Is a vasectomy or getting your tubes tied an abomination to God and His plan?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Having children is a very personal decision, but God commands us to multiply and replenish the earth and D&C 132 promises a continuation of the seeds forever for those who are exalted, so is a man getting a vasectomy and a woman getting her tubes tied a slap in the face to God's plan for us, or is it a personal decision and God would be ok with a vasectomy if the man doesn't want children or anymore children? Or is that playing God?

Edited by Zarahemla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church strongly discourges against any permanent surgery in this area. There is a difference of motivation with "I want no kids" mentality, in comparison to "We have "x" kids and don't think we can afford or handle anymore."

Personally, I don't want to stand before God and have it revealed to me that I should have had more kids, or should I get this type of surgery and then receive a prompting or a witness that a child that should have been received in our home wasn't.

One could say, any form of "open rebellion" is a slap to God's face, especially if an individual has received witness and then rejects the witness.

Edited by Anddenex
encourages changed to discourages (very important)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As near as I can tell, the Church's official position on birth control is that it is up to the couple to decide, and that whatever decision a couple comes to is okay -- not some kind of slap in the face to God or anything like that.

I'm pretty sure that there is a small paragraph (unless it has changed recently) in the CHI that recommends against "permanent" forms of birth control -- the reasoning I have seen given is because of possible regrets later if the couple changes their mind (and only the couple themselves can know if that is a possibility). Even though, as noted by the previous posters, that the Church discourages it, I am unaware of anyone being subject to any kind of church discipline for choosing permanent birth control like this. In my mind, it all comes down to the couple's choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is NOTHING that I know from the canon scriptures of the LDS doctrine (so, Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and PoGP) that say anything against those items per se, at least as interpreted by the LDS scripture.

NON-LDS, and more as per the interpretation of scripture from our Baptist friends as well as our Catholic friends comes the story of Onan.  In the 19th century someone did NOT like what the REAL interpretation of the story was and changed it to relate more to self-arousal thus creating the word Onanism.  The LDS church in some ways still perpetuates this myth and still utilizes the background of the word and ideas as well as the 19th century craze in it's own liturgy today.  This is one of several reasons why certain actions are considered a minor offense today that will prevent one from going to the temple or participating I priesthood duties in many instances if they are engaging in this type of action.  This was a craze that overshadowed the real theme and moral of the story, but it was NEVER forgotten by the Catholics and is one of the reasons (they have several others as well) they have been against birth control very steadfastly through the years.

Now this story is from the Bible, and is a little explicit, so in keeping with the terms of the forum, I am not going to post the scripture here, but will post a link to the story (or you can look it up in Genesis 38: 8-10.

Genesis 38: 8-10

AS per the story's interpretation prior to the 19th century and in many other churches, it can be read to be specifically focused on an early form of birth control.  The Real reason Onan was killed was because he disobeyed the Lord, specifically by ensuring that he would not have children or conceive children.  It is also a form of birth control that is used today by those who do not want to use superior technology for birth control that we have available.  That method is NOT as good at prevention, but it is still a method some practice.

That said, as we are LDS, though there may be some discouragement, there is nothing that I know of that is of any condemnation or states that you have done any sort of sin if you practice any form of birth control, including that of having a vasectomy or having one's tubes tied.  It is a personal decision, but nothing in current LDS doctrine, that I know of, condemns you for having these things done to you or another.  AS far as I know, you are not committing a sin when you do this, as per LDS beliefs today, but it is a weighty decision that can have lasting consequences, so should be taken with forethought of the future (which it sounds as if you have already thought about and done).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Yes, but that was in Canada

Cheeky! Canada, land of the heathen. 

I have to say, leaders here can be really cool. When I returned to church I was not with the program. I had a boyfriend who did sleep overs. I was called to an important calling and talked things over with my bishop. What a cool dude. He gave me some great advice and I put things in order. A great man! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"

Surgical Sterilization (Including Vasectomy)

The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer."

- Church Handbook 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

From Handbook 2:

Surgical Sterilization (Including Vasectomy)

The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer.

Edited by lds_person_0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I stated it above.  While it may be discouraged, there is nothing that actually condemns it.  There are many things that are discouraged or not encouraged, but you can still be a worthy member with a temple recommend if you have been a party to them.

If I look at a historical similarity, we could look at the Word of Wisdom when it was originally issued.  It was not something that prevented you from being a member in full standing back then if you did not adhere to the word of wisdom.  That came later.  Originally, you could drink coffee and other things, and still be a member in good standing.  It was advised that you do not do certain things, but nothing in it said that you would be a member in bad standing if you did such things (and we even know an apostle or two and even a prophet or two on occasion that did it rather openly). Discouraged is not the same as whether one is allowed or not to allow someone to do something.

I do not agree it is only "allowed" in certain circumstances.  We should not write more into what is already written, lest we become tyrants and practice our authority unrighteously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God has given us the ability to create human life, possibly the greatest of the Godly powers he has shared. And he gives this power to virtually everyone. Therefore, people take this most sacred gift and think it common. They make vulgar jokes about it and use it as a form of recreation. Some, in their lust to have their fun without the bitter and unfortunate consequence of, you know, creating human life, willingly destroy this gift. It's like carefully scraping all the steak off of the salt.

I can't verbalize well how strongly repulsive the very idea of sterilization seems to me. I understand that it may be a medical necessity (or at least highly advised) in some uncommon cases, but even then it seems akin to the loss of a limb. That people could treat the topic in such a cavalier manner astounds and frustrates me.

I believe that if we had any true, heartfelt understanding of what this gift of God is to us, those who follow Christ would be loath to part with it, and would do so only under the most pressing circumstances.

To those who say, "Well, you can still get a temple recommend!", I respond, "So what?" Temple recommend worthiness represents the bare minimum level of righteousness we as Saints should be expected to meet. That's hardly the bar we should be striving for as our ultimate goal. That's like being content with graduating from kindergarten or with having learned our letters.

No one answers to me. I would not condemn anyone for sterilizing himself or herself, even if I could. So my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it. But there it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Vort said:

<snip>

I can't verbalize well how strongly repulsive the very idea of sterilization seems to me. <snip>

No one answers to me. I would not condemn anyone for sterilizing himself or herself, even if I could. So my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it. But there it is.

This is how I see it...

We need to strive to see the best in people instead of the worst.  I had this discussion on FB a few days ago where someone said they are creeped out by Viktor Krum, who is said to be 18 years old, asking Hermoine Granger, who was at that time 14 or just turned 15, to the Yule Ball.  This surprised me so I replied... it's a dance, why is it creepy?  And people responded, because it's assumed that they want to have sex after like in an American prom.  This is very disappointing.  People tend to see the worst of other people and just assume they're morally bankrupt people.

There are sooooooo many ways to prevent pregnancy these days that sterilization - especially for women who have to have their stomach cut open to get it done - is quite drastic.  It would be easier to assume people going through it as good people in bad situations rather than people being repulsive (clarification - I didn't mean that you said people are repulsive... I know you meant the idea of you having a vasectomy is repulsive.  My husband feels the same way so much so that our dogs are intact.)

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

If I look at a historical similarity, we could look at the Word of Wisdom when it was originally issued.  It was not something that prevented you from being a member in full standing back then if you did not adhere to the word of wisdom.  That came later.  Originally, you could drink coffee and other things, and still be a member in good standing.  It was advised that you do not do certain things, but nothing in it said that you would be a member in bad standing if you did such things (and we even know an apostle or two and even a prophet or two on occasion that did it rather openly). Discouraged is not the same as whether one is allowed or not to allow someone to do something.

Not a good example.  The WOW wasn't required in the beginning out of mercy - to give people time to adjust.  You don't need that when it comes to deciding to have a vasectomy or tubal ligation for non-health reasons.

(not explaining this well but hopefully you get the idea - maybe someone else can chime in with a better way to put it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, my two cents said:

Not a good example.  The WOW wasn't required in the beginning out of mercy - to give people time to adjust.  You don't need that when it comes to deciding to have a vasectomy or tubal ligation for non-health reasons.

(not explaining this well but hopefully you get the idea - maybe someone else can chime in with a better way to put it)

Well that's not true, the WOW was just that Words of Wisdom.  Not a commandment. Joseph F SMith and Heber J Grant were a teetotallers, Joseph F smith was beating the no Alcohol drum in the early 1900's, and had plenty of opportunity to "ban" it in his life time but didn't.  However with prohibition becoming the law of the land IMHO Heber J Grant took it as an opportunity to establish the WOW as we now practice it. Prohibition began in 1920, and in 1921 Strict adherence to the WOW became a requirement for temple attendance.  

For the record I believe in adherence to the WOW, but reject the idea that it took the saints 100 years to warm up "give people time to adjust" to the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@omegaseamaster75 - I was basing what I said on this quote found in YW manual 1, lesson 38: 

“The reason undoubtedly why the Word of Wisdom was given—as not by ‘commandment or restraint’ was that at that time, at least, if it had been given as a commandment it would have brought every man, addicted to the use of these noxious things, under condemnation; so the Lord was merciful and gave them a chance to overcome, before He brought them under the law. Later on, it was announced from this stand, by President Brigham Young, that the Word of Wisdom was a revelation and a command of the Lord. I desired to mention that fact, because I do not want you to feel that we are under no restraint. We do not want to come under condemnation” (Joseph F. Smith, in Conference Report, Oct. 1913, p. 14).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, Handbook 2, Section 21.4.15, reads:

Quote

21.4.15 Surgical Sterilization (Including Vasectomy)

The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation

That reads to me like this is a weighty decision that should be approached with all soberness and gravity.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

For the record, Handbook 2, Section 21.4.15, reads:

That reads to me like this is a weighty decision that should be approached with all soberness and gravity.

Yes.  I don't think there are many people who would go under the surgical knife without looking at it in soberness and gravity.  Even if it is just for the purpose of removing a swollen appendix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes.  I don't think there are many people who would go under the surgical knife without looking at it in soberness and gravity.  Even if it is just for the purpose of removing a swollen appendix.

True. But the wording in the Handbook seemed to portray a decision to sterilize oneself as deserving of significantly more sober thoughtfulness and divine revelation than a decision to remove an infected appendix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Vort said:

<snip>

I can't verbalize well how strongly repulsive the very idea of sterilization seems to me. <snip>

When @anatess2 quoted Vort in this manner, am I the only one who squirmed a bit?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share