Birth Control

[_Zelder]

Anecdotal (but true) story here:
In approximately 2005 I served as the stake clerk in a married student stake in Logan, Utah. The stake consisted entirely of newly married university students. Most couples stayed in the stake for 1-2 years before moving on. In the entire stake, there were only a handful of children.

I was very surprised to hear leaders (both local and visiting general authorities) teach against birth control. This was not an isolated case – they taught against birth control repeatedly in ward and stake meetings.
I was very surprised because in my 25 years being married in Utah as a life-long, active Mormon I had never heard birth-control taught so often and openly in my other ward and stake meetings. Why the difference in a young married stake?

Interesting. It's been decades since they have pounded the pulpit on birth control for the general membership. I was married for the last two years of finishing school at USU in Logan. I'm very happy that I waited two years to have kids. We really needed that time to bond and get used to each other.

[_Zelder]

If they taught against artificial birth control, then couples would have to use methods based on the woman's natural fertility cycle. This means that women would have the right to decline or initiate sex. That goes in the face of LDS teachings about sexuality.

What? CFR please?

[_MCB]

What? CFR please?

LOL. Just exaggerating. Certainly in polygamous times it was so.

[_mcjathan]

Interesting. It's been decades since they have pounded the pulpit on birth control for the general membership.

Yes, that is also my observation.

So again, why was the stake and general leaders so willing to "pound the pulpit" in a young married stake but yet so unwilling to do so in general membership stakes and wards?

[_subgenius]

The OP is either inaccurate or inconsistent, or both, with all the subsequent citations being posted.
Seemingly the church still encourages procreation, discourages birth control, and considers the decisions to ultimately be left in the hands of the couple.

[_mcjathan]

Seemingly the church still encourages procreation, discourages birth control, and considers the decisions to ultimately be left in the hands of the couple.

The teachings of stake and general leaders I witnessed strongly discouraged birth control to the point that I question whether or not those young married kids believed that the it was "ultimately to be left in the hands of the couple".

Again, I wonder why these general authorities felt they should council so forcefully against birth control in a young married stake but not in general membership stakes?

[_subgenius]

The teachings of stake and general leaders I witnessed strongly discouraged birth control to the point that I question whether or not those young married kids believed that the it was "ultimately to be left in the hands of the couple".

Again, I wonder why these general authorities felt they should council so forcefully against birth control in a young married stake but not in general membership stakes?

this is contrary to the generalization you make in the OP. It also seems like your "view" of what was being taught may reasonably be different from another's view.

[_Zelder]

The OP is either inaccurate or inconsistent, or both, with all the subsequent citations being posted.
Seemingly the church still encourages procreation, discourages birth control, and considers the decisions to ultimately be left in the hands of the couple.

I'm not very old but I have never heard a talk specifically condeming birth control. The general membership has not heard anyting like this in a very long time.

"When the husband and wife are healthy, and free from inherited weaknesses and disease that might be transplanted with injury to their offspring, the use of contraceptives is to be condemned."
(David O. McKay, Conference Report, October 1943, p. 30)

This thread has helped me to understand that the leadership still disapproves of birth control but they don't say a peep about it to the general membership. The emphasis is now on governing ourselves and deciding for ourselves when to have children and how many to have.

If my wife and I followed McKay's advise we would have 8 kids by now instead of three because everytime we go off birth control she get pregnant that same month. And that is how itt used to be. Things have changed.

[_subgenius]

I'm not very old but I have never heard a talk specifically condeming birth control. The general membership has not heard anyting like this in a very long time.

but surely there are many topics that have not been "heard" in a long time.

"When the husband and wife are healthy, and free from inherited weaknesses and disease that might be transplanted with injury to their offspring, the use of contraceptives is to be condemned."
(David O. McKay, Conference Report, October 1943, p. 30)

consistent with the LDS notion of prophets and "teachings for the time".

This thread has helped me to understand that the leadership still disapproves of birth control but they don't say a peep about it to the general membership. The emphasis is now on governing ourselves and deciding for ourselves when to have children and how many to have.

but it is still discouraged, even it is by the overt encouragement of having children.

If my wife and I followed McKay's advise we would have 8 kids by now instead of three because everytime we go off birth control she get pregnant that same month. And that is how itt used to be. Things have changed.

nice anecdote, but not relevant. You could also have not had 8 kids, maybe only 4 or 5....or 12!

[_Zelder]

this is contrary to the generalization you make in the OP. It also seems like your "view" of what was being taught may reasonably be different from another's view.

He didn't write the OP, I did. And yes it is contrary to what I wrote in the OP. And as he said, it's contrary to anything else he has ever experienced in the church. So it was an interesting revelation.