Birth Control: From “Shall Be Damned” to a Private Decision
In 1916, a First Presidency-endorsed body of teaching condemned deliberate birth limitation as sinful and a heinous crime with eternal consequences. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now says birth-control decisions rest solely with each married couple and instructs other members not to judge them.
The short answer
Did Church leaders condemn deliberately limiting births?
Yes. Apostles’ 1916 articles condemned deliberate birth limitation, and a signed First Presidency letter endorsed them. Later statements preserved health qualifications while continuing to oppose artificial limitation by healthy couples.
The defining contrast
Heinous crime. Solely the couple’s decision.
The earlier source prescribed the choice and connected it to salvation and exaltation. The present source continues to urge parenthood but assigns decisions about contraception and their consequences to the married couple.
“Those who attempt to pervert the ways of the Lord, and to prevent their offspring from coming into the world in obedience to this great command, are guilty of one of the most heinous crimes in the category. There is no promise of eternal salvation and exaltation for such as they.”Relief Society Magazine 3, no. 7, pp. 367–68
“Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple.”“Birth Control,” Topics and Questions
Institutional weightJoseph Fielding Smith’s paragraph did not remain only one apostle’s published opinion. On December 13, 1916, the First Presidency gave its “unqualified endorsement” to the July and August articles and commended their sentiments to members and nonmembers everywhere.
The early record
A command, a moral classification, and an endorsed warning
The July 1916 issue presented the views of five members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles under the heading “Birth Control.” Their statements differed in emphasis, but they agreed that deliberately restricting births violated divine purpose.
Restriction was treated as sin, not neutral stewardship
Rudger Clawson called restricting the number of children “sinful” and said a woman should exercise procreation “to its utmost limit.” George F. Richards called the movement “pernicious and an abomination.” David O. McKay attributed most efforts to vanity, passion, and selfishness, while adding that the mother’s health should be guarded.
Smith wrote that spirits needed mortal bodies, eternal increase crowned exaltation, and preventing births therefore frustrated the command to multiply. He did not limit his warning to abortion; his subject was limiting a family to one or two children.
“Unqualified endorsement”
The magazine’s editor asked whether the articles’ attitude and doctrine—“with special reference” to Joseph Fielding Smith’s article—were in harmony with the First Presidency. Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose answered: “We give our unqualified endorsement to these articles” and commended their sentiments broadly.
The signed letter ends after the endorsement. The next sentence calling the material “the word of the Lord” is the editor’s commentary, not language inside the First Presidency letter. This case does not attribute that phrase to the Presidency.
The claimed consequences
From “one of the greatest crimes” to “shall be damned”
The warning continued after the 1916 endorsement. The sources attached consequences to healthy couples who intentionally curtailed births, while preserving qualifications about health and inherited illness.
The physical-health qualification was explicit
Addressing the Relief Society’s general conference, Joseph F. Smith called curtailing births “a crying evil” and “a crime wherever it occurs” when husband and wife possessed health and vigor and were free from conditions that would be passed to their children. He concluded: “I believe this is one of the greatest crimes of the world today, this evil practice.”
The statement did not condemn every decision to avoid pregnancy under every medical condition. It did condemn deliberate limitation by healthy couples and predict later disappointment.
Eternal increase and loss of the Spirit
In “The Law of Chastity,” Smith wrote that married people who refused the command robbed themselves of “the greatest eternal blessing” and shut themselves off from eternal increase. The warning targeted those who willfully avoided the responsibilities of parenthood, not couples unable to have children.
Bruce R. McConkie reprinted this passage in Joseph Fielding Smith’s Doctrines of Salvation, volume 2 (Bookcraft, 1955), pp. 85–89. McConkie supplied the topical arrangement and the heading “Birth Control Leads to Damnation”; the quoted sentence itself appeared in Smith’s 1931 article.
“Those who wilfully and maliciously design to break this important commandment shall be damned. They cannot have the spirit of the Lord.”The Improvement Era 34, no. 11, p. 644
The position described as fixed
The institutional opposition continued beyond 1917
Later publications repeated the earlier reasoning, and a 1969 First Presidency letter still classified artificial birth limitation as contrary to Church teaching. The chronology makes a private-choice reading of the earlier position untenable.
- Doctrines of Salvation, volume 2
Joseph Fielding Smith’s warnings were collected and republished
Read the accessible volume scanSmith was president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles when Bookcraft published McConkie’s arranged selections. The volume called birth control wickedness, reprinted the 1917 health-qualified warning, and included Smith’s own “shall be damned” sentence. It was an influential doctrinal compilation, not a canonized standard work or Church handbook.
- Mormon Doctrine · second edition · p. 86
McConkie said the Church’s position “remains fixed”
“God’s decree and the counsel of the prophets remain unchanged. … Amid all the cries and pressure of the world, the position of the true Church remains fixed.”
Read the archived second editionMcConkie was a member of the First Council of the Seventy in 1966; he did not become an apostle until 1972. The book was his authored reference work, not canon or an official Church manual. Its relevance is narrower: it presented the opposition as the Church’s unchanged and fixed position.
- First Presidency letter · April 14
Artificially preventing births remained contrary to Church teaching
“Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children.”
Read the 1971 official magazine reprintThe letter, sent to bishops and stake presidents, repeated the physical-health qualification and said practitioners would “reap disappointment by and by.” A May 1971 Ensign article reproduced it and summarized: “The Church … is against birth control.”
The current rule
Parenthood is encouraged; the decision belongs to the couple
The current sources assign contraception decisions to the couple rather than prescribing opposition to it. They do not call contraception wickedness, a crime, or grounds for damnation.
Topics and Questions: “solely” the couple’s decision
The topic says physically able married couples have a privilege and responsibility to bring children into the world. It discourages postponement for selfish reasons, but says family size and timing are private.
“Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple.”
It tells couples to consider both parents’ physical and mental health and their capacity to provide basic necessities. It separately rejects elective abortion as a method of birth control.
Read the current topic ↗“Extremely personal and private”
“The decision about how many children to have and when to have them is extremely personal and private. It should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.”
The handbook discourages elective surgical sterilization, including vasectomies and tubal ligations, but says even that decision is ultimately a personal matter left to the husband and wife’s judgment and prayerful consideration.
Read General Handbook § 38.6.4 ↗What changed
Authority, moral category, consequences, and discretion
The change concerns who determines the choice, how contraception is classified, and what consequences leaders attach to it.
Decision-making authority
Earlier leaders prescribed the correct choice for healthy couples. Current sources assign family size, timing, and birth control to the couple before the Lord.
Moral classification
Deliberate limitation moved from sin, abomination, iniquity, and grave crime to personal discernment. Current policy does not condemn contraception as such.
Stated consequences
Earlier sources warned of lost salvation, exaltation, the Spirit, and eternal increase. Current sources speak of the couple’s accountability without prescribing damnation.
Relevant considerations
A narrow physical-health qualification expanded into express consideration of both parents’ physical and mental health and their ability to provide for children.
What remained
The Church still teaches a responsibility to welcome children
The current topic still invokes the command to multiply and replenish the earth, calls children central to God’s plan, and says physically able couples have a blessing, joy, and obligation to bear and raise children. It cautions against postponing this blessing for selfish reasons.
Current policy also discourages elective surgical sterilization and opposes elective abortion as birth control. Those continuities concern the value of children and selected practices. They do not reinstate the former general condemnation of contraception or transfer the decision back to Church leaders.
New Testament context
Marriage, singleness, provision, and judgment
The New Testament does not discuss modern contraceptive methods. Its relevant contribution is narrower: it does not make maximizing births a condition of salvation and recognizes more than one faithful Christian calling.
1 Corinthians 7:3–8, 32–35
Intimacy is reciprocal; singleness is legitimate
“Each has his own gift from God.”
Paul presents marital intimacy in reciprocal terms and then treats marriage and celibacy as legitimate callings. His argument does not reduce marital relations solely to procreation or require biological parenthood from every faithful Christian.
Read in the ESV ↗1 Timothy 5:8
Providing for a household is a serious duty
“Provide for his relatives.”
In its immediate context, the verse concerns care for widowed family members. It does not establish a preferred family size, but it does treat material provision as a real household obligation—one of the considerations the current Church topic now names.
Read in the ESV ↗Romans 14:10–13
Believers are warned against judging one another
“Let us not pass judgment on one another.”
Romans 14 concerns disputed practices rather than contraception. Its nonjudgment principle therefore supplies context, not a direct birth-control rule. The wording closely parallels the present handbook’s instruction to members.
Read in the ESV ↗The Church’s current page also cites Genesis 1:28 and Psalm 127:3 to affirm the command to multiply and the blessing of children. Those texts support the value of parenthood; neither states that a married couple who limits conception will be damned. Biblical quotations above are from the English Standard Version.
Finding
The moral rule and the location of authority materially changed
The earlier record does more than encourage children. Apostles classified deliberate limitation as sin and grave crime; the First Presidency endorsed those articles without qualification; Joseph F. Smith repeated the condemnation as Church president; and Joseph Fielding Smith attached loss of the Spirit and damnation to willful refusal.
The present Church still encourages parenthood, but it no longer prescribes opposition to contraception as the required choice. It assigns birth-control decisions and their consequences to the couple, broadens the considerations they may weigh, and tells other members not to judge. That is a substantive change in authority, moral classification, and stated eternal consequence.
Sources and limitations
Read the record
The central historical language was checked against page scans, including the complete signed First Presidency letter and the surrounding qualifications. Current wording was checked on the Church’s live topic and handbook pages on August 29, 2026.
The 1916 and 1917 claims rest on contemporaneous magazine scans and a signed First Presidency letter. The 1931 “shall be damned” wording was verified in Joseph Fielding Smith’s original article, not only in its 1955 republication. Doctrines of Salvation and Mormon Doctrine were influential authored or compiled works, not canonized scripture or official handbooks. McConkie was a member of the First Council of the Seventy—not yet an apostle—in 1966. This audit found no current official source that acknowledges and explains the shift from the earlier First Presidency-endorsed condemnation to the private-decision policy.