Birth Control Poll

[Zathura]

IMO I think God cares about pressingForwards decision about as much as he cares about my boss’s decision to get a tattoo( that is, not very much). I’m sure God is fine with him if he is converted to the Lord, and not much else matters. Inside > outside

[simpleton]

I seriously wonder where the thinking is here. Death is and always will be integrally part of this life. And yes I have experienced death with my children. But the sting of death is sin. To lose an innocent child or children is painful, but, that child is saved in the highest kingdom. So the pain of the loss is swallowed up, ( eventually, some later, some sooner) in that knowledge, at least those that should be grounded in the Gospel of Christ. According to the BS philosophy here, Joseph should of snipped himself, and/or Emma, with all the children they lost. Seriously where are you all coming from?

[Davka]

I agree with caburnha, simpleton. Whether you are right or not, the way you responded to someone who was expressing pain was not the way the Savior would have gone about things. Remember, when Lazarus died, he wept with Mary, even though he knew very well that Lazarus would be alive again soon. I am sorry to hear that you have lost a child. That should make you more compassionate toward someone else...not lead you to call them pathetic, even if you disagree with how they handled it. Maybe a better way to say what you were trying to say is "I disagree with you that having a vasectomy was the best choice as I believe we should never limit our families even in the face of death, but I can understand the pain of losing a child, and I am sorry you went through that." (Sorry, I know I am quoting carburnha, but I am still responding to simpleton). I know we have had this discussion before...you believe that limiting our families at all is an "idea from hell..." And it very well may be, but I sense such a pharasitical air of self righteousness from you toward others who don't have 14 kids and have used various means of birth control. I hate when people stick their noses in the air because of their large families. It's just a different expression of pride. Like in so many things, the Savior will judge us based on our own hearts and understanding and intentions and simpleton's opinion will be of very little consequence.

Remember, when it comes to pride and humility, the moment you think "oh, I'm so humble," the devil has already won the game.

[Fiannan]

Has anyone watched the YouTube video "They Fret Over the Young Adults" or something like that? Sure, birth control (in the context of wanting to keep the family small) is a private decision, but it has public consequences. If the LDS Church membership in the USA and Canada had the same birthrate it did in 1990, when my oldest children were really young, how many young missionaries would be have available in 18 years? What if our birthrate were as high as it was in 1980?

[simpleton]

Have you ever lost a baby or child? Have you held your lifeless child?

YOU have no idea the pain of losing one and the fear of losing another one until you have been there. It's a pain unlike anything. Words cannot describe.

I seriously wonder where the thinking is here. Death is and always will be integrally part of this life. And yes I have experienced death with my children. But the sting of death is sin. To lose an innocent child or children is painful, but, that child is saved in the highest kingdom. So the pain of the loss is swallowed up, ( eventually, some later, some sooner) in that knowledge, at least those that should be grounded in the Gospel of Christ. According to the BS philosophy here, Joseph should of snipped himself, and/or Emma, with all the children they lost. Seriously where are you all coming from?

Perhaps it was the complete lack of compassion shown towards someone who has experienced real suffering and pain, just because you don't agree with how he responded to this suffering. We probably don't get to take a pass on morning with those who've mourned simply because death and suffering are a part of life. You may want to consider apologizing rather than doubling-down on this one...

I agree with caburnha, simpleton. Whether you are right or not, the way you responded to someone who was expressing pain was not the way the Savior would have gone about things. Remember, when Lazarus died, he wept with Mary, even though he knew very well that Lazarus would be alive again soon. I am sorry to hear that you have lost a child. That should make you more compassionate toward someone else...not lead you to call them pathetic, even if you disagree with how they handled it. Maybe a better way to say what you were trying to say is "I disagree with you that having a vasectomy was the best choice as I believe we should never limit our families even in the face of death, but I can understand the pain of losing a child, and I am sorry you went through that." (Sorry, I know I am quoting carburnha, but I am still responding to simpleton). I know we have had this discussion before...you believe that limiting our families at all is an "idea from hell..." And it very well may be, but I sense such a pharasitical air of self righteousness from you toward others who don't have 14 kids and have used various means of birth control. I hate when people stick their noses in the air because of their large families. It's just a different expression of pride. Like in so many things, the Savior will judge us based on our own hearts and understanding and intentions and simpleton's opinion will be of very little consequence.

Remember, when it comes to pride and humility, the moment you think "oh, I'm so humble," the devil has already won the game.

Yes, we are judged by the intents of our hearts. And yes I do believe that God will ultimately judge us by most likely a different standard than what we think. I, by no means think that I am righteous, or more righteous than others at all. Having a large family does not make a person "righteous" at all. It is irrelevant to righteousness.
And also there is no intent to " twist the knife" so to speak, in the wound and pain of the loss of a child. The cry is against this intent to limit our family's by whatever ways, means or methods employed, and by whatever excuse employed. Is the pain of losing ones child worse than, or, going to be worse, than falling short of our potential progression in the eternitys? The pain of losing ones innocent child is swallowed up eventually in the assurance of its assured place in the Celestial kingdom. But to justify the limiting of our children because of that pain is where I believe we have gone way off our foundation of Mormonism, or the Gospel. I consider it, among other "tricks of the devil" to be just that, a deception used by way of appealing to our hurt and pain.
To campare or appeal to the story of Lazarus in this instance is, well, there is no comparison. IMO.

[Davka]

I seriously wonder where the thinking is here. Death is and always will be integrally part of this life. And yes I have experienced death with my children. But the sting of death is sin. To lose an innocent child or children is painful, but, that child is saved in the highest kingdom. So the pain of the loss is swallowed up, ( eventually, some later, some sooner) in that knowledge, at least those that should be grounded in the Gospel of Christ. According to the BS philosophy here, Joseph should of snipped himself, and/or Emma, with all the children they lost. Seriously where are you all coming from?

Perhaps it was the complete lack of compassion shown towards someone who has experienced real suffering and pain, just because you don't agree with how he responded to this suffering. We probably don't get to take a pass on morning with those who've mourned simply because death and suffering are a part of life. You may want to consider apologizing rather than doubling-down on this one...

I agree with caburnha, simpleton. Whether you are right or not, the way you responded to someone who was expressing pain was not the way the Savior would have gone about things. Remember, when Lazarus died, he wept with Mary, even though he knew very well that Lazarus would be alive again soon. I am sorry to hear that you have lost a child. That should make you more compassionate toward someone else...not lead you to call them pathetic, even if you disagree with how they handled it. Maybe a better way to say what you were trying to say is "I disagree with you that having a vasectomy was the best choice as I believe we should never limit our families even in the face of death, but I can understand the pain of losing a child, and I am sorry you went through that." (Sorry, I know I am quoting carburnha, but I am still responding to simpleton). I know we have had this discussion before...you believe that limiting our families at all is an "idea from hell..." And it very well may be, but I sense such a pharasitical air of self righteousness from you toward others who don't have 14 kids and have used various means of birth control. I hate when people stick their noses in the air because of their large families. It's just a different expression of pride. Like in so many things, the Savior will judge us based on our own hearts and understanding and intentions and simpleton's opinion will be of very little consequence.

Remember, when it comes to pride and humility, the moment you think "oh, I'm so humble," the devil has already won the game.

Yes, we are judged by the intents of our hearts. And yes I do believe that God will ultimately judge us by most likely a different standard than what we think. I, by no means think that I am righteous, or more righteous than others at all. Having a large family does not make a person "righteous" at all. It is irrelevant to righteousness.
And also there is no intent to " twist the knife" so to speak, in the wound and pain of the loss of a child. The cry is against this intent to limit our family's by whatever ways, means or methods employed, and by whatever excuse employed. Is the pain of losing ones child worse than, or, going to be worse, than falling short of our potential progression in the eternitys? The pain of losing ones innocent child is swallowed up eventually in the assurance of its assured place in the Celestial kingdom. But to justify the limiting of our children because of that pain is where I believe we have gone way off our foundation of Mormonism, or the Gospel. I consider it, among other "tricks of the devil" to be just that, a deception used by way of appealing to our hurt and pain.
To campare or appeal to the story of Lazarus in this instance is, well, there is no comparison. IMO.

If you don't see the comparison, then you missed my point.

Someone expressed extreme grief at the loss of two children and explained that they felt at the time that the grief was too great to bear another child.

I refuse to say whether their actions make sense or not...I'm not then. I've never lost a child, but I think if I did I would probably want more children, not less, but again, I'm not this family. I guarantee if they were talking to the Savior rather than simpleton, he would not tell them they were pathetic. Even if they were wrong to get a vasectomy (again, not making a statement on that here) he would still hug them and weep with them for the pain they are in, then perhaps he would correct them -- but he wouldn't tell them they were pathetic. The words you used were condescending and lacked compassion and you should apologize.

[EmmaLee]

Having a large family does not make a person "righteous" at all. It is irrelevant to righteousness.

Truer words were never spoken. It's a shame that many in the Church think (talk/act) otherwise.

[ElizaRSkousen]

Having a large family does not make a person "righteous" at all. It is irrelevant to righteousness.

Truer words were never spoken. It's a shame that many in the Church think (talk/act) otherwise.

I might actually disagree with this, to a point.

Having a small family when you were capable of having a large family is not gods plan, therefore it is not righteous.

[EmmaLee]

Having a large family does not make a person "righteous" at all. It is irrelevant to righteousness.

Truer words were never spoken. It's a shame that many in the Church think (talk/act) otherwise.

I might actually disagree with this, to a point.

Having a small family when you were capable of having a large family is not gods plan, therefore it is not righteous.

That may (or may not) be the case - however, you nor I nor anyone else posting on LDSFF can make that judgment (who is or is not capable) about anyone else. Also, just because someone has a bunch of kids does not make them righteous. I know a lot of big families who even the most lenient among us would consider unrighteous. In other words, the sole act of reproducing does not equal righteousness.

[ElizaRSkousen]

Having a large family does not make a person "righteous" at all. It is irrelevant to righteousness.

Truer words were never spoken. It's a shame that many in the Church think (talk/act) otherwise.

I might actually disagree with this, to a point.

Having a small family when you were capable of having a large family is not gods plan, therefore it is not righteous.

That may (or may not) be the case - however, you nor I nor anyone else posting on LDSFF can make that judgment (who is or is not capable) about anyone else. Also, just because someone has a bunch of kids does not make them righteous. I know a lot of big families who even the most lenient among us would consider unrighteous. In other words, the sole act of reproducing does not equal righteousness.

Agreed!

[Vision]

Has the Church modified its stance on preventing conception ? It seems to have modified its stance on other issues.

Sort of. They supplied an escape clause, so to speak, in the Holy Handbook in which they say the decision for a couple as to the number of children they have is between them and the Lord. Anyone who knows the doctrines of the Church would see this in the same light as a parent telling a child that they can pet a growling pit bull if that is their choice, it is up to them. If the couple prays and tries to stay tuned to the Spirit then we can assume what most will receive as inspiration.

However, the advice might also get the Church off the hook in case someone who has health problems might wish to sue because they continued to have kids, and problems resulted. So legally, saying the decision is the couple's gets rid of any sort of chance someone could sue.

The decision of when and how many children to have has always been up to the husband, wife, and the Lord - from Adam to now. The Church has never told anyone how many children they should have, or when, thank God. Why do so many members of the Church demand to be commanded in all things?? It's utterly bizarre to me that a couple would even care what the Church thinks on this subject - are they incapable of getting personal revelation for themselves and their family? Apparently. The Church isn't getting pregnant - the Church isn't vomiting for 9 months - the Church isn't giving birth - the Church isn't paying for hospital bills and to raise the children for 18+ years (unless you're on government welfare because you have more kids than you can pay for, and then they might help out). Why do so many members rely on the Church to make all their decisions for them? How pathetic and slothful of a people have we become when couples have to ask an organized religion how many kids they should have. Lord, come quickly.

AMEN

[Zathura]

Having a small family when you were capable of having a large family is not gods plan, therefore it is not righteous.

Please show me where this is taught?

Everywhere on lds.org reflects the idea that it's between the couple and God. Period. How many kids to have? Between them and God. Birth Control? Between them and God.

As far as I can tell, this idea that it's unrighteous to have small families deserves to be grouped with other doctrines like :

Black's should not have priesthood, Adam God Theory, Blood Atonement. AKA traditions of man passed along for generations that were done away with because they simply weren't true.

Do away with checking lists off. It doesn't matter if you have a tattoo on your arm, if you have 1 kid, use birth control and go to church every other other week. Salvation is offered to you the same as any other person, the means by which God sanctifies you is the same. It all comes down to being humble, broken hearted, and depending wholly on Jesus Christ. Seriously. How do you not look at this list of do's and do nots and not see the parallel with the Jews?

Break your mind free from traditions that bind you down. You're missing the big picture.

Looking Beyond the Mark? Everyone uses this phrase to describe people who seek the Second Comforter.

How about using it to describe people that think they secure themselves a place in heaven by going to church every 7 days, paying 10% gross income in tithing, not swearing, not drinking coffee, holding a temple recommend, getting married in the temple, reading scriptures, "ministering", having a million kids, Having multiple wives(wait that's not required anymore), the list goes on. That's not the mark, that's not the Gospel.

Have faith in Jesus Christ, humble yourself. Repent of all your sins .Depend wholly on him. Be baptized to show your commitment to him. Receive the Baptism of Fire and Holy Ghost and then listen to the Holy Ghost for the rest of your life, whatever the Lord commands. That's it. Anything more or less than this has not built upon a sure foundation.

The Good works will follow a person that has been Born of God, not the other way around.

[Fiannan]

I think ultimately that consumerism creates a yearning to indulge the self. We live in an ego-propelled culture that some mistake for individuality, but instead is merely a marketing mechanism designed to fragment people into easily-manipulated consumers. Sadly, it is difficult to live in this modern system without being corrupted.

The Gospel is both individualistic and communal. We strive for reaching perfection as defined with getting closer to God, learning of God and expanding our talents and abilities. In the communal sense we build families and strive to grow the impact we, as a culture, can have on humanity to help more people see their true place in this picture.

So in this sense numbers do count. Each of us can have positive impact on those around us. We develop as we seel to help others come to the path. As our families grow our potential grows. Think of the impact 6 children, for instance, can have as opposed to 3. While there is nothing "wrong" with the latter number the former can have double the social and cultural potential impact. And this doesn't even take into account the children themselves being brought into a righteous home.

So if one strives for Gospel principles as opposed to the religion of consumerism, I think they will want to put children over materialism and strive to reach their full potential. Of course that potential will differ between people, but the desire will influence any decisions on family size if God is part of the decision-making process. Of course the society around us, as already noted, will strive to weaken any connection to the Spirit but if one has the intention of being in the world and not of it the message pathway to God will be much clearer than to those who drift into the temptations of the costly apparel and enticing of those in the great and spacious buildings - that are ultimately financed by the money of the masses they seek to manipulate.

[Fiannan]

As far as I can tell, this idea that it's unrighteous to have small families deserves to be grouped with other doctrines like :

Black's should not have priesthood, Adam God Theory, Blood Atonement. AKA traditions of man passed along for generations that were done away with because they simply weren't true.

So when Harold B. Lee stated:

“[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

He was telling a lie?

[PressingForward]

There is no commandment that states you must continue to birth children......
Once again our culture raises its ugly head and judges those who don’t adhere to the philosophies of man.
I’m fine with our loving family and the children we have been blessed with. I am perfectly fine with the decision my wife and I made. I don’t care what some Pharisee wants to say about it.

[Zathura]

As far as I can tell, this idea that it's unrighteous to have small families deserves to be grouped with other doctrines like :

Black's should not have priesthood, Adam God Theory, Blood Atonement. AKA traditions of man passed along for generations that were done away with because they simply weren't true.

So when Harold B. Lee stated:

“[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

He was telling a lie?

1972.

The church no longer teaches this just like the church no longer wants us to call ourselves Mormons.

Should I whip out some Brigham Young quotes and ask if he was lying about black people?

[Fiannan]

As far as I can tell, this idea that it's unrighteous to have small families deserves to be grouped with other doctrines like :

Black's should not have priesthood, Adam God Theory, Blood Atonement. AKA traditions of man passed along for generations that were done away with because they simply weren't true.

So when Harold B. Lee stated:

“[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

He was telling a lie?

1972.

The church no longer teaches this just like the church no longer wants us to call ourselves Mormons.

Should I whip out some Brigham Young quotes and ask if he was lying about black people?

Go ahead, but I have to ask you exactly what you do believe in regards to LDS Church teachings?

[Fiannan]

As for something more current:

“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

Weird, who is the entity that wants to prevent spirits coming to earth?

[Zathura]

As for something more current:

“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

Weird, who is the entity that wants to prevent spirits coming to earth?

I mean that was still 23 years ago. When people talk it spirits coming to earth I’m just kinda meh about it. They’ll all eventually get here at some point right? In the grand scheme of things I’m not sure Gods plan for everyone that’s supposed to live is going to be interrupted and they’ll have to “wait until next time” or something like that.

[Zathura]

As far as I can tell, this idea that it's unrighteous to have small families deserves to be grouped with other doctrines like :

Black's should not have priesthood, Adam God Theory, Blood Atonement. AKA traditions of man passed along for generations that were done away with because they simply weren't true.

So when Harold B. Lee stated:

“[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

He was telling a lie?

1972.

The church no longer teaches this just like the church no longer wants us to call ourselves Mormons.

Should I whip out some Brigham Young quotes and ask if he was lying about black people?

Go ahead, but I have to ask you exactly what you do believe in regards to LDS Church teachings?

I believe in the Restoration.

I believe the doctrine found within the Book of Mormon, The Bible and Doctrine and Covenants(except D&C 132. I don’t think anybody that claims to be objective can legitimately say that the arguments against that section being legitimately from Joseph are not valid )

When I hear any leader speak, the bar by which I judge anything is those scriptures . If they contradict the scriptures then I will not believe it. If it something new that does not contradict the scriptures , then I will exercise faith to know if what they are saying is of God.

If the time comes that a Prophet in this Church receives a revelation in the same way Joseph did, I will also accept that along with the rest of the modern day revelation found in D&C.

[ElizaRSkousen]

Having a small family when you were capable of having a large family is not gods plan, therefore it is not righteous.

Please show me where this is taught?

Everywhere on lds.org reflects the idea that it's between the couple and God. Period. How many kids to have? Between them and God. Birth Control? Between them and God.

As far as I can tell, this idea that it's unrighteous to have small families deserves to be grouped with other doctrines like :

Black's should not have priesthood, Adam God Theory, Blood Atonement. AKA traditions of man passed along for generations that were done away with because they simply weren't true.

Do away with checking lists off. It doesn't matter if you have a tattoo on your arm, if you have 1 kid, use birth control and go to church every other other week. Salvation is offered to you the same as any other person, the means by which God sanctifies you is the same. It all comes down to being humble, broken hearted, and depending wholly on Jesus Christ. Seriously. How do you not look at this list of do's and do nots and not see the parallel with the Jews?

Break your mind free from traditions that bind you down. You're missing the big picture.

Looking Beyond the Mark? Everyone uses this phrase to describe people who seek the Second Comforter.

How about using it to describe people that think they secure themselves a place in heaven by going to church every 7 days, paying 10% gross income in tithing, not swearing, not drinking coffee, holding a temple recommend, getting married in the temple, reading scriptures, "ministering", having a million kids, Having multiple wives(wait that's not required anymore), the list goes on. That's not the mark, that's not the Gospel.

Have faith in Jesus Christ, humble yourself. Repent of all your sins .Depend wholly on him. Be baptized to show your commitment to him. Receive the Baptism of Fire and Holy Ghost and then listen to the Holy Ghost for the rest of your life, whatever the Lord commands. That's it. Anything more or less than this has not built upon a sure foundation.

The Good works will follow a person that has been Born of God, not the other way around.

The entire point of god is his children. The entire point of us is our children.

[Zathura]

Having a small family when you were capable of having a large family is not gods plan, therefore it is not righteous.

Please show me where this is taught?

Everywhere on lds.org reflects the idea that it's between the couple and God. Period. How many kids to have? Between them and God. Birth Control? Between them and God.

As far as I can tell, this idea that it's unrighteous to have small families deserves to be grouped with other doctrines like :

Black's should not have priesthood, Adam God Theory, Blood Atonement. AKA traditions of man passed along for generations that were done away with because they simply weren't true.

Do away with checking lists off. It doesn't matter if you have a tattoo on your arm, if you have 1 kid, use birth control and go to church every other other week. Salvation is offered to you the same as any other person, the means by which God sanctifies you is the same. It all comes down to being humble, broken hearted, and depending wholly on Jesus Christ. Seriously. How do you not look at this list of do's and do nots and not see the parallel with the Jews?

Break your mind free from traditions that bind you down. You're missing the big picture.

Looking Beyond the Mark? Everyone uses this phrase to describe people who seek the Second Comforter.

How about using it to describe people that think they secure themselves a place in heaven by going to church every 7 days, paying 10% gross income in tithing, not swearing, not drinking coffee, holding a temple recommend, getting married in the temple, reading scriptures, "ministering", having a million kids, Having multiple wives(wait that's not required anymore), the list goes on. That's not the mark, that's not the Gospel.

Have faith in Jesus Christ, humble yourself. Repent of all your sins .Depend wholly on him. Be baptized to show your commitment to him. Receive the Baptism of Fire and Holy Ghost and then listen to the Holy Ghost for the rest of your life, whatever the Lord commands. That's it. Anything more or less than this has not built upon a sure foundation.

The Good works will follow a person that has been Born of God, not the other way around.

The entire point of god is his children. The entire point of us is our children.

Okay, so nowhere Is it taught, except 1972 and 1995 so far.

[Fiannan]

Having a small family when you were capable of having a large family is not gods plan, therefore it is not righteous.

Please show me where this is taught?

Everywhere on lds.org reflects the idea that it's between the couple and God. Period. How many kids to have? Between them and God. Birth Control? Between them and God.

As far as I can tell, this idea that it's unrighteous to have small families deserves to be grouped with other doctrines like :

Black's should not have priesthood, Adam God Theory, Blood Atonement. AKA traditions of man passed along for generations that were done away with because they simply weren't true.

Do away with checking lists off. It doesn't matter if you have a tattoo on your arm, if you have 1 kid, use birth control and go to church every other other week. Salvation is offered to you the same as any other person, the means by which God sanctifies you is the same. It all comes down to being humble, broken hearted, and depending wholly on Jesus Christ. Seriously. How do you not look at this list of do's and do nots and not see the parallel with the Jews?

Break your mind free from traditions that bind you down. You're missing the big picture.

Looking Beyond the Mark? Everyone uses this phrase to describe people who seek the Second Comforter.

How about using it to describe people that think they secure themselves a place in heaven by going to church every 7 days, paying 10% gross income in tithing, not swearing, not drinking coffee, holding a temple recommend, getting married in the temple, reading scriptures, "ministering", having a million kids, Having multiple wives(wait that's not required anymore), the list goes on. That's not the mark, that's not the Gospel.

Have faith in Jesus Christ, humble yourself. Repent of all your sins .Depend wholly on him. Be baptized to show your commitment to him. Receive the Baptism of Fire and Holy Ghost and then listen to the Holy Ghost for the rest of your life, whatever the Lord commands. That's it. Anything more or less than this has not built upon a sure foundation.

The Good works will follow a person that has been Born of God, not the other way around.

The entire point of god is his children. The entire point of us is our children.

Okay, so nowhere Is it taught, except 1972 and 1995 so far.

When is the last time you heard a Church leader say that shooting heroin is sin? No seriously, don't say that it is covered in the WofW because, by your logic, if it has not been specifically addressed then it is not quite doctrinal.

[Zathura]

Please show me where this is taught?

Everywhere on lds.org reflects the idea that it's between the couple and God. Period. How many kids to have? Between them and God. Birth Control? Between them and God.

As far as I can tell, this idea that it's unrighteous to have small families deserves to be grouped with other doctrines like :

Black's should not have priesthood, Adam God Theory, Blood Atonement. AKA traditions of man passed along for generations that were done away with because they simply weren't true.

Do away with checking lists off. It doesn't matter if you have a tattoo on your arm, if you have 1 kid, use birth control and go to church every other other week. Salvation is offered to you the same as any other person, the means by which God sanctifies you is the same. It all comes down to being humble, broken hearted, and depending wholly on Jesus Christ. Seriously. How do you not look at this list of do's and do nots and not see the parallel with the Jews?

Break your mind free from traditions that bind you down. You're missing the big picture.

Looking Beyond the Mark? Everyone uses this phrase to describe people who seek the Second Comforter.

How about using it to describe people that think they secure themselves a place in heaven by going to church every 7 days, paying 10% gross income in tithing, not swearing, not drinking coffee, holding a temple recommend, getting married in the temple, reading scriptures, "ministering", having a million kids, Having multiple wives(wait that's not required anymore), the list goes on. That's not the mark, that's not the Gospel.

Have faith in Jesus Christ, humble yourself. Repent of all your sins .Depend wholly on him. Be baptized to show your commitment to him. Receive the Baptism of Fire and Holy Ghost and then listen to the Holy Ghost for the rest of your life, whatever the Lord commands. That's it. Anything more or less than this has not built upon a sure foundation.

The Good works will follow a person that has been Born of God, not the other way around.

The entire point of god is his children. The entire point of us is our children.

Okay, so nowhere Is it taught, except 1972 and 1995 so far.

When is the last time you heard a Church leader say that shooting heroin is sin? No seriously, don't say that it is covered in the WofW because, by your logic, if it has not been specifically addressed then it is not quite doctrinal.

That’s not the logic you’ve seen me use here.

It’s something the church used to teach and now directly teaches that topic a different way now. Its actual official answers to literally the same questions are different now. It used to be a sin to use birth control, now it’s between god and the couple which logically suggests that God might tell a family to use birth control and have a small family. That’s not even close to the same thing as what you just threw out there.

The only reason anybody teaches this is because they heard it taught in the 70s and 80s. Guess what, when everyone that is currently 40+ is gone from this earth, Youll likely never ever hear another Mormon make the claim that it’s a sin to use birth control or have few children because as it stands , the church and it’s leaders do not accept or spread such a teaching and the millennials will have grow up and their children will have grown up without this tradition of man.

Sorry. Blacks have priesthood, Adam is not God, Blood Atonement is false, you’ll be excommunicated for polygamy , and it is not a sin to use birth control and have small families. The church changes, they do away with traditions and teachings from time to time . It’s okay.

[ElizaRSkousen]

The entire point of god is his children. The entire point of us is our children.

Okay, so nowhere Is it taught, except 1972 and 1995 so far.

When is the last time you heard a Church leader say that shooting heroin is sin? No seriously, don't say that it is covered in the WofW because, by your logic, if it has not been specifically addressed then it is not quite doctrinal.

That’s not the logic you’ve seen me use here.

It’s something the church used to teach and now directly teaches that topic a different way now. Its actual official answers to literally the same questions are different now. It used to be a sin to use birth control, now it’s between god and the couple which logically suggests that God might tell a family to use birth control and have a small family. That’s not even close to the same thing as what you just threw out there.

The only reason anybody teaches this is because they heard it taught in the 70s and 80s. Guess what, when everyone that is currently 40+ is gone from this earth, Youll likely never ever hear another Mormon make the claim that it’s a sin to use birth control or have few children because as it stands , the church and it’s leaders do not accept or spread such a teaching and the millennials will have grow up and their children will have grown up without this tradition of man.

Sorry. Blacks have priesthood, Adam is not God, Blood Atonement is false, you’ll be excommunicated for polygamy , and it is not a sin to use birth control and have small families. The church changes, they do away with traditions and teachings from time to time . It’s okay.

I wasn’t around when it was taught that birth control was a sin. My mother and mil and grandmothers and sisters all use it and praise it. I don’t use it, so I guess in 40 years some of us will still be around. For what it’s worth I decided that I was anti birth control when I was 20 and young and engaged.

I reject the idea that truth is subjective or that god doesn’t have an opinion on the topic.

As for those other topics... Sounds like we disagree on a lot !

The church changes yes... unfortunate. God never does.

Edit: you forgot consecration. It was updated with a replacement commandment too. Or is tithing the higher law ?