Birth Control

[_subgenius]

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.

my mistake on the latter.
i would consider that it is "something else" as in the message of how important it is to have children is still being promoted effectively. The use and meaning of birth control is considerably different on a personal and social level than when the GA were confronting such an important emerging issue; that same message is still being promoted.

[_mcjathan]

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.

I did not create the OP.

My view is simply an observation of the contrast I witnessed between what is taught in a young married stake compared to what is taught in the multiple general membership stakes I've been in for 25 years.

The contrast is what I find so striking.

Subgenius, why do you think there is a difference between how birth control is taught in a young married stake vs general membership stakes?

[_Zelder]

Subgenius, why do you think there is a difference between how birth control is taught in a young married stake vs general membership stakes?

It's an interesting question. And why did they stop placing the emphasis on brith control to the general membership like they used to?

[_subgenius]

...
Subgenius, why do you think there is a difference between how birth control is taught in a young married stake vs general membership stakes?

I can not speak to this as i am not aware of the unique situation you speak of.
However, one could speculate that it is more beneficial to encourage young couples to start a family rather than fall for the distractions that may cause them to procrastinate such an endeavor for a more self-centered alternative.
The family is a core doctrine of our church and for it to be promoted is of no surprise.
Just as Gospel principles class places emphasis in locations that are assumed in Gospel Doctrine class.....perhaps, a milk before meat type of thing.

[_Zelder]

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".

That's how it used to be for the general membership. There really was no choice. Church members were commanded to have children. Preventative measures were forbidden.

Begining in the late 1980's they started making references to the health of the mother and as you say it began to be "ultimately left in the hands of the couple". I think there must have been several situations where people blindly followed the council to have kids to the point where the health of mothers (both mental and physical) was in jeopardy. You can't just go popping kids out every 18 months and expect and healthy happy family. And you can't expect abstinance during the years between pregnancies.

[_Drifting]

Neil Anderson stated this during Octobers conference.

The family is ordained of God. Families are central to our Heavenly Father’s plan here on earth and through the eternities. After Adam and Eve were joined in marriage, the scripture reads, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” In our day prophets and apostles have declared, “The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.”

This commandment has not been forgotten or set aside in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We express deep gratitude for the enormous faith shown by husbands and wives (especially our wives) in their willingness to have children. When to have a child and how many children to have are private decisions to be made between a husband and wife and the Lord. These are sacred decisions—decisions that should be made with sincere prayer and acted on with great faith.

It is worth noting that he doesn't give people the option of 'if' to have children, only 'when' and 'how many'. The Church commands Mormon couples to have children.

[_Zelder]

It is worth noting that he doesn't give people the option of 'if' to have children, only 'when' and 'how many'. The Church commands Mormon couples to have children.

Are you arguing that the church as been consistent throughout time on this issue?

[_Drifting]

It is worth noting that he doesn't give people the option of 'if' to have children, only 'when' and 'how many'. The Church commands Mormon couples to have children.

Are you arguing that the church as been consistent throughout time on this issue or that they have changed?

I think the Church has always been against artificial birth control.
It is just less overt about it now.

[_Zelder]

I think the Church has always been against artificial birth control.
It is just less overt about it now.

I was not sure when I wrote the OP but I agree.

[_Drifting]

I think the Church has always been against artificial birth control.
It is just less overt about it now.

I was not sure when I wrote the OP but I agree.

I feel this is a trend.
Think about how the Church now approaches masturbation. It is still totally against it but the language and overtones has changed. The Church is changing its language on homosexuality in a similar fashion.