls get pregnant out of wedlock".

I find it rather hypocritcal of the church to be promoting itself as the pro-family church, and then to try to split families up by having girls give away their children. Rather than subsidized giving away babies, the church could subsidize the girls for child care costs, so that they could keep their kids.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Tr2@May 9 2004, 04:19 PM

Why should THE CHURCH charge ANYTHING for sell, er, I mean, adopting out all those poor unfortunate illegitimate babies born to mormon teens? Why not just GIVE THEM AWAY? Eh?

Because the LDS church is more of a business than a church.

Actually, there is some truth to that. However, I think it applies to most large churches.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@May 10 2004, 11:24 AM

I don't agree with the Church's earlier stance effectively banning all birth control, but on reflection, I can see at least some point to it.

Birth control isn't foolproof.  If a couple intends to prevent the birth of additional children, and an accident happens, the couple may be tempted to resent the child for the inconvenience and expense, and overlook the joy his birth is supposed to bring. 

Not that all parents of "accidents" resent them, but ultimately, either you view a child's birth as a blessing or a hassle.  To people on the edge of goodness (which includes all of us in some area or another), it may not take much to push them into ugly territory. 

So I do have some sympathy for the earlier Church leaders' stance against birth control.  It is even more understandable, given their backgrounds in an agricultural society where additional children meant additional farm help, and whose costs (mostly food and clothing) could be taken care of by economizing and self-sufficient home production.  Now, the costs of additional children are fixed cash expenses (health insurance, college, etc.), so the calculus is changed a bit.  People are not meant to run faster than they have strength.  If the earlier Church members, in their more large-family-friendly society, were running as fast as humanly possible in this area, then I would think that raising an equivalently-sized family, in today's economic environment, involves a faster run, which may be beyond the speed that is possible and therefore required.

I agree with most of what you said here, except that I don't quite follow the logic where you argue that someone trying to prevent pregnancy with birth control, but fails, is going to resent their child MORE than someone who doesn't use birth control, and wishes that the stork would get sucked into the turbo fan blades of some low flying corporate jet.

[liahonagirl]

Originally posted by Cal@May 11 2004, 07:09 PM

Rather than subsidized giving away babies, the church could subsidize the girls for child care costs, so that they could keep their kids.

Out of curiosity Cal, on the same vein, would you think the Church should subsidise fertility treatments for those who cannot have children?

[Cal]

Originally posted by bizabra+May 11 2004, 10:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bizabra @ May 11 2004, 10:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Faerie@May 10 2004, 09:13 PM

The "fees" that the church does not cover are neccessary. It's not "baby selling" and how disgusting for ANYONE to dare suggest that. I'm sorry you had such a "terrible" experience, but get over it. Not all babies in the adoption program come from pregnant teenagers and not all pregnant teenagers should keep their children. Think of the thousands of infertile couples who have been blessed through the miracle of adoption. Don't like it? Should have kept your pants on IMHO

Yes, the church is SO evil and SO business-like in making someone PAY for a child, cuz you know...getting pregnant and birthing a child yourself is free too!! Oh wait!! The church should pay for my maternity bills!!! I DEMAND A FREE BIRTH!!! Heaven forbid you actually help out the woman who's sacrificing a large chunk of her life!! Heaven forbid YOU help pay her medical bills and lawyer fees. Get real. First you complain that adoption is so expensive, but then you chastize and condemn the church for subsidizing 75% of the cost!!!

and SRM...it's not always "cheaper" to "make one." Grow a sensitivity center in your brain while you think about that one.

Disgusting...

I didn't complain that the cost of adoption is so expensive, and I also did not "chastize or condemn" THE CHURCH for paying a portion of the cost. I did not claim that THE CHURCH is "evil" or "business-like". I also did not say that THE CHURCH ought to have paid for the birth of my own child, my parents did that! Please keep your various posters straight in your mind before you start screaming at them, thank you very much.

What I DID say is that I think THE CHURCH ought to pay the entire cost of adoption through their Social Services network, as THE CHURCH could easily afford it and/or ask attorneys to cover the costs pro bono (perhaps in lieu of tithing payments).

I do not think that "all pregnant teens" should keep their babies. The point of my post was that my experience with LDS Social Services (and it was NOT a "terrible" one for me, either) indicated to me that THE CHURCH (or at least the members) are anxious for unmarried teens to give their babies up, there seemed to be little choice for the girls involved, they were made to feel deep shame for putting their families in this "situation" and were sent away to hide what they had done. They were counseled to forget about it and not tell anyone, not even their future husbands! but to put it behind them and move on. "No-one would ever have to know"!

I think adoption is a wonderful thing, IF it is what the mother wishes, NOT if it is what her parents or her church wishes. Since THE CHURCH and the parents want the babies adopted out, then I think THE CHURCH ought to fund it!

Please don't come out swinging if you are not clear what your target is, honey.

BTW, I have LIVED the consequences of my lifes actions, both the good and the bad, I don't need your condescension or condemnation. So just stuff a sock in it, willya? I'll keep my pants on or take 'em off as I wish! LOL

you go, girl :)

My comment to those who think that teen pregnancy is such a "scandal"----IT HAPPENS! No one is in favor of it, but IT HAPPENS. It is not really a condemnation of the church that some PEOPLE IN the church treat pregnant teens like pariahs, and try to make them feel like they are trash. That attitude is the problem of some church members who STILL have not learned that it is not OUR prerogative to judge others.

[Faerie]

Originally posted by Maureen+May 11 2004, 06:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ May 11 2004, 06:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Faerie@May 11 2004, 02:22 PM

IMHO though, there should be shame, and yes..unmarried teens SHOULD give their babies up...those children deserve homes w/ a mother AND a father and they also deserve an eternal family...

My LDS niece was a teen pregnancy statistic. She was 14 when she got pregnant and the boy was 16. Her parents wouldn't even consider adoption, nor his parents who are Catholic - and the Branch president counseled the teens to get married at 14 and 16 years of age. The teens wanted to get married and both sets of parents gave their permission.

It has been 6 years later, they have just had their 3rd child, she is 20, he 22. And as far as I can tell (we live many hours away from each other) they are doing pretty good, considering - and their kids are so cute.

So Faerie, what do you think about having teens get married? For me personally, at the time, I was against it.

M.

That's a touchy subject. LOL!! On one hand, it's wonderful that the mother and father can be together in a healthy, loving and supportive marriage and I would hope that on the age of 18 they would do the right thing and be sealed for all time and eternity...

On the other, who knows what true love is all about at age 14? What 14 year old can honestly and maturely work through real and serious marital problems that come up in everyday life?

I know that the church fully supports the parents marrying. It's only when the parents do not wish to be married that adoption becomes the answer.

I guess I don't really have an opinion on this particular question as I've never been party to such a situation. I think it would depend on each individual and situation.

And I hope I NEVER have to be party to this type of situation lol!!

[Faerie]

Originally posted by Cal@May 11 2004, 07:09 PM

biz--it also reeks (sp.) of "we would rather have young girls give up their kids than for it to be obvious that lots of LDS girls get pregnant out of wedlock".

I find it rather hypocritcal of the church to be promoting itself as the pro-family church, and then to try to split families up by having girls give away their children. Rather than subsidized giving away babies, the church could subsidize the girls for child care costs, so that they could keep their kids.

By paying for child care costs (shudder) of unwed teenage mothers, you are going AGAINST the whole purpose of "eternal families." I don't see it as splitting up the teenage girl's family, she still has her family (mom, dad, siblings, extended, etc.) while that lucky baby is getting an eternal family. I don't see hypocrisy, I see a wonderful answer to nature's cruel trick of infertility and loss.

[Cal]

Faerie--you said "IMHO though, there should be shame, and yes..unmarried teens SHOULD give their babies up...those children deserve homes w/ a mother AND a father and they also deserve an eternal family..."

You remind me of one of those self-rightous hypocrits that think they have the answer to every person's personal social questions in life, and who have lived in a shell for most of it. Who are you to think you know who SHOULD or SHOULD NOT give up their children? Every person and situation is different. Who are you to say to a teen that God DIDN'T send that child to them to be raised by them. If there is one hard fast rule in life it is that there are NO hard fast rules. Some teens maybe should give up their children, and some should not. Who are you to say which one that is?

Do you think God loves that mother OR child any less because there is no male parent in the picture?

Again, there are no hard fast rules that apply to everyone equally in questions of this kind, so quit trying to make them up.

[Faerie]

Originally posted by liahonagirl@May 11 2004, 07:25 PM

Out of curiosity Cal, on the same vein, would you think the Church should subsidise fertility treatments for those who cannot have children?

I know you didn't ask me, but I'm waxing poetic tonight and feel like being nosey.

I don't think the Church SHOULD do anything. The fact that Church DOES subsidize adoption costs is a wonderful and generous thing to do. Asking the Church to fully pay for the incurrance of children is like asking the government to, and I just don't think it's right.

Now, what SHOULD happen is that it SHOULD become mandatory law that INSURANCE COMPANIES cover infertility treatments to whatever point they deem neccessary. There are a handful of states where this is so, and for the past 2 years I've seriously considered moving to Mass. just for IVF coverage. HA HA!! Obviously the Lord had other plans and after much trial and tribulation, it's a moot point.

Again, adoption and child bearing is not welfare, and it's selfish to EXPECT the church to completely foot the bill.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Faerie@May 11 2004, 02:22 PM

What I DID say is that I think THE CHURCH ought to pay the entire cost of adoption through their Social Services network, as THE CHURCH could easily afford it and/or ask attorneys to cover the costs pro bono (perhaps in lieu of tithing payments).

I believe the church doesn't pay for it all or ask for "pro bono" is for a very obvious reason. Handing out free children to whomever acts like they care can be very dangerous. If money is at stake, the adoptive couple is more likely to invest more energy and devotion and truely care about the end result. It's like handing a 16 year old a brand new mustang for free, they wreck it and get another one and no biggie. However if said 16 year old had to WORK for the car and pay for it, he's going to take much better care and drive it safer and will try his best to avoid any damages.

Anyone can enter the foster system and get a "free" kid...and there are thousands of horror stories of abuse resulting from this program. I think the church is smart in asking the adoptive couple to pay a SMALL portion of the ultimate costs...Just like no one is going to pay for me to have THIS baby, I don't think the church is obligated to pay 100% for anyone else's baby.

BUT..the church DOES pay 100% on certain adoptive cases. "Special needs children" come to members at almost no cost at all, aside from their own personal lawyer fees. This category is broad and can mean children over the age of 1, sibling groups, as well as emotionally/physically challenged children...

The point of my post was that my experience with LDS Social Services (and it was NOT a "terrible" one for me, either) indicated to me that THE CHURCH (or at least the members) are anxious for unmarried teens to give their babies up, there seemed to be little choice for the girls involved, they were made to feel deep shame for putting their families in this "situation" and were sent away to hide what they had done.  They were counseled to forget about it and not tell anyone, not even their future husbands! but to put it behind them and move on. "No-one would ever have to know"!

I know for a fact that the church no longer handles pregnant teens like this. My mother worked w/ those girls for a few years and told me some wonderful things about the LDSS process.

IMHO though, there should be shame, and yes..unmarried teens SHOULD give their babies up...those children deserve homes w/ a mother AND a father and they also deserve an eternal family...

and today, pregnant teens have a plethora of sources before them to handle the consequences of adoption..the church provides unlimited counseling (private) as well as group therapy...the cost of this is part of the portion paid by the adoptive parents

Sorry for flying off the handle, as I said...this is near and dear to my heart and I'm tired of seeing people come down on the church for the smallest thing...no matter what it is, there is always someone on this board who has to speak out against the church...i apologize for my short temper

That's great that THE CHURCH actually does pay 100% of the cost sometimes, they should do more of that.

I disagree that a gift always means the "gift" in question means less to the recipient than if they had bought and paid for the item themselves. But that's OK you think differently.

The counseling and group therapy and all was free for me, too, as well as the myriad of "choices" proffered. The only REAL option for the other girls, however, was the one YOU YOURSELF outlined. Shame, adoption, repentance, the "eternal" family the baby "deserves". Your opinion on what the girls should do is exactly my criticism with the whole deal, thanks for making my point.

This topic is very near and dear to my heart as well, considering that I actually WAS a pregnant unmarried mormon teenager long long ago. I got to LIVE the concept, not merely toss around the theory of it, know what I mean?

Anyway, have a good day, thanks for the apology, it is accepted.

[Faerie]

Originally posted by Cal@May 11 2004, 07:38 PM

Faerie--you said "IMHO though, there should be shame, and yes..unmarried teens SHOULD give their babies up...those children deserve homes w/ a mother AND a father and they also deserve an eternal family..."

You remind me of one of those self-rightous hypocrits that think they have the answer to every person's personal social questions in life, and who have lived in a shell for most of it. Who are you to think you know who SHOULD or SHOULD NOT give up their children? Every person and situation is different. Who are you to say to a teen that God DIDN'T send that child to them to be raised by them. If there is one hard fast rule in life it is that there are NO hard fast rules. Some teens maybe should give up their children, and some should not. Who are you to say which one that is?

Do you think God loves that mother OR child any less because there is no male parent in the picture?

Again, there are no hard fast rules that apply to everyone equally in questions of this kind, so quit trying to make them up.

hence why I begin it w/ IMHO..my opinion..am I making law or church doctrine? No! It's my opinion, never said it was right...no child is an "accident" however, God wants us to have ETERNAL FAMILIES...thus I support my view that if that teenage mother cannot provide an eternal family, it is in that child's BEST INTEREST to be placed in one...

it's not hypocrisy..it's a personal point of view...I know that each situation is different and blah blah blah...of course there are no hard rules..hence why i said "should" as this is the way it SHOULD go down, but it doesn't always...19 year old males SHOULD always serve a mission, but that doesn't neccessarily happen all the time...

should ( P ) Pronunciation Key (shd)

aux.v. Past tense of shall

Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.

Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.

Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.

Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Faerie+May 11 2004, 06:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Faerie @ May 11 2004, 06:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@May 11 2004, 07:38 PM

Faerie--you said "IMHO though, there should be shame, and yes..unmarried teens SHOULD give their babies up...those children deserve homes w/ a mother AND a father and they also deserve an eternal family..."

You remind me of one of those self-rightous hypocrits that think they have the answer to every person's personal social questions in life, and who have lived in a shell for most of it. Who are you to think you know who SHOULD or SHOULD NOT give up their children? Every person and situation is different. Who are you to say to a teen that God DIDN'T send that child to them to be raised by them. If there is one hard fast rule in life it is that there are NO hard fast rules. Some teens maybe should give up their children, and some should not. Who are you to say which one that is?

Do you think God loves that mother OR child any less because there is no male parent in the picture?

Again, there are no hard fast rules that apply to everyone equally in questions of this kind, so quit trying to make them up.

hence why I begin it w/ IMHO..my opinion..am I making law or church doctrine? No! It's my opinion, never said it was right...no child is an "accident" however, God wants us to have ETERNAL FAMILIES...thus I support my view that if that teenage mother cannot provide an eternal family, it is in that child's BEST INTEREST to be placed in one...

it's not hypocrisy..it's a personal point of view...I know that each situation is different and blah blah blah...of course there are no hard rules..hence why i said "should" as this is the way it SHOULD go down, but it doesn't always...19 year old males SHOULD always serve a mission, but that doesn't neccessarily happen all the time...

should ( P ) Pronunciation Key (shd)

aux.v. Past tense of shall

Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.

Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.

Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.

Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.

Should? I totally disagree. Not every 19 year old SHOULD serve a mission. Where do you get all these "shoulds"?

[Faerie]

let me change my statement..

every 19 year old WORTHY LDS MALE..SHOULD serve a full time mission...

where do I get that from? figure it out

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Cal@May 11 2004, 05:49 PM

curvy,

If you are going to take Genesis literally enough to believe that there were just two people on earth 6 thousand years ago, then you might as well take everything else in it literally too, since that is about the easiest thing to prove WASN'T literal about Genesis.

There is ample, if not conclusive, evidence that there were people all over the earth 65 thousand years ago, and the Adam and Eve of Genesis would have stood out about like two white sheep in a group of 100,000 other white sheep.

Now, since we can, therefore, be quite sure that Adam and Eve were NOT the first human beings, and that taking Genesis literally at every turn is absurd, then maybe we should also question whether the "edict" to populate the world by one self should be taken literally also.

Well now Cal, if you're going to get technical, I don't believe that Homo sapiens had yet migrated to the Americas 65,000 years ago, but they definitely were in Africa, Asia, and possibly Australia by then. Neanderthals still ruled in Europe. I was actually reasoning with anyone who DOES believe in a literal Adam and Eve. If they were literal people, of course they would have been commanded to have lots of children in light of their unique circumstances. :)

[liahonagirl]

Faerie -- apparently you did not notice that my post was entirely tongue-in-cheek . . . no worries

[broadway]

Interesting. Thank you for starting this thread. This is definately something I will research and speak to my spouse about.

My initial thoughts were this:

It is not possible the authorities meant that no one should use contraceptives under no circumstances. In fact, in may of the quotes provided, there were such exceptions made. It is then left up to the members to decide for their families whether they fit into these exceptions. There were some other valid exceptions that I could think of that were not mentioned.

But, again, I thank you for bringing this up.

[dontagreeljefe]

The church handbook of instructions is addressed to bishops and stake presidents to officiate in there callings not members of the church generally. There is nothing in the handbook about r rated movies or shopping on sunday. That part is used to justify what couples already planned to do anyway. Could anyone see the lord saying dont have kids until you are through with school stop having them at an x amount. I dont think the lord will tell a couple that. After all it is his work and glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. How better can a couple help in that regard than by bringing spirit children into a home. Here is a devotional talk given by c scott grow on that subject quite recently. This past year Russell m nelson gave a similar talk as well on the matter. Unless physical or mental health is in danger let children come into your home. That is what our heavenly parents do. http://www.byui.edu/presentations/transcri...01_29_GrowS.htm At another ces fireside I was at M russell ballard said some of you have the idea you will wait until you graduate before you marry and have children. Let me tell you as a father of 7 you will never be able to afford to have children just do what sister ballard and I did and exercise faith. CES fireside march 2002

[BenRaines]

I agree el jefe.

[dizzysmiles]

I think lds church people sometimes think that if someone uses b.c they aren't using faith, which like ive said before i belive is wrong, we all have free agency and we meaning husband and wife should go to the lord in everything but not just say if its meant to be then he will give us one, i think we need to practice self control as well, otherwise druggies and stuff wouldn't be pregnnat would they if it was the lord giving it to them, we have the agency, I belive that b.c is ok, but like some of you have said it has effects on different people and I think you should def. check out EVERything on how it works and make sure it isn't killing a FERTILIZED egg but is making it so the sperm doesnt get the egg, and amaking sure it is suitiable for your body and life, but i think if we use b,. c to put off kids whatsoever becasue of selfish reasons then we are abusing the b.c and the lord will not be happy with that. I think that it is up to the Husband wife and lord, but do your research first

and dont judge others if they decide not to use any, and visa versa.. you never know what their logical reasioning is, hopefully it isnt for selfish reasons..

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by dizzysmiles@Nov 11 2005, 03:27 PM

I think lds church people sometimes think that if someone uses b.c they aren't using faith, which like ive said before i belive is wrong, we all have free agency and we meaning husband and wife should go to the lord in everything but not just say if its meant to be then he will give us one, i think we need to practice self control as well, otherwise druggies and stuff wouldn't be pregnnat would they if it was the lord giving it to them, we have the agency, I belive that b.c is ok, but like some of you have said it has effects on different people and I think you should def. check out EVERything  on how it works and make sure it isn't killing a FERTILIZED egg but is making it so the sperm doesnt get the egg, and amaking sure it is suitiable for your body and life, but i think if we use b,. c to put off kids whatsoever becasue of selfish reasons then we are abusing the b.c and the lord will not be happy with that.  I think that it is up to the Husband wife and lord, but do your research first

and dont judge others if they decide not to use any, and visa versa.. you never know what their logical reasioning is, hopefully it isnt for selfish reasons..

←

It is like one put up on another thread.... teach correct principles and allow them to govern themselves... they are all given a conscience/light of Christ... how could they use that effectively without having the agency with which to use it...?

[TXRed]

With my older daughter, my water broke at 8am on Saturday morning, but I did not go into labor. At 2pm I went to the hospital and they wouldn't let me go home, but they decided to wait till the next morning to induce me if nothing had started by then. (All this time I was having Braxton-Hicks contractions, but no labor.) At 10am the next morning, the took me back to L&D and started inducing me. Except for that, I went all natural, no epidurals. At 12:26am Monday morning, my daughter was born.

After being awake for almost 48 hours, 40 hours of contractions of one form or another, as soon as my daughter was born I looked at my husband and said "Can we have another?" LOL.

←

Aaaaah! A woman I can relate to.

I was ready to have another immediately after the first one, but we waited six months to get pregnant. Then, I (for awhile) questioned whether or not I SHOULD have more than two. You know, the old "overpopulation" question, etc. Almost 4 years later, I thought I was pregnant, and was in a turmoil about it. When I finally screamed at God and said, "If this is YOUR will. . .. fine, but if not, just leave me alone". (pretty dumb thing to say, but I was really in a mental dilemma at the time) Anyway, once said, I discovered the very next day that I was NOT pregnant. By that time though, I found that I was okay with the idea either way; so two months later when I found that I was pregnant, I was excited about it.

I joined the Church a few months after the birth of the third child, and I read all of the quotes by various Church leaders on the issue of birth control. I understand the feelings expressed about that in the first part of this thread and empathize with her dilemma.

At that point in our lives, we chose to "take whatever came", and we had a child about every 20 months until we had a total of seven children. Each child was progressively bigger except that last one which was slightly over 8 pounds. Of course, that was tiny compared to the 11 1/2 pounder previously, and the 10 1/4 #, and 9 # 13 oz. (that one was delivered at home by a midwife)

When the 6th child was born, SHE had problems which were related to my blood sugar which, by the way, had never shown up as being excessive at any time during the pregnancies. (The problems could have cost her her life) Careful diet during the 7th pregnancy helped with that one's birthweight.

Anyway, at that time, hubby decided that we really needed to consider not having anymore for numerous reasons. (most importantly . . . my health and the child's health) I, having read all of those statements on birth control was really in a panic. Plus, from a small child, I had always wanted 8 children, but at different times in adulthood, I fluctuated on that.

Even up until about 8 years ago, I have questioned whether or not I wanted another child. I am finally at the point where I realize that I really do not want to be a new mom at this time. I much prefer getting to be a grandma. That position was always one of my goals in life, too, and I LOVE it.

I did talk to a couple of Bishops about the issue, and they expressed to me what they felt, personally, for themselves, but they also strongly emphasized that the decision had to be between hubby, me, and the Lord. I believe that is truly where it should be.

I do not really have a problem with the issue of what previous Prophets have said on the issue versus current prophets. It is just not something that I feel I have to be too terribly concerned about.

This may sound strange, but for me, there is not really a conflict. I believe what the old prophets said was valid, and I feel that the current time is such that we are expected to make more decisions on our own (by conversing with the Lord).

We have more of the Gospel at this time in history than anyone else has had. With that knowledge, we are suppose to be closer to the Lord and able to get some answers (personalized ones) for ourselves.

Someone explained to me (their opinion) once that the Mosaic Laws were for those people in that time period. They were "personalized" for the situation that they were in, and the people NEEDED to have things laid out completely for them. (I, personally, went through a time period where I felt that I needed to heed the Mosaic laws about eating pork, etc., and although I no longer feel that need, I did learn some things by doing that. I learned that pork is really not a good thing for me to eat; so that particular law may have helped me to understand the Word of Wisdom a little better in a way. I'm probably not explaining real well, but I don't eat a lot of pork now because I discovered that it caused me problems. . . . I do eat it though on occasion.)

The situation that we are living in today is quite different from the time when other prophets spoke on the issue. Plus, I believe that each of us need to read what the old prophets said and listen to the spirit as to whether or not it applies to us. I do believe that some of it still does. . . . . . . as a warning NOT to put material possessions above our having a family in particular.

I LOVE the quote about not needing to be commanded in all things. I believe that we are at a time that WE need to directly seek out the Lord's guidance in our own lives, and I think that HE will guide each of us differently based on our particular situations. So; PRAY, PRAY, PRAY constantly.

Back to what prompted me to comment. . . . . . . . . I love those babies, and with only two, I was awake late at night and pretty tired by the time they were born early the next morning, but I was also giddy and pretty much ready for the next one.

With my first two, my doctor induced me and pumped me full of so many drugs that I slept until the time to give birth. Then, he slapped a mask over my face and put me out completely. That was a nightmare! So; when #3 came along, I was determined to not have any medication; so I could be awake when she was born. I had NO medication with the last five kids, and it was sooooooooo much better than when I got knocked out totally. (btw, doctor #1 had assured me ahead of time that he would give me a "saddle block" hours before delivery)

Lamaze and Bradley classes were a tremendous help.