Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/86750/

Ain't no way I'd ever in a million years discuss this with my bishop. It's literally none of his business. I feel like this sort of decision could be made perfectly well between the couple and the Lord.

Craig Jessop wrote:http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/86750/

Ain't no way I'd ever in a million years discuss this with my bishop. It's literally none of his business. I feel like this sort of decision could be made perfectly well between the couple and the Lord.

+1

There are three pending corrections. ^_^

I feel like the church handbook answer hearkens to the era in the mid-20th century where the advice from the brethren was focused on "have as many babies as possible to provide lots of awaiting spirits with nice, white latter-day saint bodies." It's much less common now for church leadership to oppose family planning.

Also, not to throw too much shade, and I'm sure he's a perfectly nice guy in real life, but I've disagreed in the strongest possible terms with pretty much every one of Sunday Night Banter's answers. (Note - this is just me and my opinion. Please don't dogpile on him if you agree with me.)

I feel like it's kind of like birth control - the Church used to discourage it and now they're like, yeah, pray about it and make your own choice.

Zedability wrote:I feel like it's kind of like birth control - the Church used to discourage it and now they're like, yeah, pray about it and make your own choice.

it IS birth control :P

You know what I meant

Cognoscente, I'd put the timeline even further back than that. At the beginning of the 20th century, when the eugenics movement was in full swing (and things like forced sterilizations were happening via state sanction) there were some sympathies for the movement within church leadership (although, for the record, I don't know how far those sympathies went.) I think part of the language still comes from that time, when they wanted a firm note on the record that the church opposed the eugenicists.

I just want to say that when D.A.R.E. was a kid his dad got a vasectomy, and when he got home after his procedure he walked in the door and D.A.R.E. punched him in the wiener as a joke (because boys think that's funny?), not realizing he'd just had a vasectomy.

Cognoscente wrote:Also, not to throw too much shade, and I'm sure he's a perfectly nice guy in real life, but I've disagreed in the strongest possible terms with pretty much every one of Sunday Night Banter's answers. (Note - this is just me and my opinion. Please don't dogpile on him if you agree with me.)

Same.

But more relevantly, copper IUDs don't have hormones if the asker can handle the likely increase in cramps. All of this with me saying vasectomy seems like the right answer for the question asker and her husband. If they came to that decision and it fits with their relationship with God, I see no reason the bishop should get involved.

Genuine Article wrote:I just want to say that when D.A.R.E. was a kid his dad got a vasectomy, and when he got home after his procedure he walked in the door and D.A.R.E. punched him in the wiener as a joke (because boys think that's funny?), not realizing he'd just had a vasectomy.

Ya, so I wanted to see why my brother was posting responses about vasectomies, and this made me literally laugh out loud.