I was always told it was far more righteous to bring as many souls into the world under such privelege of being born into a TBM family.

So why isn't the church weighing in on the whole Catholics and so-called "forced" contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act debate?

Mitt's been awful mute about the issue as well.

She doesn't seem to have any problem with it.

Before I got married, the bishop advised against the pill or any contraception. But he also told us it wasn't against church policy, and to use our own judgment.

TSCC policy is like nailing jello to a wall. Mitt doesn't even want to talk about religion. Ha ha!

So now the Catholics are more fanatical than the Mormons! WOW

From what I can tell it's a generational thing.

I just remember the guilt trips. I grew up being told to provide bodies for all those sweet spirits waiting in heaven who might be born in a third-world country and *gasp* without the gospel if I didn't do my duty.

Crazy crazy crazy....

Many years ago, the bishop was hammering me, a guy, to get busy with DW.
Instead, with DW's wholehearted approval, I scheduled a vasectomy!

The whole debate is silly. The Catholic bishops seem to have no issue with their health care plans covering Viagra.

But contraception! Oh my!

They don't need it. They get their needs met with their altar boys.

It's even sillier when you consider the statistic I heard on Rachel Maddow last night, which is something like more than 95% of women use BC. More than 75% of Catholic women use BC.

Where is Margaret Sanger when we need her? And how is it that 90 years after Margaret Sanger, we are STILL fighting for the right to control family planning. Dum dum dum dum dum dum dum.

(Sadly, Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, was also racist and a proponent of eugenics. But dang it, we have her to thank for ALL of us not having 10-15 children if we don't die in childbirth before we have that many, bless her racist little heart.)

it was popular at the time, but you don't hear people ragging on Einstein for it. Eugenics doesn't necessarily equate to racism.

this is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of a teaching (what else are Doctrines?) that have become diluted.

Ask to see the FP letter from D.O. Mckay on this subject....

I was always under the impression that contraception was OK. The problem was with permanent sterilization. But there is always the chance that I didnt really pay much attention.

when it first came out. Mormons have been able to practice contraception -- always. I don't know of a statement by a current prophet that prohibits it.

I believe, now it is between the couple and the Lord.

I was told that it was between the couple and the Lord, but anything permanent was strictly frowned upon, even if preventing future pregnancies would save the woman's life.

I was always taught that it was okay, that the lord would prompt you when to start your family and how many spirits to bring into the world. THe "brethren" have been a little wish-washy with it. They've made comments that there's no reason to postpone a family, and then comments that it's between the couple and the lord. Sorry, I am feeling too lazy to look up quotes.

BYU health center passed out presciptions all the time and will even give you condoms for free- well at leat they did in the middle to late 90s, I can't vouch for any other time. I had surprised roommates who thought the church was against it, until their doctor at BYU health center gave them a prescription before their wedding. All of them were planning on waiting at least a year. Several only lasted that long and did the whole mommy drop out thing. Oh well, there's no reasoning with brainwashed.

Disclaimer- I grew up in a liberal CA beach town. Five kids was considered a big family in the church. My family was big with four. So I admit that I may have been given an entirely different idea about the church and birth control than other morgbots were given, some proof of this lies in my roommates surprise at their brith control presciptions mentioned previously.

I had a female seminary teacher in 1987 who told us that her married sister's inability to get pregnant was probably a punishment from the Lord for having used birth control at the beginning of her marriage. That was one of the last times I attended seminary.

the Further Back you go, the more strident the sayings were.

J.F. Smith is reported to say the 'sex is ONLY for making babies'.

Mormons are Confused as to when their profit is speaking 'as a man' -or- 'as a prophet', and that's the way GAs prefer it.

If they didn't want the ambiguity, they'd publish the FP letters, (as opposed to just reading them once) and let them stand until superceded...

NO! CAN'T HAVE THAT!

Yes TBMs absolutely condone contraception these days..

They have garments, if those don't kill the mood nothing will.

The current policy is that it is between you and the lawd, and that while you can't choose WHEN you'll have a baby (god decides if you'll get preggers or not), you CAN decide when you WON'T (thanks to birth control). Permanent sterilization is now between the couple and the lawd. It's not discouraged or encouraged.

When I was moderately TBM in the 70s, we were instructed that while women should have children, the mother's health and well-being were to be considered first. At the time I thought that was so superior to the Catholic view that women should have children relentlessly and if they die--well, tough luck. I also remember reading in a church magazine that woman who were sure their fetus was severely deformed should consult and pray with the bishop before making a decision about abortion.

Late 70's or early 80"s--I can remember a letter that was sent out from the Bishopric stating that birth control was a no-no, but that husbands should respect their wives.
I can remember being so P.O.ed by the whole thing because we had just lost one of the sisters who died during her 7th miscarriage. She already had 5 little ones and still her TBM husband was eager for more.
The whole "respect" thing just ticked me off. I can remember flinging the letter in the trash and saying, "Well, all you have to do is be "disrespected" once a year to have a baby every year until it kills you."
Whenever I hear a man giving his opinion about the evils of birth control, I want to say that unless you have a uterus, keep you mouth shut.
How about if we females get a law passed that any man who does not fully support every child they sire should have a vasectomy forced on them. Can you imagine the uproar that would create?

TBM neice and her TBM husband who live in supposedly liberal CA were married in February 2006: miscarriage then baby in May 2007, baby in June 2008, baby November 2009, doctor insisted they wait a year for her health, then miscarriage and now twins December 2011. That adds up to five children under the age of 5. Fortunately family is able to help but still .....

No. I have a sis who is so totally TBM they have the "proclamation to the family" or some other Mo bullshit from Prez Monson hanging on their front door. After #4 she had a permanat implant that is nonreversible.

I also have an IUD niece and a birth control niece...."they were meant to be." Mom is totally Mo and so while contracetpion was okay, abortion is still definately not. She almost died with the birth of her last baby (the IUD baby) and the baby is developmentally challanged.

in a pre-marriage interview (bear in mind that future husband and I were both in our 40's, both had kids, both had been married before, and after my first marriage went belly-up I had my tubes tied) the bishop asked me, "Do you plan to use birth control when you are married?"

I was so stunned that he even asked that I could hardly keep my jaw from dropping. I mean, it was illegal by that time to ask such a thing in a job interview!

I composed myself and said, "Don't worry, Bishop, it won't be an issue."

He re-phrased the question several ways and I kept giving the broken-record answer. He finally got the point - that I wasn't going to elaborate one way or the other.

This kind of thing became characteristic of our relationship. If he asked me a question that I thought was intrusive or none of his business, I would give him a non-answer, and keep repeating it until he backed off. You might say we didn't hit it off very well.

anti-birth control. Not directly, but they do 'encourage' (demand) young marriage, following the 'Proclamation' outlining eternal gender roles etc. The result is higher fertility and dependence on the male/mormon structure. The beauty is that they can look to be 'progressive' while allowing individual choice. The outcome is still higher fertility for Mormon women, greater dependence on men/Mormon leaders and the institutional church.

You have just brought up a good reminder that our gospel is built on a rock solid foundation of jello. Anytime you have a question on doctrine you should remember our foundation.

When I got a vasectomy (the time I just happened to be going to church) my parents about shit bricks. Telling me it was up to god to decide how many children we have. I told them, "I did leave it up to god because he was the one to reveal to doctors how to do a vasectomy." They didn't quite know how to answer to that.

Presently, 28 states have laws that require employers who purchase health insurance to cover contraceptives as they would cover any other drugs. Of heavily Mo states, Utah and Arizona have no such law, but Nevada does. In 20 of these 28 states, there is a carve-out for religious organizations, but the definition of what constitutes a religious organization is what's eating the Catholic Church.

California's law, in place since 1999, allows exceptions for churches and church schools, but not for entities like universities and hospitals. The CA courts have ruled that hospitals' primary mission is health care, not religion. The courts look at criteria such as: does the entity receive govt funds; does the entity serve only church members or the general public; does the entity hire significant numbers of nonmembers.

As you can see, many LDS institutions like the COB, LDS Social Services, Deseret Industries would survive this scrutiny and qualify for the carve-out. BYU, on the other hand, would not. A major difference between TSCC and the Catholic CHurch is that TSCC does not operate hospitals, whereas hundreds of hospitals in the USA are Catholic-affiliated. These hospitals do not require employees to be Catholic, unlike TSCC which requires TRs for many positions.

Another difference between TSCC and the Catholic Church is that the latter operates charitible organizations that accept govt funds and hire nonmembers. The first challenge to the CA law, from Catholic Charities, failed in 2004 because Catholic Charities derives 90% of its funds from govt sources and they hire nonmembers. Hence, the courts held that its primary mission was social service as opposed to religion. Many LDS institutions would not be involved because they are self-funded and do not accept outside help (other than maybe donations of used goods for DI).

We have a large Catholic hospital nearby. Until 1999, if I saw one of their employees and she wanted an Rx for birth control pills, it would be blocked by the pharmacy computer. No coverage whatsoever, so the hapless employee had to pay $50 a month or full retail for the pills. This still would occur with employees working for say a Catholic parish or parochial school.

The issue has been hyped up into a partisan debate, with Republicans and a few conservative Democrats claiming that it infringes on the rights of Catholics to practice their beliefs. In reality, no Catholic is forced to take the pill. It simply allows those employees of Catholic-affiliation (govt funds, nonmember employees) to receive coverage for contraceptives the same as any other Rx.

This list clarifies the coverage by state:

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14384

The Obama proposed rules would make this national. I suspect TSCC is staying out of the debate because they are much less affected than the Catholic Church, mainly because of not operating hospitals or organizations like Catholic Charities.

In 1972 at the age of 17 I was told by my bishop that birth control was a sin.I got married two months later. By then I was a whopping 18. I didn't listen to the bishop. I am so glad! Having a child would have been a huge mistake. I divorced m RM hubby when I was 20.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2012 10:18PM by Mia.

Unless the FP (or, less likely) the SP get somthing up their snout, B.C. is just like most everything else in MoMism:

It Depends Who you ask, what their agenda is.

Very Little (actually NONE) 'Quality Control' in Morland.

If you find Someone Else was told Something Else, they'll tell you that the information 'inspiration' YOU GOT WAS FOR YOU; the other for Someone Else.

No Conflict there, Pilgrim.

When I went to BYU-I, it was awkwardly assumed that as soon as you were engaged, you started birth control. Strangers would ask me how I was "adjusting" to the pill when I got engaged! Little did they know I'd been on it for years. Why do you think the standard Mo' engagement is 3 months? That's how long it takes the body to adjust to the hormones in the pill.