Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

I don't know if we can reach any sort of consensus, or if I have anything to add, but I want to apologize for being kind a **** during the last couple posts. I was kind of stressed out in real life.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:I don't know if we can reach any sort of consensus, or if I have anything to add, but I want to apologize for being kind a **** during the last couple posts. I was kind of stressed out in real life.

I hope whatever has been stressing you out in real life gets better.

Marduk wrote:Hey guys look! Portia said something inflammatory and then ran away!

Also, Imogen, I agree that most folks don't really know what poor is. However, unless someone is homeless, poverty in this country is usually never to an unmanageable level; it really is about budgeting well and living within your means. I've seen households that have only one parent working, and that parent is making minimum wage, who still manage to pay all their bills.

I think we can agree on a caveat here: one should never have children unless one is prepared to care for the child, emotionally, physically, mentally, materially, and spiritually.

My original post was a lot more inflammatory. That was the edited version.

Since I wrote this, my very, very best friend in the world (ueber-Mormon) became pregnant; she is not currently working, her husband doesn't have a "real" job or degree, but she is good at budgeting and a very smart woman, so I know she'll be just fine. Seeing real people I care about sacrifice what I think would be better for their long-term happiness has put it in perspective for me. It's neither my kid nor my life, so if I'm not footing the bill, I can only say "congratulations."

However, anyone who has any contact with the culture and hasn't heard a horror story about 19-year-old-divorced-lady-on-welfare is kidding themselves. Imogen brought up problems in her community (which is not Mormon, but African-American, afaiu.)

I guess I just see it as a false dichotomy. Most people have kids, and there are a lot of self-righteous talks about putting off kids for luxury boats or cars and other nonsense, which is both offensive AND stupid (the double whammy!). Mormon young men and women are sometimes gay, sometimes terrified of sex, sometimes have mental health issues which would be exacerbated by childrearing, sometimes are apparently well-off-enough but may be paying student loans or live in an expensive housing market. Secular, black, white, whatever all might have these issues, but certain groups (religious conservatives, most Hispanics I've known) really push the whole "get preggo" thing.

I love children, would happily raise half a dozen, and have no intention of waiting till my 40s to do so. I still can sympathize with others when there are dumb talks or speeches to this effect. I can't recall the exact talk, but it was probably Elder Holland or Elder Oaks, and it chastised young men over, say, 25 for just jet-setting off to Barbados. I can SOMEWHAT sympathize, considering I was a pauper baby, people, I literally ate cup of noodles for years and a trip to Casper, Wyo. was a "vacation" and I turned out fine; on the other hand, I don't think browbeating is a good way of increasing the world's population.

Anecdotally, the couples who are both bad at budgeting and do not have steady jobs seem to me to be much more susceptible to depression, parenting problems, and general issues. I know it's a fundamental tenet of Mormonism to have children, I'm not stupid; I just think it's confusing and possibly frustrating to young couples to get contradictory messages. "The Church stays out of family planning matters!" "No, wait, you weren't worried about your wife's previous history of post-partum, you were selfish and had an only child who you sent to private school oh noooooo!"

I do not feel inclined to search through the Des News or SL Trib archives for the exact article which got me thinking along these lines; I am probably conflating marriage/childbearing talks or speeches. I think that loving encouragement from hopeful future grandmothers is more effective than cultural and social shaming, to be quite frank. And no, this is not a "oh, I am feeling ostracized" issue, because my child will both probably come soon after the honeymoon and be well-provided for. My point here is I am not currently religious, yet I still love babies. I just no longer think God gives me some kind of mandate: I just want to be happy and see my child run after a butterfly and learn to read, etc. I felt a lot more pressure inside the church--that it was a big conflict between career and family life: I've settled into a happier family life and "future mother" role without it seeming like being a corporal of a large platoon. Waiting til the ripe ol' age of 24 to have a kid will not only have been the smart thing for me emotionally, but financially. I was dirt poor at 21, and sure, I might have liked to have a baby, but I think the baby will be happy that I can give her a decent education and housing that is not a filthy shack. It's all quite personal, so I apologize that I seemed inflammatory. I don't think the free flow of ideas, given a baseline of respect, should be censured or censored: if you want me to whip out the CHI with reams of quotes on birth control, I'd be happy to.

It's not the '80s, Mormon parents, wait to have a baby if you desire, you will not be shamed, necessarily. That's all I meant. :\

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:I don't know if we can reach any sort of consensus, or if I have anything to add, but I want to apologize for being kind a **** during the last couple posts. I was kind of stressed out in real life.

Ditto. The past 2.5 years have sort of brought out some kind of pompous atheistic asshole side of me, struggling with what I believe and should do and think. I think it's easy to project that onto other people; behaviors that annoyed me as an active Mormon get inflated and blown up til I'm convinced everyone must be deluded or idiotic or worse.

I'm opinionated and I like to throw ideas out there (I was on the debate team, after all), but . . . debate people are kind of jackasses, let's be honest. I dated one. [Eyeroll.] I no longer really care about proselyting for secularism: I've sort of been the "Elder Price" of missionaries for my viewpoints for a lot of my life. (All.) Go get knocked up, oh Zoobies. I think the Church (institutional) has a lot of wacky ideas, but having a happy family life (whether that's you alone or you and your giant Mormon brood who is probably annoying me in the grocery store, but I will still hold the door open for you and your demon, screaming toddler) really is the highest value, just from a purely philosophical standpoint. Perhaps even more so for those like me who more lean towards the idea that this is it, there isn't anymore: no second chances, y'know?

If you are currently surviving on coins you found in the couch and relying on grandma's house to feed your child a good dinner, I hope you can at least laugh at yourself.

Portia, I welcome your ideas and viewpoints, and if they come off as inflammatory every once in a while, (or let's be honest, most of the time ) That's just fine. But I expect you to stay here and remain involved in the conversation. It really is quite frustrating when you say something, and I have an answer I'd like to give you, but then you've disappeared back into the northwestern fog.

Anyway, always glad to hear from someone who has different viewpoints from the norm here.

Portia wrote:

Marduk wrote:Hey guys look! Portia said something inflammatory and then ran away!

Also, Imogen, I agree that most folks don't really know what poor is. However, unless someone is homeless, poverty in this country is usually never to an unmanageable level; it really is about budgeting well and living within your means. I've seen households that have only one parent working, and that parent is making minimum wage, who still manage to pay all their bills.

I think we can agree on a caveat here: one should never have children unless one is prepared to care for the child, emotionally, physically, mentally, materially, and spiritually.

My original post was a lot more inflammatory. That was the edited version.

That doesn't make your edited post productive, just not as inflammatory as it was before.

I guess I just see it as a false dichotomy. Most people have kids, and there are a lot of self-righteous talks about putting off kids for luxury boats or cars and other nonsense, which is both offensive AND stupid (the double whammy!). Mormon young men and women are sometimes gay, sometimes terrified of sex, sometimes have mental health issues which would be exacerbated by childrearing, sometimes are apparently well-off-enough but may be paying student loans or live in an expensive housing market. Secular, black, white, whatever all might have these issues, but certain groups (religious conservatives, most Hispanics I've known) really push the whole "get preggo" thing.

I might be missing something, but I think you're setting up the false dichotomy. A talk must either set no standard at all or it is offensive and stupid. I also don't find what is self-righteous about saying, "Don't put off kids for a luxury boat," which I don't think really falls in the "nonsense" category in the least. To be sure, if you don't believe the plan of salvation or in the divine nature of families, kids vs. boats holds no importance. But in a context of gospel discussions, I think that's a GREAT example to give because it focuses on the underlying motivation. No one needs a luxury boat. (Most people don't even need a boat!) The Lord wants people to have children. Thus, if you are deciding to put off children so that you can buy a luxury boat, you need to reconsider.

What I think you're doing, is taking a talk that says, "Don't put off having children," and hearing, "No matter what, there's no good reason to put off having children." But I just don't see that. You seem to be looking for people to be "stupid and offensive" instead of reading a talk the most rational and forgiving way possible.

Elder Oaks did a good job of addressing your false dichotomy issue too:

Perhaps you are a young man feeling pressured by what I have said about the need to start a pattern of dating that can lead to marriage, or a young woman troubled by what we have said about needing to get on with your life.

If you feel you are a special case, so that the strong counsel I have given doesn’t apply to you, please don’t write me a letter. Why would I make this request? I have learned that the kind of direct counsel I have given results in a large number of letters from members who feel they are an exception, and they want me to confirm that the things I have said just don’t apply to them in their special circumstance.

I will explain why I can’t offer much comfort in response to that kind of letter by telling you an experience I had with another person who was troubled by a general rule. I gave a talk in which I mentioned the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13). Afterward a man came up to me in tears saying that what I had said showed there was no hope for him. “What do you mean?” I asked him.

He explained that he had been a machine gunner during the Korean War. During a frontal assault his machine gun mowed down scores of enemy infantry. Their bodies were piled so high in front of his gun that he and his men had to push them away in order to maintain their field of fire. He had killed a hundred, he said, and now he must be going to hell because I had spoken of the Lord’s commandment “Thou shalt not kill.”

The explanation I gave that man is the same explanation I give to you if you feel you are an exception to what I have said. As a General Authority, it is my responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.

I love children, would happily raise half a dozen, and have no intention of waiting till my 40s to do so. I still can sympathize with others when there are dumb talks or speeches to this effect. I can't recall the exact talk, but it was probably Elder Holland or Elder Oaks, and it chastised young men over, say, 25 for just jet-setting off to Barbados. I can SOMEWHAT sympathize, considering I was a pauper baby, people, I literally ate cup of noodles for years and a trip to Casper, Wyo. was a "vacation" and I turned out fine; on the other hand, I don't think browbeating is a good way of increasing the world's population.

Again, what you want is someone to say, "No matter what you choose, it's okay." That's just not what the Church does. It sets standards; when people think there's a reason to deviate from the standard, they should take it to the Lord. You remind me of a missionary I taught in the MTC. I had a sit-down talk with all of the missionaries because they had become lax in some of their standards. So I spoke with all of them about needing to improve. One of them came to me, angry I told him he needed to improve because he thought he was doing the best he ever had in his life. 1) He wasn't one of the missionaries I was concerned with. 2) Even if he was, he should have taken the counsel I had and weighed it for himself. If he thought that there was nothing else he could do, he should brush it off and move on. I think you'd do well to do some brushing off.

Anecdotally, the couples who are both bad at budgeting and do not have steady jobs seem to me to be much more susceptible to depression, parenting problems, and general issues. I know it's a fundamental tenet of Mormonism to have children, I'm not stupid; I just think it's confusing and possibly frustrating to young couples to get contradictory messages. "The Church stays out of family planning matters!" "No, wait, you weren't worried about your wife's previous history of post-partum, you were selfish and had an only child who you sent to private school oh noooooo!"

Your caricature does nothing for the credibility of your post. I know no sane leader of the Church who would say that post-partum depression isn't a serious issue that should be considered in family planning. You're also misconceptualizing the Church's role - it teaches principles and lets people govern themselves. In essence, it stays out of case-by-case family planning, but will always teach principles about family planning.

I do not feel inclined to search through the Des News or SL Trib archives for the exact article which got me thinking along these lines; I am probably conflating marriage/childbearing talks or speeches. I think that loving encouragement from hopeful future grandmothers is more effective than cultural and social shaming, to be quite frank.

Right, which is why the Church discourages publicly shaming people. I whole-heartedly agree that, as a society, the Church, America, the world, can do a better job of being more accepting of other people's decisions that don't affect them. But I think you're mistaking the Mountain West for some aberration from the world.

My point here is I am not currently religious, yet I still love babies. I just no longer think God gives me some kind of mandate: I just want to be happy and see my child run after a butterfly and learn to read, etc. I felt a lot more pressure inside the church--that it was a big conflict between career and family life: I've settled into a happier family life and "future mother" role without it seeming like being a corporal of a large platoon.

If you're not really religious, I don't know why you're so emotionally invested in this issue. What prophets do or don't say matter because we believe them to be prophets. If you don't think God has a mandate, fine, live that way. But don't lash out at other people who do believe God has given them a mandate and then act according to it. In doing so, you go against everything you're screaming.

And yet again, your caricatures do nothing for your argument.

Waiting til the ripe ol' age of 24 to have a kid will not only have been the smart thing for me emotionally, but financially. I was dirt poor at 21, and sure, I might have liked to have a baby, but I think the baby will be happy that I can give her a decent education and housing that is not a filthy shack. It's all quite personal, so I apologize that I seemed inflammatory. I don't think the free flow of ideas, given a baseline of respect, should be censured or censored: if you want me to whip out the CHI with reams of quotes on birth control, I'd be happy to.

It's not the '80s, Mormon parents, wait to have a baby if you desire, you will not be shamed, necessarily. That's all I meant. :\

And you're not seeming inflammatory - you're BEING inflammatory. You use emotionally charged rhetoric and labels that make your opposition look like straw men. You're not adhering the baseline of respect that you say should be adhered to. Your entire post seems like you have a chip on your shoulder and that you need to prove that waiting was right. You want to be an apologist for leaving the Church, but you do it in a way that cuts against anyone who doesn't think the way you do. I've had mentors and friends who have left the Church; some are bitter. But the ones I am most likely to give an ear to are the ones who can dispassionately critique it without being inflammatory.

Why do you care if other people think waiting was right? People think I'm insane for not having sex until I was married; they can think that.

To be honest, from the things I've read of your's, you seem to have this insane contradiction that you want to be unique and different (at least that's how you present yourself), but you want everyone to not only accept it, but convert to it.

Portia wrote:if you want me to whip out the CHI with reams of quotes on birth control, I'd be happy to.

I have all those same quotes, too. In fact, I have some very strong (and very confusing, turns out, but that's another topic) opinions on birth control based on those quotes. But I would like to point out that practically every single one of them includes the caveat, "unless the health of the mother is compromised." Which includes physical and mental health. So when you say ...

Portia wrote:I just think it's confusing and possibly frustrating to young couples to get contradictory messages. "The Church stays out of family planning matters!" "No, wait, you weren't worried about your wife's previous history of post-partum, you were selfish and had an only child who you sent to private school oh noooooo!"

… I have a hard time believing you read those quotes, because they all say that if your wife has a previous history of post-partum depression, that's a very serious thing to take into consideration and is an acceptable reason to use birth control if you, your wife, and the Lord, agree that it is so.

Dragon Lady wrote:

Portia wrote:if you want me to whip out the CHI with reams of quotes on birth control, I'd be happy to.

I have all those same quotes, too. In fact, I have some very strong (and very confusing, turns out, but that's another topic) opinions on birth control based on those quotes. But I would like to point out that practically every single one of them includes the caveat, "unless the health of the mother is compromised." Which includes physical and mental health. So when you say ...

Portia wrote:I just think it's confusing and possibly frustrating to young couples to get contradictory messages. "The Church stays out of family planning matters!" "No, wait, you weren't worried about your wife's previous history of post-partum, you were selfish and had an only child who you sent to private school oh noooooo!"

… I have a hard time believing you read those quotes, because they all say that if your wife has a previous history of post-partum depression, that's a very serious thing to take into consideration and is an acceptable reason to use birth control if you, your wife, and the Lord, agree that it is so.

OK, but this is a very hard thing to put into practice. It's like administering a sanity test based on going into a room and asking everyone who's not crazy to raise their hands. (Hint: It won't work because the crazy people don't think they're crazy.)

Likewise, it's really hard for someone with any sort of depression to go easier on themselves because it doesn't feel like "I'm appropriately taking my health into consideration" it feels like "I always suspected I wasn't good enough and now I have concrete proof." (I'm not sure what my larger point is, just that a bullet point in a leadership manual is no match for the several tons of cultural pressure that lead you to believe that if you're not miserable, you're not sacrificing enough.)

Portia et al, it is my understanding that in the most recent additions, all that it says concerning contraceptive is that it is up to the individual family to decide. The LDS church has never taken as strong a stance as say, the Catholic church, and what little stance they did take has since been changed.

So, contraception for anyone who so desires it.

It should also be noted that when the Church did take an active stance against birth control, birth control was being touted as the method to rid the world of undesirables. In the backdrop of eugenics programs in the early 1900s, one might understand why the Church took as aggressive a stance as they did.

Katya, that's a valid point and one I've considered. I struggled with mild depression after Dragon Baby was born. Right around the time it hit me that my very firm convictions against birth control for myself had never taken into consideration timing between kids. And I really struggled because I knew my sanity couldn't handle getting pregnant again, but I had been very firmly against birth control for years. And it took a very long struggle before I realized that my circumstances fell under "unless the health of the mother don't permit it". I realized that mental health was just as important as physical health. And I knew my mental health wasn't up to par at the time. Which led to a lot of prayer and finally an acceptance that I was, in fact, struggling with mild depression and that I had to take care of my current family (myself included) before I could get pregnant again and that I wasn't a sinner for it. It was very hard, but in the end, I think that being honest with yourself and God ends up bringing a lot more peace.

I haven't struggled with severe depression, and I know that it is a LOT harder than what I went through (having lived with several severely depressed roommates and my sister struggles with severe depression) and your point probably applies a lot more to those circumstances than to me. And I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make here, really. But I guess I'm saying that just because it's hard doesn't mean it's impossible. And that's another good reason why there is a husband in a relationship. Yellow was key in helping me see that I wasn't sinning by postponing getting pregnant again and that I needed to take care of myself and that God loved me for doing it, even though it was hard for me. If it weren't for him, I probably never would have thought about it nor really applied it to myself nor accepted myself in this new paradigm. So if you have a hard time accepting yourself in this situation, turn to your husband.

Now I'm rambling. So I'll stop.

Marduk wrote:Portia et al, it is my understanding that in the most recent additions, all that it says concerning contraceptive is that it is up to the individual family to decide. The LDS church has never taken as strong a stance as say, the Catholic church, and what little stance they did take has since been changed.

So, contraception for anyone who so desires it.

+1. Actually, I can't find any Church Handbook quotes condemning birth control. I can find individual quotes from church leaders. They're mainly in the 1940s... remember my eugenics comments. But there also some strongly worded ones from the 60s about the desire often stemming from selfish desires.

I'm actually interested to know what CHI you're looking at. The first I can find that comments on it is the 1988 version which says that, "Married couples should seek inspiration from the Lord in meeting their marital challenges and rearing their children according to the teachings of the gospel." I wouldn't be surprised if one of the 1970s ones condemned it... anything earlier wouldn't mesh with the overall cogency of the handbooks and much later starts to run into the 1988 edition I just quoted.

I have a quote from a BYU devotional that says it, Wired. Yes, that's a quote from an individual leader, but at least that'll give you a year to have some sort of time frame. I'll listen through them tonight at work and get back to you.

Good point. My quotes aren't from the CHI, either. And they're from individual leaders. But I've got them all together and can find years. As soon as Dragon Baby comes inside so I don't have to stand guard on the door to make sure she doesn't go downstairs by herself.

wired wrote:

Marduk wrote:Portia et al, it is my understanding that in the most recent additions, all that it says concerning contraceptive is that it is up to the individual family to decide. The LDS church has never taken as strong a stance as say, the Catholic church, and what little stance they did take has since been changed.

So, contraception for anyone who so desires it.

+1. Actually, I can't find any Church Handbook quotes condemning birth control. I can find individual quotes from church leaders. They're mainly in the 1940s... remember my eugenics comments. But there also some strongly worded ones from the 60s about the desire often stemming from selfish desires.

Was the eugenics movement still that strong in the 60s? Did church leaders ever use it to explain why birth control was bad, or is that your reasoning, given the time frame?

Dragon Lady wrote:And I really struggled because I knew my sanity couldn't handle getting pregnant again, but I had been very firmly against birth control for years.

Were you against birth control just for your own situation, or were you / are you opposed to it more globally?

Katya wrote:

wired wrote:

Marduk wrote:Portia et al, it is my understanding that in the most recent additions, all that it says concerning contraceptive is that it is up to the individual family to decide. The LDS church has never taken as strong a stance as say, the Catholic church, and what little stance they did take has since been changed.

So, contraception for anyone who so desires it.

+1. Actually, I can't find any Church Handbook quotes condemning birth control. I can find individual quotes from church leaders. They're mainly in the 1940s... remember my eugenics comments. But there also some strongly worded ones from the 60s about the desire often stemming from selfish desires.

Was the eugenics movement still that strong in the 60s? Did church leaders ever use it to explain why birth control was bad, or is that your reasoning, given the time frame?

No, by the 60s eugenics was well out of favor. (The Progressives died down during the New Deal.) That's why I put the "But" at the beginning of the next sentence - I'm trying to indicate there's other motives going on. My eugenics comments are motivated by something I've read previously, but I'm not recalling where exactly. I'll see if I can't source it over the next few weeks; remind me by PM if I haven't.

As for why it continued into the 60s, I would guess there's two reasons. 1) The church tends to move very incrementally in terms of policy changes. They move very cautiously on these things. 2) The 60s was the height of the so-called sexual revolution and birth control was seen as a primary reason for that. I could see many church leaders seeing promiscuity as its sole mean. I'm also guessing many church leaders at that point (not in our church only) still looked at sex as only an implement of reproduction, not as a means of unifying a husband and wife. That would underscore the promiscuity notion, albeit a very different (and to us, foreign) type of promiscuity - promiscuity in marriage.

That's all my gut from what I know about cultural history. I'll see if I can't find something to actually back it up.

Katya wrote:

Dragon Lady wrote:And I really struggled because I knew my sanity couldn't handle getting pregnant again, but I had been very firmly against birth control for years.

Were you against birth control just for your own situation, or were you / are you opposed to it more globally?

Just for me. I knew full well it's a very personal decision. Then again I still am against the pill, but that's just because I've seen to many cases of it having long-term highly-detrimental effects. But that's not a birth control issue, that's a Dragon-Lady-rants-about-(some)-stupid-modern-medicine issue.

Dragon Lady wrote:

Katya wrote:

Dragon Lady wrote:And I really struggled because I knew my sanity couldn't handle getting pregnant again, but I had been very firmly against birth control for years.

Were you against birth control just for your own situation, or were you / are you opposed to it more globally?

Just for me. I knew full well it's a very personal decision. Then again I still am against the pill, but that's just because I've seen to many cases of it having long-term highly-detrimental effects. But that's not a birth control issue, that's a Dragon-Lady-rants-about-(some)-stupid-modern-medicine issue.

I'm glad you were able to have some peace of mind regarding the timing and spacing of your kids. (Having grown up with almost 10 years between me and my brother, I have some weird ideas about child spacing. Like, anything less than 5 years might as well be twins. )

Following Malthus, American eugenicists in the nineteenth century worried that, left to their own devices, the "less fit"-immigrants, poor people, black people-would outbreed and overwhelm native-born,white Americans. The current population control movement has grown out of the eugenics movement for race betterment. It receives its main ideological impetus and financial support from affluent countries that provide population planning and to the Third World.

--Robin Mary Gillespie and Ruth Hubbard, Contraception in Context, 9 Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 3 (1986).

There's some support on the connection between eugenics and birth control. There's a pretty interesting (although quite outdated) article on Mormon motivation for birth control policies. It is from the 70s, on the heels of when Church leaders most actively condemned birth control. Their main theory is that it stems from the generation that grew up as the children of polygamists and colonists, both of which emphasized the role of child bearing. They don't mention eugenics at all. So, I'm left to scour primary sources myself (which shouldn't be too difficult with a unique word like "eugenics") or come up with an alternative theory of why I thought eugenics played a role. At this point I am guessing that I read about the eugenics/birth control correlation and assumed that the Church would be even more skeptical of it because of that. Alternatively, I may have read about Christians generally being skeptical of birth control because of eugenics and assumed the church was influenced by the broader cultural impact.

Donald W. Hastings et al, Mormonism and Birth Planning: The Discrepancy between Church Authorities Teachings and Lay Attitudes, 26 Population Studies 19 (1972). Interestingly enough, even in the 40s, 50s, a poll of BYU students found that only 55% of the student body surveyed disfavored the use of birth control. 45% favored it. I'm sure those numbers are up for attack, but it's interesting to see such a wide discrepancy. (It's also interesting to note that most comments disfavoring birth control came from authorities with large families and that even in the 20s, the Church made clear exceptions about the health of the mother.)