Editor’s Table: A Vital Question

EDITOR'S TABLE. A VITAL QUESTION. A physician who desires to "know the gospel," which he is convinced is true, asks that he be given a correct answer to an important question, that he may learn the consistent position to be taken on the matter from the standpoint of a Latter-day Saint. He states that, being a physician, he is in a position to hear expressions directly from individuals themselves, upon the question which he considers truly vital. It is upon the subject President Roosevelt has denominated ra^e suicide. The doctor is authority for the statement that a great many people, even among the Latter-day Saints, hold to the view that parents should control the size of their families; that they should not be the means of bringing children into the world unless "they are able in every way to provide for their children's wants in keeping with modern requirements;'' that prevention of birth is justifiable, even where parents are in strong physical health, provided criminal measures are not resorted to. He admits that, without doubt, there are ways by which it is possible, without resorting to recognized criminal measures, to limit one's family practically as absolutely as is being done in France. He then asks, "Is it proper and right in the sight of God for parents intentionally to prevent, by any means whatever, the spirits, the sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father, from obtaining earthly tabernacles? I have, of course, only reference to parents lawfully married, and specifically to Latter-day Saints." In a general way, and as a rule, the answer to this question is an emphatic negative. I do not hesitate to say that prevention

960 IMPRO VEMENT ERA . is wrong. It brings in its train "a host of social evils. It destroys the morals of a community and nation. It creates hatred and selfishness in the hearts of men and women, and perverts their natural qualities of love and service, changing them to hate and aversion. It causes death, decay, and degeneration instead of life, growth, and advancement. And finally, it disregards or annuls the great commandment of God to man, ' 'Multiply and replenish the earth." I am now speaking of the normally healthy man and woman. But, that there are weak and sickly people who in wisdom, discretion and common sense should be counted as exceptions, only strengthens the general rule. It is not necessary to go into detail concerning the wisdom of prevention in these cases, only to say that in my estimation no prevention, even in such cases, is legitimate except through absolute abstinence. There is also a kindred evil which has far too many advocates among the young men of the Church. It is the growing tendency to delay marriage, often ending in final celibacy. This is growing to be one of the greatest social evils of our country, and its baneful influence has not escaped our own people. This affects most those who can financially best afford to marry : the so-called better and more intelligent class of young men, the thrifty class, from whom it is perhaps most to be desired that they should be the parents of the coming generation. Good authorities have said that except by emigration there is almost no increase of population in this country. Statistics testify that nearly half who are born, die before maturity; and that therefore to maintain our present population, which in America can in no sense be said to be over-crowded, it is the duty of every physically mature and mentally and morally sound man to marry and have children. But what is the fact? There are multitudes of married people who through selfishness and prevention either have no children, or at most one or two; and in addition to this, there is an increasing number of men who delay marriage until they become celibates, which often means moral degenerates. In a land of opportunities like ours, it is not legitimate for men holding these qualifications to excuse themselves, on financial grounds, either for delay in marriage; or, married, for prevention of the birth of children. It is a cowardly