tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post4301391204437931869..comments2023-10-26T03:50:37.200-07:00Comments on politicaLDS - Mormons From All Sides: My Bi-Annual WOW Guilt Trip.Stephaniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06086402548404014658noreply@blogger.comBlogger120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-83080690273016731902009-08-04T20:56:42.369-07:002009-08-04T20:56:42.369-07:00Nem tudo no BRASIL é lindo ou maravilhoso; como a ...Nem tudo no BRASIL é lindo ou maravilhoso; como a midía mostra para mundo!isabelahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07404268265305898727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-18477381223265642152009-03-11T07:22:00.000-07:002009-03-11T07:22:00.000-07:00Here's a good article that was sent to my inbox t...<A HREF="http://www.care2.com/greenliving/life-force-diet-limit-meat-consumption.html" REL="nofollow">Here's </A> a good article that was sent to my inbox today. Of special interest to Mormons who really want to eat meat "sparingly." Even I'm perhaps consuming a bit too much animal proteins based on what this article suggests.The Faithful Dissidenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12540938297858510325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-63481230872062514902009-03-11T01:59:00.000-07:002009-03-11T01:59:00.000-07:00I know this is an old thread, but thought that you...I know this is an old thread, but thought that you all might find <A HREF="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/11/brazil.rape.abortion/index.html/" REL="nofollow">this </A> article interesting. I first saw the headline on TV: <I>"Brazlian doctor hailed for performing abortion"</I> and I admit I was a bit disturbed that someone would be "hailed" for performing an abortion. But once I read the article I could see why, and I think that he does in fact deserve to be "hailed."The Faithful Dissidenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12540938297858510325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-74812966452737756542009-02-27T03:29:00.000-07:002009-02-27T03:29:00.000-07:00About The early Apostolate and Birth Control: - - ...About The early Apostolate and Birth Control: - - Come on, folks - there is a time and place for every opinion - and colonial Utah (where men were basically acting as studs to fertilize the maximum amount of wives possible) was the time and place to sincerely believe that God wanted you to have as many offspring as humanly possible - so that "the church" could multiply and replenish the earth. From an anthropoligical stand point, it just makes sense to have lotsa babies. Not breeding children like cattle was akin to not...going on 4 or 4 missions - you know - road to apostacy and stuff. Was BY's feelings about child birth the literal opinion of The Lord God most High - he who causes the worlds to spin in their orbit and keeps the galaxies from colliding into each other? I doubt it.<BR/><BR/>About food production: At least the farmer who grows opium can literally "rise above" his position in life - If I had to "farm" something that wouldn't make ends meet anyways I may just pick opium - At least the side effects are enjoyable :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-25558571913089839512009-02-26T14:18:00.000-07:002009-02-26T14:18:00.000-07:00Ah - Okay, that makes sense. I thought you were m...Ah - Okay, that makes sense. I thought you were making the argument from a "this is a way to solve world hunger" perspective - which may or may not be true; often it's marginal land that is used in the production of opium. I've got no problem with animal husbandry agriculture, so long as it's done humanely. (And often it's marginal land that is used in the production of meat, too. You can graze sheep or cattle or raise chickens anywhere. It's much harder to raise crops on marginal land.) I have a much bigger issue with practices like live export, where animals are crowded into container ships and sent to sea for weeks at a time to be slaughtered in another country, where the practices are not humane.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-28080510765542676032009-02-26T14:01:00.000-07:002009-02-26T14:01:00.000-07:00But if a farmer can get more for growing opium, wh...<I>But if a farmer can get more for growing opium, why shouldn't he do it? Isn't that just capitalism in action? Why ask a farmer to give up a major source of income in favor for something that is simply not profitable? </I><BR/><BR/>My point in sharing this quote about opium production was this: if you (not you Quimby, but you in general) want to make a big stink about meat production taking away from the production of crops that could feed people and fight hunger and famine, why not make the same case for opium production? If a farmer can make more raising cows than he can raising crops to feed people and fight famine, why shouldn't he just do it? I think the same argument can be applied to both. So, if you are going to argue for a farmer's right to raise opium, then argue for his right to raise meat, too.Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06086402548404014658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-70800098978240175242009-02-25T21:14:00.000-07:002009-02-25T21:14:00.000-07:00More on GM crops and their sheer unsuitability for...More on GM crops and their sheer unsuitability for Africa: In order to use the seeds, farmers must first undertake a course from the seed manufacturer. Monsanto charges around AUS$1000 for this course. They then must pay a licensing fee to use the seed; and they must pay for the seed, which is sold at a considerably higher price than normal seed. (And again, because it doesn't self-propogate it must be purchased every year.) Then, when the crop is harvested, they have to pay Monsanto a percentage of their sales. So, at every step, farmers pay through the nose. And for what? The latest bunch of GM crops does not (DOES NOT) increase yield. It is herbicide resistant; the statistic I heard was for wheat, it is herbicide resistant between 2 leaf and 8 leaf stage only. That means at any other time in the growth cycle it is not herbicide resistant and some studies suggest that it is more susceptible to herbicide than normal, non-GM crops. <BR/><BR/>As for the other points: First I would not really trust any stats from the 1970s. Things have changed quite a bit particularly in the developing world. But some of the ideas are really not feasible from a development perspective. For instance instead of eradicating rats - which would be detrimental to the environment at large (because every animal is important to the ecosystem, so you take one away and it's unbalanced; and because the only real way to eradicate rats is to use poison, and you can't really target just one animal with a poison; or else to use a disease that only rats are susceptible to, but rats would soon become immune to it) - Rather than kill rats, why not use them for a cheap source of protein? You mention using land for crops instead of opium. But if a farmer can get more for growing opium, why shouldn't he do it? Isn't that just capitalism in action? Why ask a farmer to give up a major source of income in favor for something that is simply not profitable?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-18431563971990866702009-02-25T13:58:00.000-07:002009-02-25T13:58:00.000-07:00Here's another idea (as long as I'm pontificating)...Here's another idea (as long as I'm pontificating). What if having as many children as you "can" (like Brigham Young said) and not using birth control is the higher law, and it has been adapted to the current position because of our own weaknesses and failings? Like the United Order was given and then retracted because the people weren't righteous enough to live it. What if commanding us to have kids like it used to be would just bring us all under condemnation, so it had to be adapted? I think it is possible. I know I would fail at that law. And, either way, my opinion is the same: our counsel today is for us and is the best for us to follow.Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06086402548404014658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-21713795522433414912009-02-25T12:47:00.000-07:002009-02-25T12:47:00.000-07:00On the other hand, the Lord may be more "gray", me...On the other hand, the Lord may be more "gray", meaning that there are many more forms of acceptable to Him. For example, I think the number of children appropriate for any couple could range from zero to whatever, and all numbers are acceptable to the Lord under <I>His</I> conditions. So, a prophet saying, "Two or three is not enough" would be setting up a more black and white number than the Lord, and that doesn't necessarily make it right or the Lord's will. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I think that the Lord's conditions for acceptable reasons to limit the number of children is more black and white than the world's. The world creates the gray and confusion. <BR/><BR/>Now I really don't know if I am making sense anymore. :)Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06086402548404014658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-42656790649937267322009-02-25T12:41:00.000-07:002009-02-25T12:41:00.000-07:00I guess that's the bottom line on most issues with...I guess that's the bottom line on most issues with the gospel, isn't it? The Lord himself doesn't change. We know that he is constant. But, what he chooses to reveal at any time may not always be the same. It may be based on the current state of society. So, which is right? The "old" stuff or the "new" stuff? In a way, I would have to think they both would be right, for that particular time in society. So, I would feel the most "safe" in going with the current revelation. But, overall, I think that changes in position can be most explained by changes in society. I feel that it is that way with the priesthood being given to every man. That's always the way the Lord intended it, but He had to wait for society at large to be ready. Of course it would have been nice for the church to be the "leader" and an "example" in that area, but it wasn't the Lord's plan. And, because of that, some leaders gave personal opinions that weren't doctrine and weren't even in line with the Lord's ideas. <BR/><BR/>It may be that way with birth control and child rearing. One thing about birth control (the pill) is that it wasn't always that safe. My grandma used it when it was new, and it made one of her pupils huge and the other small. Maybe part of the reason the church was so against it was that it was unhealthy. <BR/><BR/>Maybe the Lord gave us as much info as we needed. So, the correct guidance for my grandma was to have all the kids "she can", and the correct guidance for me is to have all I can given all my personal considerations and circumstances. And, maybe the guidance will be further clarified for our children. But, I still think the Lord doesn't change, and our most "safe" way to figure out His will is to go with modern revelation. <BR/><BR/>This recognizes shades of gray, but I think the gray is caused by man, by our own society and its failings. I think the Lord is more black and white than we are.Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06086402548404014658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-35423237251072429092009-02-25T12:25:00.000-07:002009-02-25T12:25:00.000-07:00Interesting quotes and points, FD. When you read t...Interesting quotes and points, FD. When you read the entire quotes on BIV's site, I think that the <I>intent</I> of the general message they are trying to convey is the same. The idea that "preventing conception" or limiting the number of children out of "selfish" reasons is wrong is the same. I also think that they are talking more generally about society, particularly when Joseph F. Smith says <I> it is one of the greatest crimes of this world today, this evil practice</I>. But, I also agree that there are some changes in the specifics of their messages.<BR/><BR/>Wilford Woodruff's comment appears to be in a personal conversation or letter, not in a official statement, so I think that is more opinion than anything else. <BR/><BR/>Brigham Young said <I>It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can</I>. I think that the word "can" has been expanded and clarified. Even when my mom was having kids, it still was commonly interpreted to mean have all the kids you physically can with no birth control. Now, the "official" position is <I>Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children. <BR/><BR/>Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple.</I><BR/><BR/>That is a definite change. But, is it possible that the prophets were using literal birth control, and the idea of limiting children without the Lord's input interchangeably? Possibly. I, for one, am glad for the clarification, particularly the bit about the mother's health. I think that I would literally lose it if I had all the kids my body physically could without birth control. <BR/><BR/>Overall, from your options, I am going to go with both b and c. I think that the overall position of <I>the Lord</I> hasn't changed much, but our circumstances in society have. I think it is harder to have kids today than it was when our grandparents were having them, and I think our church leaders are recognizing and acknowleding that - with approval from the Lord to clarify (since the statements are "official"). And, I think that part of it was probably a bit of personal opinion. Even I, who tries to follow every command as given faithfully, wouldn't literally interpret the quotes to mean I had to have more than two or three children to make it to heaven. I think he was more talking in generalities and using examples than specifically stating a number. If the same quote were given today, I bet he would use the number zero or one to reflect current statistics, but I still would rely more on the "official" position that we need to prayerfully decide ourselves what we "can" do. <BR/><BR/>Hope any of that makes sense.Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06086402548404014658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-40693332896963243292009-02-25T11:30:00.000-07:002009-02-25T11:30:00.000-07:00Stephanie, I agree with you that it's wrong of any...Stephanie, I agree with you that it's wrong of any group, in Britain or anywhere, to try to tell people how many kids is OK or not OK for them.<BR/><BR/>You said that your <I>"objective in determining (your) opinion on political/social matters is to see if the church/church leaders have a position (in a formal capacity), and if so, to align yourself with that position,"</I> and I can respect that. If you are able to do that, then I applaud you for it because we all know it's not easy. I think, Stephanie, that you are more open-minded than many conservative Mormons and understand that sometimes our individual circumstances may cause us to disagree with certain things that Church leaders say, or to take a different personal path than the "prescribed path of happiness" that many Mormons are on, consisting of temple marriage, a large family, stay-at-home mom, etc. Unfortunately, though, not all Mormons are as open-minded and many, liberal as well as conservative, can fall into the trap of believing that what is the right kind of family for us is right for everyone else.<BR/><BR/>Stephanie said:<BR/><BR/><I>"I totally agree that number of children is primarily determined by culture, etc. but the church's position on it hasn't changed (that I know of - besides being more considerate to personal circumstances). The gospel doesn't tell people how many or few to have."</I><BR/><BR/>I agree that Church leaders have never really said that we should all have X number of kids. But I have to at least partially disagree that the Church's position hasn't changed when it comes to "family policy," if we can call it that. Bored in Vernal did a really interesting post on <A HREF="http://notapostate.blogspot.com/2008/02/birth-control.html" REL="nofollow">the evolution of birth control teachings </A> in the LDS Church a while back. Some of you have probably seen it, but if you haven't then I recommend it. I want to just pick out a few quotes from it that show just how much things have changed:<BR/><BR/><I>"It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for <B>all the spirits they can.</B>" -Brigham Young</I><BR/><BR/>Wilford Woodruff seemed to indicate that those who used birth control or chose to not have children should perhaps not be allowed into the Church unless they repented of this "sin":<BR/><BR/><I>"As to the lesser sin of preventing conception, no general rule can be laid down, there are so many different circumstances distinguishing one case from another and such a difference in motives that each particular case has to be judged by itself and decided by the light of the Spirit. But we believe where persons sincerely repent and cease the practice, they should be permitted to enter the Church.</I><BR/><BR/><I>"Possibly <B>no greater sin</B> could be committed by the people who have embraced this gospel than to prevent or to destroy life in the manner indicated." <BR/><BR/>"I believe that where people undertake to curtail or prevent the birth of their children that they are going to reap the disappointment by and by. I have no hesitancy in saying it is one of the <B>greatest crimes of this world today,</B> this evil practice."</I><BR/><BR/>"Possibly no greater sin." "One of the world's greatest crimes." Those are pretty strong words.<BR/><BR/><I>"No doubt there are some worldly people who honestly limit the number of children and the family to two or three because of insufficient means to clothe and educate a large family as the parents would desire to do, but in nearly all such cases, the two or three children are no better provided for than two or three times that number would be." -David O. McKay</I><BR/><BR/>Joseph Fielding Smith had some particularly strong words:<BR/><BR/><I>“Those who attempt to pervert the ways of the Lord, and to prevent their offspring from coming into the world in obedience to this great command, are guilty of one of the most heinous crimes in the category. <B>There is no promise of eternal salvation and exaltation for such as they, for by their acts they prove their unworthiness for exaltation</B> and unfitness for a kingdom where the crowning glory is the continuation of the family union and eternal increase which have been promised to all those who obey the law of the Lord."<BR/><BR/>"Those who practice birth control...are running counter to the foreordained plan of the Almighty. They are in rebellion against God and are guilty of gross wickedness."<BR/><BR/>"When a man and a woman are married and they agree, or covenant, to limit their offspring to two or three, and practice devices to accomplish this purpose, they are guilty of iniquity which eventually must be punished."</I><BR/><BR/>I find it interesting that a number was actually specified there. Anyways, there's no doubt in my mind that although Church leaders usually seemed to avoid stating any specific number, what they had in mind was something that looked more like Quiverfull than the "small" LDS families we see today of "only" 2, 3, or 4 kids.<BR/><BR/>I'm curious about what you all think. Do you believe:<BR/><BR/>a) that the prophets were teaching the literal truth and they only said what God instructed them to,<BR/><BR/>b) that they were inspired but were trying to pass of their personal opinions and upbringings as the word of God, whether intentionally or unintentionally,<BR/><BR/>c) what they taught really was the literal word of God back then, but things have changed,<BR/><BR/>c) they were merely stating their personal opinions and were just plain wrong.The Faithful Dissidenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12540938297858510325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-53259535529556501262009-02-25T09:54:00.000-07:002009-02-25T09:54:00.000-07:00And if you disagree, fine. I agree to disagree. It...And if you disagree, fine. I agree to disagree. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last. :)Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06086402548404014658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-34428892509282429372009-02-25T09:31:00.000-07:002009-02-25T09:31:00.000-07:00And, Rick, I totally agree that number of children...And, Rick, I totally agree that number of children is primarily determined by culture, etc. but the church's position on it hasn't changed (that I know of - besides being more considerate to personal circumstances). The gospel doesn't tell people how many or few to have. It basically says that the commandment given to all God's children is to multiply and replenish the earth, figure out between you and your spouse and the Lord how many children is appropriate for you, and don't make the determination selfishly (the quotes all seem to focus that on limiting the number, but I can also see how it applies to having too many if you can't appropriately care for them). I agree with FD that Mormon culture and inconsiderate individuals apply pressure inappropriately, but the official statements of the church are very "fair", IMO. <BR/><BR/>But, I think it is flat out wrong for this group in Britain to determine that two is the appropriate limit for everyone, and to try to sway public opinion that more than that is selfish and irresponsible. Just wrong. And if not "wrong", contrary to the message of the gospel, which, to me, makes it wrong.Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06086402548404014658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-3950868129041624162009-02-25T08:36:00.000-07:002009-02-25T08:36:00.000-07:00For that matter, I can find 6+ articles on lds.org...For that matter, I can find 6+ articles on lds.org that say socialism is contrary to the gospel. Will that automatically change all of your minds? No. But, in a discussion on socialism, I find the articles to be relevant information because <I>my objective</I> in determining my opinion on political/social matters is to see if the church/church leaders have a position (in a formal capacity), and if so, to align myself with that position, and as 1 of 8 contributors on this site, that is a function that I perceive myself as filling. I represent people who think the same way. <BR/><BR/>I fully recognize that others form opinions differently. But, for the purpose of the discussion, I think that quotes from church leaders are relevant information. Particularly since there may be readers looking for information to form their own opinions.<BR/><BR/>And if you say, "My personal conscience doesn't agree. I haven't received a witness that that particular position/statement is true". Fine. Share your opinion. Share your position. I recognize that it is equally as valid as mine. I'm not trying to shut it down because it doesn't perfectly align with what the church leaders have said. But, it also doesn't negate that it <I>was</I> said by an apostle, and that others need to go through the same process to confirm for themselves whether or not they want to agree.Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06086402548404014658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-24922202762766099612009-02-25T07:59:00.000-07:002009-02-25T07:59:00.000-07:00Look, FD, I am not trying to make this personal. I...Look, FD, I am not trying to make this personal. I am not talking about personal choices regarding childbirth. I already said I know it is a personal, prayerful choice. I am talking about the idea of population control, and of promoting it. It is not doctrinally supported. Everything I can find from the church says the exact opposite. Doesn't mean you can't still believe in it. It just means that it is not supported by the church. And, when I see things like the Britain campaign encouraging people to think that more than two is irresponsible and selfish <I>for reasons of population control</I>, that seems very contrary to the gospel, based on everything I can find.Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06086402548404014658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-75207753564562129462009-02-25T02:49:00.000-07:002009-02-25T02:49:00.000-07:00"...it will be much harder for them to choose how ...<I>"...it will be much harder for them to choose how many children to have in the face of scorn if they choose more than two. It will take a lot more faith for them to do the unpopular, even if they feel it is what God wants them to do..."</I><BR/><BR/>Your comment here can also be applied in a different scenario. Consider how childless couples -- and I mean those who <I>choose</I> to be childless -- or those who <I>choose</I> to just have one child, in the Church feel. Do they not face just as much "scorn" from leaders and fellow members as Mormons do from some liberals? Do you think they ever feel that they're doing the "unpopular" thing in their Mormon culture, yet need to stick to their guns for personal reasons?<BR/><BR/>Stephanie's quote by Elder Oaks pretty much shoots down any Mormon who feels that no children or one child is enough for them:<BR/><BR/><I>"And let us be mindful of the fact that in many parts of the world where people are listening to this broadcast, the idea of having children has been rejected."</I><BR/><BR/>Now, conservatives hate it when liberals suggest how many kids people like them should or shouldn't have. (I try to steer away from numbers because I think it's a personal decision.) But can't you guys see how Christian conservatives are doing the exact same thing in reverse? And being Mormon all my life, I think that Mormons are the worst culprits with reversing the guilt that they receive for having big families. And they throw that guilt onto the backs of their own. There's the constant criticism of those who decide to not have kids, which everyone just assumes is because of selfishness. I think it's pretty unfair to say that every couple who <I>chooses</I> to be childless is doing so because they are selfish. But that is certainly the sentiment in the Church. And then if they DO have a kid, then it's never enough, then you get Elder Oaks saying <I>"...the thought is that if you have one child that’s enough..."</I> What he's saying is that one child is <I>not</I> enough.<BR/><BR/>Here's my personal opinion. Although I personally think it's a bit much to be having 6,7,10,12 kids, if Mormons want to do so then FINE! Who am I to tell them how many kids they should have? If the parents raise them to be responsible stewards of the earth, then I say knock yourself out. The problem I have is that most of those who are having so many kids are still in global warming denial, driving huge, multiple cars, and eating their meatlover pizzas. But take it from someone who is over 30, married, Mormon and has no kids. Mormons need to stop guilt-tripping other Mormons who don't have kids FOR WHATEVER REASON. Even if their decision is based on pure selfishness (which I doubt it really is in most cases), then be glad that they are not going to bring another unwanted child into the world. The last thing you want to see is people being guilt-tripped into having kids because of the pressure. This happens in the Church, believe me.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure that some Mormons I know are just dying to know why I don't have kids. I'm sure they have their assumptions but I can tell you they haven't got a clue. They would probably be surprised if they knew the whole story. I've received some pretty insensitive questions from even good friends in the Church about when it's going to be "my turn" and "when are you having kids?" blah, blah, blah. I know they don't really mean to be insensitive, but really how can I expect anything more when they themselves are popping out one kid after another and having it drilled into their heads by Church leaders that we need to multiply and replenish the earth, and certainly not with JUST one kid, and how God basically just put me on this earth to reproduce so I better fulfill that role or I'm a selfish failure. You can say that it isn't so, but you all know what Mormon culture is like.The Faithful Dissidenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12540938297858510325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-2121413327362287852009-02-24T17:20:00.000-07:002009-02-24T17:20:00.000-07:00But stephanie, you have to understand that alot of...But stephanie, you have to understand that alot of that "Gods Plan" mindset is really a result of culture and time - I mean, when my parents had 10 kids, it was really popular for all Mormons to have 10 kids - when their parents had 10-14, it was really popular for that to happen too - when polygamist fathers had broods of 45+, that was the norm for Mormons too - so in our own culture, we see trends in how many kids we should have - and right now the tred seems to be going closer to 2-5 - and whats wrong with that? And in 20 years, for the next Generation, it might be vouge to have 1-2, so what? And two generations from now, maybe it will be in style to have 10 again? Who knows? But usually people's "inspiration" really is alot closer to what those around them are doing, and what they feel they can realistically support/raise - The average number will go up and down according to those trends - not according to Gods plan. - - Yes, I can agree that God generally wants people to procreate - hence our sexual organs - but as far as numbers of offspring, I think that has alot more to do with trends and plain wants - you "want" 5 or 6 kids (I can't remember how many you have) - I want 1 or 2 - so what? How is the stylistic difference, even if influenced by media or 'groups' any worry? If there is one thing living in America has taught me, it is that people will do what they want.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-18899531256039696092009-02-24T15:03:00.000-07:002009-02-24T15:03:00.000-07:00And if that's how it was for everyone, Rick, I wou...And if that's how it was for everyone, Rick, I wouldn't be so concerned. But, when a group is starting a campaign to brand having more than two children as "selfish" and "irresponsible", I see that as a direct attack on God's plan. When that becomes the "norm" (maybe when our kids are starting families), it will be much harder for them to choose how many children to have in the face of scorn if they choose more than two. It will take a lot more faith for them to do the unpopular, even if they feel it is what God wants them to do (then again, we know that is how the last days are).Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06086402548404014658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-69216413942056675962009-02-23T23:59:00.000-07:002009-02-23T23:59:00.000-07:00Anonymous - the bottom line: I have no resonse to ...Anonymous - the bottom line: I have no resonse to your generalistic accusation except this - both of those scriptures (and every reference in holy writ) don't state anything like "abstaining from meat is apostacy" - they say,"whoso forbiddeth (and 'commands' in Timothy) men to abstain from meat is not ordained of God." It says nothing about an individual's choice, or an individual urging friends - it does condemn taking away the ability to choose. <BR/><BR/>Stephanie - I am the youngest of 10 children and I'll be the first to stand up and say that my parents had an irresponsible amount of chilren. But I don't think we are anywhere near "regulating" that by law - nor do I think it is especially relevant - obviously people who think its selfish to have more than two children will think that, and those who think its perfectly right and in-line with God's plan are going to think what you think - and we aren't going to change our minds - nor do I want to - I want you to appreciate the children you have and give them the lives they deserve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-62113287429370766762009-02-22T22:24:00.000-07:002009-02-22T22:24:00.000-07:00This is some of the silliest tripe I've ever read....This is some of the silliest tripe I've ever read. I'm not even going to waste my time going into those irrelevant stats you posted. The bottom line fact about all those stats is that you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about.<BR/><BR/>Do some Americans eat too much meat? Yeah, they do. Are most Americans fat and lazy? Yes, they are. <BR/><BR/>Is the answer to go the opposite extreme? No.<BR/><BR/>It states multiple times in the scriptures that abstaining from meat is apostasy. <BR/><BR/>http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_tim/4/3#3<BR/><BR/>http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/49/18#18Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-13860167230620152152009-02-22T13:38:00.000-07:002009-02-22T13:38:00.000-07:00I remembered about the Worldwide Leadership Traini...I remembered about the Worldwide Leadership Training Broadcast a year ago titled <A HREF="http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,8027-1-4404-4,00.html" REL="nofollow">"Building Up a Righteous Posterity"</A> Here's a quote from the roundtable discussion:<BR/><BR/><I>And let us be mindful of the fact that in many parts of the world where people are listening to this broadcast, the idea of having children has been rejected. Or the thought is that if you have one child that’s enough and a person is just foolish or unpatriotic to have more than one child. There are plenty of ideas out there in the world that work against the gospel plan.</I> (Elder Oaks)Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06086402548404014658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-72772814107944171102009-02-20T19:20:00.000-07:002009-02-20T19:20:00.000-07:00I think it's probably a given that each additional...I think it's probably a given that each additional child means less individual attention from the parents for all children. But would that potential negative outweigh the positives of having more siblings? Maybe, maybe not. I think it depends on the mom, kids, family dynamics. <BR/><BR/>My kids get less attention from me than they would if there were only one or two, but I know they get more attention than the two kids who are knocking on our door every fifteen minutes. If these other children are not at school or daycare, they are at my house. I am not sure when their own mom spends time with them. <BR/><BR/>Here's the thing about attention and kids. First, how much attention overall does a mom devote to her children? Of that, how much does each kid get? Raising my kids is my whole life (right now). Besides church, I don't have many outside interests to take my attention away from my kids. I would estimate that my kids get probably 90% of my attention (seriously - the only distraction I still have is this website - I've given up pretty much everything else, and my church calling is minimal right now). So each of my kids gets about 22.5% of my attention right now (although that is not static - I can tell which kids need more attention at any given time. They let you know.)<BR/><BR/>I know of other families who spend a lot less attention on their kids. Of course I am making a judgement call to say this, but I am thinking of one mom in particular with two kids, and I'll guess that between work, church, traveling, other involvements, her kids get maybe 20% of her time. That would mean that each kid gets about 10%, right? So, are my kids really getting less attention because there are four (almost five) of them? I think it all depends. <BR/><BR/>Plus, different moms have different thresholds for what they can handle. Different kids have different needs for attention, time, care. One high-needs child could be more time-intensive than six low-maintenance children. For some families, one or two (or no) children may be exactly perfect. For others, it might be eight. President Monson has three. <BR/><BR/>Under normal circumstances (assuming rationality on the part of the parents), it is appropriate that parents choose for themselves what their family will look like. The octuplet mom in CA seems to border irrationality, but Bill O'Reilly had a good point on his show today. Her 14 babies under 7 couldn't have happened naturally. Nature has a way of limiting childbirth to a manageable level.Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06086402548404014658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-72713027524006353002009-02-20T02:32:00.000-07:002009-02-20T02:32:00.000-07:00Here's a question for all of you. I know some of ...Here's a question for all of you. I know some of you have several children, others come from large families. Do you ever wonder about how having more children affects the children that you already have? I'm not a mom, but I was the oldest of 5 and although I thoroughly enjoy my siblings now that we're grown up, I have to admit that it really felt like a burden when I was a kid, at least when my last 2 brothers were born. My parents were great, we certainly had everything we needed material-wise, and they were very good at spending time with us. But there are only so many hours in a day and there is only one of you and one of your spouse. The math says that the more kids you have, the less individual time you have for each one, according to his/her special needs. I think it's important for kids to have siblings, but do you think the cons outweigh the pros when they have 1 or 2 siblings compared to 3,4,5, or 10? Especially if one of those kids has a special need that requires intense love and attention from parents.<BR/><BR/>I guess I'm just more about quality than quantity. I know that some big families are amazing and extremely efficient. But a household system of order is one thing and an individual's need for attention is another. To me, it just seems logical that the more children one has, the less time one has to devote to each one <I>individually.</I> Especially if mom has to work outside the home to support that big family.The Faithful Dissidenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12540938297858510325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828020204493667544.post-85031086179616948022009-02-19T16:55:00.000-07:002009-02-19T16:55:00.000-07:00Interesting thought I found in an Ensign feedback ...Interesting thought I found in an Ensign feedback to an article I posted in an earlier comment (it relates to both the WoW and population control!):<BR/><BR/><I> A great source of food could be found through using the vast amount of land being diverted for the production of tobacco, coffee, tea, and grains for alcoholic beverages. Even if most people in the world don’t know or care about the Word of Wisdom, doesn’t it seem likely that they would give up these supposed luxuries in order to feed themselves or their neighbors? Satan manages to infiltrate all good things (like ecological concern) with corrupt ideas (like population control). Can anything but the restored gospel bring about the changes of heart and mind necessary to end all forms of pollution, which ultimately is caused by the corruption of men and of their institutions?</I><BR/><BR/>Are the environmentalists calling for population control (or for an end to meat production) also calling for an end to the production of coffee, tea, grains for alcohol, drugs? If these substances are always treated as free agency choices, why not the choice of how many children to have?<BR/><BR/>More interesting church articles related to population control:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=94de945bd384b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1" REL="nofollow">Editorial: Population, Pollution and You</A><BR/><BR/><I>The position of the Lord on this matter has always been clear. In a letter dated April 14, 1969, the First Presidency reiterated it: “We seriously regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity.” <BR/><BR/>That letter added, “… we feel that men must be considerate of their wives who bear the greater responsibility not only of bearing children, but of caring for them through childhood. To this end the mother’s health and strength should be conserved and the husband’s consideration for his wife is his first duty. … It is our further feeling that married couples should seek inspiration and wisdom from the Lord that they may exercise discretion in solving their marital problems, and that they may be permitted to rear their children in accordance with the teachings of the gospel.” <BR/><BR/>Latter-day Saints, or for that matter all thinking persons, should not be panicked into any movement that would curtail or penalize the right to bring God’s spirit children into this world. <BR/><BR/>At the same time, there is a very special obligation to do everything possible to create an environment in the world that will be warm and hospitable for these new spirits. The problems of population are mostly the problems of our abuse of the land, the air, and the water. It may be that more of us should work more vigorously to preserve and replenish the earth that God has given us. </I><BR/><BR/>That is a call for the kind of environmentalism I can believe in and agree with. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=b3b3b8c96c89b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1" REL="nofollow">Be Not Ashamed: Facing the Issues</A><BR/><BR/><I>What if …<BR/>If each family had had only two children—<BR/><BR/>John F. Kennedy (3rd child) would never have been president.<BR/><BR/>Mohandas Gandhi (4th child) would never have been the great spiritual leader of India.<BR/><BR/>George Washington (5th child) would never have been “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”<BR/><BR/>Robert E. Lee (7th child) would never have been the gentleman hero of the Southern States.<BR/><BR/>David (8th child) would never have been king of Israel.<BR/><BR/>Benjamin Franklin (10th child) would not have been a diplomat, printer, statesman, inventor, philosopher, and genius.<BR/><BR/>Joseph (12th child) would never have fathered Ephraim and Manasseh.<BR/><BR/>President Spencer W. Kimball (6th child) would not be our current prophet.<BR/><BR/>Nor would there have been an Enrico Fermi (3rd child), nor a Johann Sebastian Bach (8th child and father of 13), nor a William Shakespeare (3rd child), nor a Thomas Edison (7th child), nor a Thomas Jefferson (3rd child).<BR/><BR/>How about you?<BR/>Wanted: Young Latter-day Saints with sharp minds to serve their fellowmen and possibly win Nobel Prizes for the following:<BR/><BR/>1. Find a way to eliminate rats, thereby increasing the food supply in some areas by 25 percent. Technique must be safe for use in areas of heavy human population. Solution needed as soon as possible.<BR/><BR/>2. Find a way to cheaply convert salt water to fresh, thereby turning many deserts near oceans into productive farm lands. Hint: Solar power? Patent rights should provide financial security. Solution needed as soon as possible.<BR/><BR/>3. Find a way to make tractors and tools available to more farmers in more areas, including equipment that is suitable for small farms. Solution needed yesterday.<BR/><BR/>4. Find better ways to prevent spoilage of food in underdeveloped areas, thereby reducing waste and feeding millions more. Please hurry.<BR/><BR/>5. Find a way to make cheap, dependable solar power available in all areas as a replacement for nonrenewable energy sources. Should provide millions of jobs for others, good pay for the inventor, and a greater world food supply. Solution needed right away.<BR/><BR/>6. Find a way to make ocean food sources widely available in pleasing form at low cost. Recommend plankton steak, algae au gratin, and seaweed soup. Hungry people request that you hurry.<BR/><BR/>Other Nobel Prizes may be awarded to young Latter-day Saints for extracting water for irrigation from the atmosphere, for finding alternate energy sources, for finding better techniques for harvesting, processing, packaging, and distributing foods, for desert farming, use of ice-cap moisture, and similar projects.<BR/><BR/>Certainly there are hungry people in the world. Certainly there are problems. But shall the sharp, young minds of Zion join the doom and gloom purveyors or join in the search for answers? We are the children of divine Heavenly Parents, created in their image. We are capable of solving tough problems.</I><BR/><BR/>More solutions I can believe in. <BR/><BR/><I>Then why is there hunger in the world? <BR/><BR/>A: The reasons are many and include:<BR/><BR/>1. Distribution of food is very inefficient in some areas, especially in underdeveloped areas. (National Geographic, July 1975, page 17: “Burdened by a ballooning population, India finds shortages aggravated by self-defeating policies. To provide cheap food for the urban poor, farmers must sell part of each crop to the government at below-market prices. Result: Sales shift to the black market, where prices soar beyond the reach of the needy.”)<BR/><BR/>2. Much food is left in the fields by present harvesting technology. (Mechanical harvesting is estimated to leave up to 25 percent of some crops in the field. Given high labor costs, it is not economically feasible to retrieve that which is left. Much of what is lost is not quite ripe, or too ripe, or in the corner of a field, where machinery cannot operate.)<BR/><BR/>3. Poor food packaging and storage results in great losses of food. (Newsweek, October 4, 1976, page 12: “America, for instance, has gotten its food spoilage rate down to an average 15%. Contrast this with a 50% rate in India.”)<BR/><BR/>4. Rats eat enormous quantities of food. (National Geographic, July 1977, page 63: “In India rats eat enough grain to fill a train 3,000 miles long.” Read the entire article.)<BR/><BR/>5. Inefficient farming techniques result in low yields per acre. (National Geographic, July 1975, page 13: “Where an Asian or African spends five days in the field to produce a hundred pounds of grain, the American spends only five minutes.”)<BR/><BR/>6. Much land that could produce food is used to produce tobacco, opium, and ingredients for alcoholic beverages.<BR/><BR/>7. In some areas governments intentionally (and sometimes unintentionally) encourage farmers to raise less food.<BR/><BR/>8. Some areas use many pounds of plant protein to raise one pound of meat protein. (National Geographic, July 1975, page 15: “Meat production constitutes the least efficient use of cereal grains, yet the escalating affluence of Japan has generated an explosive demand for it.”)<BR/><BR/>What’s being done?<BR/>Helping the people of the world to feed themselves is a major concern of the Ezra Taft Benson Institute in Provo, Utah. Organized two and a half years ago, and directed by Dr. Delos Ellsworth, the Institute is engaged in extensive research in food, nutrition, agriculture, and food storage.<BR/><BR/>Numerous research efforts have been undertaken dealing with small-plot agriculture, food storage in tropical climates, home-storage options, and high-yield gardening. Yet other research is planned.<BR/><BR/>Asked if members of the Church are engaged in the work of feeding a hungry world, Dr. Ellsworth produced a directory of over 2,000 LDS food and agriculture scientists. Indeed, the Church and its people are concerned and involved.<BR/><BR/>Advice for young Latter-day Saints? Dr. Ellsworth counsels New Era readers to “follow the prophet’s advice. Get involved in gardening and home storage and all aspects of family preparedness.” He further adds, “Use good sense, and don’t follow fads.”</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry for the ultra-long quote, but it has lots of good ideas. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=33341f26d596b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1" REL="nofollow">The Foundations of Righteousness</A> by President Spencer W. Kimball (prophet at the time it was given):<BR/><BR/><I>The growing permissiveness in modern society gravely concerns us. Certainly our Heavenly Father is distressed with the increasing inroads among his children of such insidious sins as adultery and fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, abortions, pornography, <B>population control</B>, alcoholism, cruelty expressed in wife-beating and child-abuse, dishonesty, vandalism, violence, and crime generally, including the sin of living together without marriage. </I><BR/><BR/>Ouch. <BR/><BR/>All of these are from the 70s. It seems to me that so many "issues" of today were spoken about in the 70s when they first started emerging, almost as if our prophets are prophetic or something. <BR/><BR/>I just honestly can't find a call for population control consistent with the gospel.Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06086402548404014658noreply@blogger.com