Is contraception immoral...

[CatholicLady]

...in the Mormon religion?

[Windseeker]

No

[CatholicLady]

Thanks!

[Windseeker]

NP.

 

Basically Mormons believe in sex, that it's sacred, and that it's not just for bringing children into this world but to also bring a husband and wife together. 

[Crypto]

You may find some members who disagree.

There is no prohibition against it, unless you are talking about abortion.

[Bini]

Even aborting a child is not sin depending on context.

[Bini]

Or fetus, I suppose, and some consider the two (fetus/baby) not the same.

[Jane_Doe]

Family planning is not against the Mormon religion.  However, we are encouraged to have children within marriage, and parenthood is held in very high esteem.  A famous quote is "No accomplishments can make up for failure in the home" (or something like that....).   Statistically, Mormon families average 0.5 more kids than local population.  And there are a lot of 5+ kid families in UT and ID (kind of a culture thing).

 

Sex outside of marriage is, of course, forbidden.  And marriage is defined as 1 man + 1 woman.

 

As to abortion, that is NOT a birth control option (such a 'duh' statement).  If a child is so horribly ill-timed and can't be supported (like teen pregnancy), then there are many families begging to adopt children.  However, there are TWO scenarios when an abortion can be considered (after MUCH prayer).  The scenarios are:

1)  When the life of the baby/mother is in major jeopardy.

2)  Cases of rape/incest.  

[pam]

Even aborting a child is not sin depending on context.

 

I think we need to be careful with this statement as it is not entirely true. It does depend on circumstances and should be done with much prayer and counsel from our leaders in those circumstances.  According to lds.org:

 

Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

 

Additional Information

 

In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, “Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.

 

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

 

When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services (see “Adoption”).

[Claire]

I've had a few debates with the boyfriend on this one, and to my understanding the Catholic and Mormon understandings of "contraception" don't always quite align.

 

Both camps would agree that the rejection of children as a possibility constitutes contraception and is a sin. Both camps will also agree that there may be scenarios where a couple may prudently choose to postpone having additional children (though the possibility may never be taken entirely off the table).

 

The differences seem to arise in the means that are acceptable for postponing having additional children. Catholic teachings reject all form of artificial birth control (i.e. the pill, condoms, IUDs, the shot, ect). The basic idea is that no positive action should be taken on the parts of the married couple to prevent an act that would otherwise have been fruitful from being so. They can, however, time their intercourse so that it occurs during times when the woman is not typically fertile (there are various methods out there to do this, some work rather well, some don't).

 

At least according to the boyfriend (feel free to make corrections if this is inaccurate), the LDS position is a bit more vague on how child spacing may occur. In other words, at least nowadays, Mormons don't directly address whether artificial means are acceptable or not, with the couple being free to make that judgement for themselves.

 

In other words, when Catholics say that contraception is illicit, it means that no artificial means (as listed above) may be employed. If I understand correctly, when LDS reject contraception, they only mean that the possibility of having children in a marriage can never be definitively rejected.

 

Does that sound right the the LDS in the forums, or did I make a hash of it?

[estradling75]

You more or less have it Claire.

 

To summarize for LDS Contraception is more about the "Why" then the "How."

 

Why are you choosing to postpone the command be fruitful and multiply?  That question can be answered in a way that is within the bounds of the Gospel, when an individual/couples circumstances are taken into account.

[Guest]

Okay, this is where the Catholic and LDS diverge on this issue:

 

The LDS faith do not believe in creation ex nihilo.  Rather, we believe that Intelligence/Consciousness is eternal... Man's Spirit, therefore, existed prior to mortal conception.  We call this a Pre-Mortal Existence.

 

In the Catholic faith, they believe that every person on earth is Spirit joined with a Mortal Body.  In Catholic faith, the Spirit AND the Body are created together at the point of conception, therefore, human life begins at conception.  The human Spirit, therefore, did not have a choice in his creation.  Rather, his creation is completely God's will.  Therefore, the termination of a fetus at any point after conception is considered a death of a human soul that God willed to exist.  Artificial means of Birth Control contains the risk of terminating a human soul.  Therefore, the only acceptable contraception method for Catholics is abstinence... where there is 99.99% chance that conception will not occur... (I say 99.99% because my smart aleck 13-year-old kid told me I am wrong when we had a discussion about abstinence when I said it is 100%... he said, if it was 100% then we won't have Jesus.).

 

The LDS faith also believe that every person on earth is Spirit joined with a Mortal Body.  But, because that Spirit existed in pre-mortality, only the Mortal Body is created at conception.  The Spirit joins the Body somewhere between conception and birth.  So that, termination of a fetus does not necessarily mean the death of a human soul.  Further, Free Will is central to the Plan of Salvation.  As eternal spirits, each of us were given a choice in pre-mortality to follow Christ in the Plan knowing the conditions of our mortal test.  Therefore, our spirits chose to enter our mortal bodies fully accepting the conditions of mortality.  If a termination of a pregnancy - either by artificial birth control, miscarriage, or abortion - happened to be the death of a human soul, that soul has accepted those conditions of his mortal probation to have joined his mortal body and he has already exercised faith in Christ by choosing to follow the Plan of Salvation and qualifies for Christ's Atonement for Salvation.

 

Hope this helps.

[Bini]

It's all in context.

[Claire]

In the Catholic faith, they believe that every person on earth is Spirit joined with a Mortal Body.  In Catholic faith, the Spirit AND the Body are created together at the point of conception, therefore, human life begins at conception.  The human Spirit, therefore, did not have a choice in his creation.  Rather, his creation is completely God's will.  Therefore, the termination of a fetus at any point after conception is considered a death of a human soul that God willed to exist.  Artificial means of Birth Control contains the risk of terminating a human soul.  Therefore, the only acceptable contraception method for Catholics is abstinence... where there is 99.99% chance that conception will not occur... (I say 99.99% because my smart aleck 13-year-old kid told me I am wrong when we had a discussion about abstinence when I said it is 100%... he said, if it was 100% then we won't have Jesus.).

 

I would like to make a bit of a clarification here. Catholicism does not oppose birth control only because it can result in the termination of a fetus, but also because it can prevent its creation in the first place. As Anatess said, a child is conceived in any given act of intercourse only by God's will, so any intentional action taken to prevent conception is an attempt to frustrate God's will, which is bad.

 

Also, while not wrong, I would also like to clarify the abstinence bit a little. A married couple who are postponing pregnancy to not have to be celibate all the time. Rather, they may employ natural family planning methods to time intercourse so that it only occurs when the woman would be infertile anyway. Again, the idea is that if God wants a kid to come out of that particular act, you are doing nothing to prevent it. Outside of marriage, of course, its all astinence all the time :)

[Guest]

I would like to make a bit of a clarification here. Catholicism does not oppose birth control only because it can result in the termination of a fetus, but also because it can prevent its creation in the first place. As Anatess said, a child is conceived in any given act of intercourse only by God's will, so any intentional action taken to prevent conception is an attempt to frustrate God's will, which is bad.

 

Also, while not wrong, I would also like to clarify the abstinence bit a little. A married couple who are postponing pregnancy to not have to be celibate all the time. Rather, they may employ natural family planning methods to time intercourse so that it only occurs when the woman would be infertile anyway. Again, the idea is that if God wants a kid to come out of that particular act, you are doing nothing to prevent it. Outside of marriage, of course, its all astinence all the time :)

 

Sorry, I failed to communicate that properly.  I mentioned the LDS side - human spirit joining the body is man's will.  The Catholic side - conception is completely God's will (the human will is non-existent at this point). 

 

Therefore, in LDS, employing contraception by artificial means is not necessarily thwarting God's will as long as he is obedient to the commandment to be fruitful and multiply because if God wills a human spirit to come into mortality out of that union, it wouldn't matter if the couple is employing artificial contraception - a human soul will come out of that union.  It wouldn't be different from employing contraception by natural means.

 

This might be a good time to mention abortion.  In Catholic faith, abortion is a sin in any circumstance because abortion is death of a human soul.  In LDS faith, abortion is not necessarily the death of a human soul.  In the case of Rape, for example - Free Will is central to the Plan of Salvation - rape, therefore, removes the Will of the woman to join God in the process of creation and be subject to all the commandments/covenants made by parents.  Abortion, in this case, may not be a sin if the decision to abort the pregnancy is made with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  An abortion is not necessarily a death of a human soul - it depends on the Will of the human spirit whether he joins the body or not.  If he did choose to join the body prior to abortion, then it was his will to do so.  Therefore, none of these things impeded Free Will outside of the initial impediment of the act of rape (to which the rapist will have to answer for).

Edited January 15, 2015 by anatess

[omegaseamaster75]

Okay, this is where the Catholic and LDS diverge on this issue:

 

The LDS faith do not believe in creation ex nihilo.  Rather, we believe that Intelligence/Consciousness is eternal... Man's Spirit, therefore, existed prior to mortal conception.  We call this a Pre-Mortal Existence.

 

In the Catholic faith, they believe that every person on earth is Spirit joined with a Mortal Body.  In Catholic faith, the Spirit AND the Body are created together at the point of conception, therefore, human life begins at conception.  The human Spirit, therefore, did not have a choice in his creation.  Rather, his creation is completely God's will.  Therefore, the termination of a fetus at any point after conception is considered a death of a human soul that God willed to exist.  Artificial means of Birth Control contains the risk of terminating a human soul.  Therefore, the only acceptable contraception method for Catholics is abstinence... where there is 99.99% chance that conception will not occur... (I say 99.99% because my smart aleck 13-year-old kid told me I am wrong when we had a discussion about abstinence when I said it is 100%... he said, if it was 100% then we won't have Jesus.).

 

The LDS faith also believe that every person on earth is Spirit joined with a Mortal Body.  But, because that Spirit existed in pre-mortality, only the Mortal Body is created at conception.  The Spirit joins the Body somewhere between conception and birth.  So that, termination of a fetus does not necessarily mean the death of a human soul.  Further, Free Will is central to the Plan of Salvation.  As eternal spirits, each of us were given a choice in pre-mortality to follow Christ in the Plan knowing the conditions of our mortal test.  Therefore, our spirits chose to enter our mortal bodies fully accepting the conditions of mortality.  If a termination of a pregnancy - either by artificial birth control, miscarriage, or abortion - happened to be the death of a human soul, that soul has accepted those conditions of his mortal probation to have joined his mortal body and he has already exercised faith in Christ by choosing to follow the Plan of Salvation and qualifies for Christ's Atonement for Salvation.

 

Hope this helps.

This is a well thought out and great answer to the OPs question. Anatess, as an ex Catholic and a good one at that is able to provide much need insight into the mindset and doctrine of the Catholic faith

[Just_A_Guy]

At least according to the boyfriend (feel free to make corrections if this is inaccurate), the LDS position is a bit more vague on how child spacing may occur. In other words, at least nowadays, Mormons don't directly address whether artificial means are acceptable or not, with the couple being free to make that judgement for themselves.

 

Right; with the caveat that the process of the couple "mak[ing] that judgment for themselves" is supposed to be done prayerfully, and with God's input.  The overarching principle is that we should have as many children as we feel we can handle.  Within those parameters, though, contraception is like a prescription narcotic--it's not (in Mormon thought) a per se sin to use it; but depending on what you do with it--your pattern of use could constitute a sin.

 

This might be a good time to mention abortion.  In Catholic faith, abortion is a sin in any circumstance because abortion is death of a human soul.  In LDS faith, abortion is not necessarily the death of a human soul.  In the case of Rape, for example - Free Will is central to the Plan of Salvation - rape, therefore, removes the Will of the woman to join God in the process of creation and be subject to all the commandments/covenants made by parents. 

 

I may be misreading you; but this seems to suggest that a fetus conceived by rape is less of a "human soul" than any other fetus at the same gestational age.  I'm not familiar with any Mormon teaching that would substantiate this perception.  My own personal interpretation of the justification for the rape/incest/life-of-mother loopholes (which admittedly has, probably, no more official imprimatur than your view; but maybe this will at least illustrate the diversity of Mormon thought on the topic) is that it boils down to a self-defense analysis.  No one would blame a Mormon woman who shot and killed a man who attempted to rape her, even though the rapist was very much a human and even though the primary harm the woman was facing could well have been psychological, not physical.  Similarly, I would submit that the Church permits abortion on a self-defense analysis when there is a severe threat to the mother's life or physical health (physical pregnancy complications) or emotional/psychological health (carrying to term and giving birth to a child conceived involuntarily).

 

It's also worth noting that per Church policy, these "loopholes" are not automatic outs--there's supposed to be counseling with the ecclesiastical leader, and it's very possible that a leader might advise a pregnant woman to carry the child to term even though it was conceived involuntarily.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Bini]

My opinion, I strongly believe a health care professional should be the one to evaluate and determine whether a woman is physically, mentally and emotionally able to carry to term a rape pregnancy. I think a religious leader has place to encourage spiritual strength but is not qualified to fill the shoes of a physician.

[Vort]

There are no loopholes in spiritual progress or decisions. There are no shortcuts to exaltation.

[Guest]

I may be misreading you; but this seems to suggest that a fetus conceived by rape is less of a "human soul" than any other fetus at the same gestational age.

 

Yes, you're misreading me.  I'm simply stating that a fetus conceived by rape and chosen to be aborted may or may not have the Spirit joined with the Body at the time of abortion, therefore, may or may not constitute death of a human spirit.  If indeed, the fetus that was aborted was a human soul (Spirit joined with the Body), such a spirit chose to follow Christ and enter mortality knowing that he may be acted upon by other people's choices in God's Plan for his Salvation.  Therefore, the child still fully qualifies for Christ's Atonement.

 

This basically helps explain why the mother's choice is not a sin against the baby.  Because, in Catholic belief (same as in LDS really), terminating a human soul can only be free from sin of murder if 1.) it fulfills the commandment to love God above all (i.e., killing under God's command), 2.) Fulfills the commandment to love others as one's self (in this case, love for the baby as well as one's self.

 

In Catholic faith - saying terminating a human soul by abortion is not murder by an act of self-defense in the case of rape does not fly because the baby is innocent of wrong-doing, therefore, it upsets the balance of loving the baby as much as one's self.

Edited January 15, 2015 by anatess

[Claire]

Between anatess and Just_A_Guy's posts, I'm getting a bit confused on the LDS position on the reasoning behind the LDS position on abortion.

 

If I understood anatess correctly, it sounded like she was saying that abortion is permissible in cases of rape and incest because the fetus may not have a soul (assuming the premortal soul who would have inhabited it opted out), and if it does then the soul that entered it did so knowing the that abortion was a risk.

 

Just_A_Guy's post meanwhile seemed to indicate that the fetus definitely has a human soul, and that the justification for abortion was akin to self-defense, in that the mother may do so if her life or emotional well-being are on the line.

 

A google search on the question got me to LDS.org which said,

 

"Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer."

 

No further detail into the reasoning behind allowing abortion seems to be present, so I'm left wondering if that is an open question, or if it's addressed in greater detail elsewhere.

 

As for the physician, while he/she is certainly competent to advise the medical aspects and to perform procedures, I would argue that they don't possess any special moral authority. It makes more sense for a woman to risk her life and well being if it is in accordance with God's will than than it does to avoid that risk by opposiing God.

 

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." - John 15:13

 

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." - Matt 16:25

[The Folk Prophet]

No further detail into the reasoning behind allowing abortion seems to be present, so I'm left wondering if that is an open question, or if it's addressed in greater detail elsewhere.

 

^ This.

 

 

As for the physician, while he/she is certainly competent to advise the medical aspects and to perform procedures, I would argue that they don't possess any special moral authority. It makes more sense for a woman to risk her life and well being if it is in accordance with God's will than than it does to avoid that risk by opposiing God.

 

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." - John 15:13

 

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." - Matt 16:25

 

[Vort]

Between anatess and Just_A_Guy's posts, I'm getting a bit confused on the LDS position on the reasoning behind the LDS position on abortion.

 

If I understood anatess correctly, it sounded like she was saying that abortion is permissible in cases of rape and incest because the fetus may not have a soul (assuming the premortal soul who would have inhabited it opted out), and if it does then the soul that entered it did so knowing the that abortion was a risk.

 

My understanding is as follows:

 

The question of whether a fetus "has a soul" does not enter into the calculations. The Church has taught that elective abortion is "like unto" murder, and those who participate in such an abortion stand to lose their membership in the kingdom of God until they repent of such heinous actions. However, in cases of forcible rape (including incest) and danger to the life or health of the mother, the Church will not pursue disciplinary action.

 

This does not mean that rape or health endangerment is a "green light" to abort away, nor does it mean that children created through forcible rape don't have souls until later on. For that matter, it does not even mean that prenatal children do have souls, i.e. that their spirit has entered the body. (Though any reasonable review of prenatal development and activity will, IMO, answer that question resoundingly in the positive.)

 

It is not a matter of whether you're killing a person or a "clump of cells", as the feminists would have it. It is a matter of whether the Church will pursue disciplinary action for the killing of the unborn baby. Whether or not this is a soul-destroying activity that will damn the mother and others who participate in the act will be decided by God, whatever the surrounding circumstances. That's my take on it, anyway.

[The Folk Prophet]

Might I add to Vort's excellent post...

 

The reason it is to be considered through prayer and counsel with ecclesiastical leaders is because God's will (as Claire pointed out) is what matters. However, in some cases the right and wrong of it are difficult to establish (particularly in the case of a mother's health, for example). But God still knows the right and wrong of it. Therefore, through revelation to those who have the proper authority in such matters, and through personal revelation, we may be guided as to what is actually right when a clear course eludes us otherwise.

[Guest]

Between anatess and Just_A_Guy's posts, I'm getting a bit confused on the LDS position on the reasoning behind the LDS position on abortion.

 

If I understood anatess correctly, it sounded like she was saying that abortion is permissible in cases of rape and incest because the fetus may not have a soul (assuming the premortal soul who would have inhabited it opted out), and if it does then the soul that entered it did so knowing the that abortion was a risk.

 

Just_A_Guy's post meanwhile seemed to indicate that the fetus definitely has a human soul, and that the justification for abortion was akin to self-defense, in that the mother may do so if her life or emotional well-being are on the line.

 

A google search on the question got me to LDS.org which said,

 

"Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer."

 

No further detail into the reasoning behind allowing abortion seems to be present, so I'm left wondering if that is an open question, or if it's addressed in greater detail elsewhere.

 

As for the physician, while he/she is certainly competent to advise the medical aspects and to perform procedures, I would argue that they don't possess any special moral authority. It makes more sense for a woman to risk her life and well being if it is in accordance with God's will than than it does to avoid that risk by opposiing God.

 

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." - John 15:13

 

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." - Matt 16:25

 

Claire, I specifically mentioned in my first post on abortion that abortion in extenuating circumstances like rape can only be chosen through an appeal for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  In LDS Faith, like in Catholic faith, the Bishop holds the priesthood power of discernment and therefore, would have the authority to discern God's voice in the matter.  Therefore, a woman in these extenuating circumstances needs to seek the guidance of her Bishop.  This is no small matter and these decisions could leave the woman vulnerable to straying from the path to Christ through depression, guilt, and a lifetime of pain.  A confirmation from Priesthood Authority that the woman is still in line with the Father can keep her at peace in this trial.

 

Everything you referred to what I said you understood perfectly.  That's the main reason why the LDS faith diverges from the Catholic teaching on this matter.  The Catholic faith has no other way to view such an action but as a sin because the doctrine of pre-mortal life is absent from Catholic teaching.

Edited January 15, 2015 by anatess