Help with debating a Mormon

[RebeccaJ]

Oh, it does.

And so does the Catholic church. After all, Catholics are not pacifists. Catholics will defend their homes with deadly force. Catholics will go to war. Catholics will make difficult choices when life and death situations are in front of them.

It is not the ending of human life that is intrinsically evil, Stephen. It is the reason for doing so that can be.

It is not arbitrary as what you have going here. If you want to understand Catholic morality, not just tell us what you think it is, I recommend “Morality: The Catholic View”.

 

[Stephen168]

I am willing to concede that abortion is intrinsically evil–to the exact degree that ending a human life is intrinsically evil, especially since at the bottom that is precisely what abortion is; the ending of a human life. It seems to me that the same things that justify ending the life of a human born would justify ending an unborn life.
Stephen168;5699957:

Too bad the Mormon Church doesn’t agree with you anymore.

Oh, it does.

And so does the Catholic church. After all, Catholics are not pacifists. Catholics will defend their homes with deadly force. Catholics will go to war. Catholics will make difficult choices when life and death situations are in front of them.

It is not the ending of human life that is intrinsically evil, Stephen. It is the reason for doing so that can be.

It seems we have been talking about two different terms. Homicide is the killing of another human being. There are three sub categories of homicide: murder, self defense, and accident. Murder is the willful killing of an innocent human being. Self defense is the willful killing of a human being while in the act of defending ones own life or the life of another. Accident is the killing of a human being with no intent to kill them. The Catholic Church accepts self defense and accident; while the Mormon Church has no problem with murder.

 

[placido]

JAVL,
Isaiah may have known about the New World, by revelation or by visions. God certainly knew about the entire world and every person in the world. He would be equally concerned about every person in the entire world, and His plan and His love would include every person in the world (not just the world known to the Jews). He could inspire prophets to write a word meaning “all” and mean exactly that.

Now, Acts 2:5 says “Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem”. Does that mean there were in Jerusalem devout Jews from Mozambique, devout Jews from New Zealand, devout Jews from Mongolia, devout Jews from Taiwan, devout Jews from Cuba, devout Jews from Swaziland etc? Or were those nations not “under heaven”?
Remember, you said you “let the words mean what the words say”.

placido

 

[placido]

Of course they are allowed in the Catholic church. They are simply called something else.

Abortion allowed in the Catholic Church? That is shocking news to me, and I have been around for close to 50 years. Where exactly is the evidence showing that abortion is allowed in the CC but simply called something else?
I need that evidence urgently. My life depends on it.

placido

 

[why_me]

It is not arbitrary as what you have going here. If you want to understand Catholic morality, not just tell us what you think it is, I recommend “Morality: The Catholic View”.

It is not that much different from mormon morality. You need to convince the more liberal protestant sects to get on board the morality bus, not mormons.

 

[why_me]

Abortion allowed in the Catholic Church? That is shocking news to me, and I have been around for close to 50 years. Where exactly is the evidence showing that abortion is allowed in the CC but simply called something else?
I need that evidence urgently. My life depends on it.

placido

Many catholics have abortions whether allowed or not. And that is the point. The teaching of the catholic church is this instance is ignored by many. And that is the point too. Instead of worrying about what the mormons believe, catholics should be concerned with catholics having abortions and address that issue.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Many catholics have abortions whether allowed or not. And that is the point. The teaching of the catholic church is this instance is ignored by many. And that is the point too. Instead of worrying about what the mormons believe, catholics should be concerned with catholics having abortions and address that issue.

The teachings of all religions are ignored by many of their “followers”.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Abortion allowed in the Catholic Church? That is shocking news to me, and I have been around for close to 50 years. Where exactly is the evidence showing that abortion is allowed in the CC but simply called something else?
I need that evidence urgently. My life depends on it.

placido

She is claiming that any procedure that results in the death of the fetus is an abortion, and brought up ectopic pregnancies.

 

[placido]

It is not the ending of human life that is intrinsically evil, Stephen. It is the reason for doing so that can be.

IMHO, what is intrisically evil is the killing of an innocent person, no matter the reason offered as cheap excuse. In any abortion, the baby is always innocent. Therefore, abortion (the killing of an innocent baby) is always intrisically evil.

placido

 

[John_Larocque]

Many catholics have abortions whether allowed or not. And that is the point. The teaching of the catholic church is this instance is ignored by many. And that is the point too. Instead of worrying about what the mormons believe, catholics should be concerned with catholics having abortions and address that issue.

I am sure you will find instances on the LDS side of the fence where people selectively follow the Word of Wisdom (no smoking, drinking, coffee/ tea) but ingest a lot of meat. Granted, the taking of human life is much more serious than the rate of obesity in the Jello Belt, but it was the best retort I could think of. Anyway, with that nastiness and hitting below the (Jello) belt out of the way, I agree with the principle, look in the mirror before casting stones.

The LDS position on abortion is scarcely different than most mainline evangelical Protestants. It’s not perfect, and the differences have been noted here. But in the broader strokes I think they are in large part they are on the same page as Catholics. We should note the differences but also take stock of the places of agreement.

Also, I think most Catholics are unaware of just how spiritually demanding an active LDS life is. At least three hours of church on Sunday, Family Home Evening and I think another day set aside as well. They’re stricter on tithing and a bunch of other things. Compared to the LDS (and the Eastern Orthodox for that matter), fasting rules in the Roman Catholic church are minimal. Temple recommends (required for those go to temple) are only given to members in good standing. I’m not saying this makes LDS better Christians, only recognizing what we call active and what they call active are not quite in the same league.

 

[placido]

Many catholics have abortions whether allowed or not. And that is the point. The teaching of the catholic church is this instance is ignored by many.

Illogical. It is like saying the USA government allows theft and murder simply because some American citizens do steal and kill, ignoring the laws of the country.

And that is the point too. Instead of worrying about what the mormons believe, catholics should be concerned with catholics having abortions and address that issue.

Catholics are concerned with Catholics having abortions, but to see that you will have to go beyond a thread titled “Help with debating a Mormon”.

placido

 

[placido]

Many catholics have abortions whether allowed or not. And that is the point. The teaching of the catholic church is this instance is ignored by many.

That was haste retreat from what you claimed earlier. Where you confidently claimed that abortion is allowed in the Catholic Church (simply given another name), you are now saying Catholics who have abortion ignore Church teaching. In other words, church teaching does not allow abortion by whatever name.
Thank you very much for that public admission.

placido

 

[Stephen168]

Many catholics have abortions whether allowed or not. And that is the point. The teaching of the catholic church is this instance is ignored by many. And that is the point too. Instead of worrying about what the mormons believe, catholics should be concerned with catholics having abortions and address that issue.

The point is the fallacious belief mormons have about the need for new revelation. I’m not worried about what the mormons believe because most of it is an irrational mess of ideas thrown together. I believe this mess is caused by men who think they provide new revelation from God. The most recent example of the fruits of this fallacious revelation is the idea it is OK to murder unborn babies. Other fruits are canonizing works of fiction believing they were non-fiction at the time.

Do you have any idea why the continuous revelation idea is necessary when Christ left us with his Church, the Catholic Church, and everything we need to know for salvation?

 

[placido]

“Apostasy” in the dictionary definition means “abandonment of what one has voluntarily professed.” When men said that Linus had more authority than John while John was still alive, then those men were abandoning what they had voluntarily professed, which had to do with following Christ and His new covenant gospel in its purity and simplicity, including sustaining the authority of the apostles and not saying someone else had more authority.

And since according to you apostle John is till alive and yet he is not the current President of your church, neither is he one of the 12 apostles, then we can confidently say you have abandoned the covenant gospel and its purity and simplicity.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

And since according to you apostle John is till alive and yet he is not the current President of your church, neither is he one of the 12 apostles, then we can confidently say you have abandoned the covenant gospel and its purity and simplicity.

placido

Placido,
Good logic, except that John became a “translated being” so although he is still alive and still testifies of the living reality of Jesus Christ, his mission is among the lost tribes of Israel and takes place in quiet ways. Christ, who holds the keys, gave John a different assignment when he was changed into being a “translated being” than when he was going about teaching the people and trying to help them “get it right” as an apostle among those who knew him.

Since being translated, in his work and mission he doesn’t identify himself, and rightly so or that would be like a “sign” and would not be for the best good of the person he helps.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It is not that much different from mormon morality. You need to convince the more liberal protestant sects to get on board the morality bus, not mormons.

whyme, morality as being discussed is not about “getting on the bus”, it is about understanding how Catholics determine what is moral and what is not. Obviously it is much different from mormonism otherwise, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.

 

[placido]

Placido,
Good logic, except that John became a “translated being” so although he is still alive and still testifies of the living reality of Jesus Christ, his mission is among the lost tribes of Israel and takes place in quiet ways.

I will return to this point later, but first tell me: did John know (and did contemprary believers know) before hand that he was to become a “translated being”?

placido

 

[dianaiad]

Abortion allowed in the Catholic Church? That is shocking news to me, and I have been around for close to 50 years. Where exactly is the evidence showing that abortion is allowed in the CC but simply called something else?
I need that evidence urgently. My life depends on it.

placido

It is called something else. Let us face the truth here: ‘abortion’ is the ending of the life of the unborn child. Whether it is deliberate or not, that’s what it is. Anything that results in that death, especially when that life is ended as a result of a medical procedure designed to help/cure the mother, is an abortion, because it results in the death of the child. I believe this is especially true when the chances of the child dying are close to 100%, and the condition that the woman needs to be cured of was caused by the pregnancy in the first place.

Now the Catholic church says that the medical procedure required to help the woman may result (unfortunately) in the death of the child, but since the object is to cure the woman, not kill the baby, then it’s not an abortion–even if the procedure is 100% certain to kill the baby, and even if the mother’s illness was caused by the pregnancy and the medical procedure would not have been required if the woman were NOT pregnant.

Such as in ectopic pregnancies. Or when the woman begins hemorrhaging.

You are aware that ectopic pregnancies, if caught in time, are often treated by “stopping the growth of the fetus” (hey, that’s called “killing it”) so that the fallopian tube (or wherever the fetus has implanted) may be saved for future use. When a 'tubal pregnancy" is too far advanced, surgery has now come far enough along so that the fetus can be removed and the fallopian tube spared or repaired so that the woman can become pregnant again if she wishes. It is only when the pregnancy becomes too far advanced that the entire fallopian tube (and perhaps the ovary and some surrounding organs) must be removed along with the fetus.

…and the Catholic church, QUITE RIGHTLY, is just fine with the injection of methotrexate, or the surgical removal of just the fetus, and not making the mother wait until any chance of having more children is gone, just to keep the fiction that the purpose of the surgery is to remove the ruptured fallopian tube, not the removal of the fetus.

My problem here isn’t that I think abortion is just fine and dandy. I personally do not think so. Even when it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother, it’s not ‘fine and dandy,’ but a tragedy…and there is no need to add theological guilt to a mother who is both in danger of losing her life, and about to mourn the loss of the child–especially when the choice is not “mom dies or baby dies,” but “baby dies now or both die in the next few hours.”

My problem is that I hate weasel words. I REALLY hate hypocrisy, and I see that some Catholics on this forum are precisely that; hypocrites. They will criticize the LDS view of things, but will practice the same sort of decision–but hide it behind different wording.

Just call me cynical if you want to, but I call 'em as I see 'em.

 

[ParkerD]

I will return to this point later, but first tell me: did John know (and did contemprary believers know) before hand that he was to become a “translated being”?

placido

Placido,
John 21:21 shows that Peter asked the Savior a sincere question about what was going to happen to John. (He had just been told what to expect in his own personal life–that is, “by what death he should glorify God” (v. 19).

So Peter evidently was curious about John, his fellow apostle. Curiosity is a natural thing. Peter asked the question on his mind. “Lord, what shall this man do?”

Jesus responded with another question, a kind of mild chastising that was in a way saying, “Peter, you asked about John but that is my business, not your business, to know.” He did, however, give Peter a hint, using the words “tarry till I come.”

I don’t know whether Peter ever learned more than that about what was going to happen to John. Peter would certainly have been aware that Elijah was “taken up into heaven” and that “Enoch was not, for God took him.” So he may have understood the concept of a “translated being.” But he would also be aware that the Savior had told him in essence to not worry about John’s mission, but to focus on his own mission as an apostle.

John may or may not have known. He was perhaps the most humble of the apostles. He didn’t draw attention to himself at all. He didn’t write about it, which would be exactly characteristic of him not to write about it. Whether he knew or not, he didn’t say.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I’m having a friendly debate with some Mormon friends and the argument they kind of have me stumped on is their concept of continuing revelation. Obviously, as Catholics, we believe that everything we need for salvation has been revealed by the Deposit of Faith and that we don’t need ongoing revelation.

I mention the fact that Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the church and they say that means the Holy Spirit would continue to provide revelation to the church and the fact that the Catholic church relies on councils to determine things proves that we don’t have the spirit revealing the truth to us.

I think you need to make the distinction between public revelation and private revelation. Catholics believe that all public revelation ended with the death of the Apostles because public revelation is - essentially - God’s revelation of Himself and His nature to the world. What greater revelation is necessary than for God to take on a human nature and suffer death on a cross for our sake.

The guidance of the Holy Spirit is distinct from revelation. The Holy Spirit is present and guides the Church in her mission to protect and pass on what has been revealed by God. The Church could not carry out this task without the constant protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit - but this guidance and protection does not require further revelation of God and His nature. It protects what has already been fully revealed in Christ. It is the Holy Spirit that guided the Church councils and the Holy See from the beginning. It is not a body of men acting outside of the Holy Spirit’s influence, but rather, it is the Church acting in reliance upon that guidance.

Private revelation is given to individuals and does not bind the faithful. But it is present to build up the faith of the person and of the whole Church. Revelations like the Divine Mercy are good for the Church, but they add nothing too, and take nothing away from what God has already revealed to us.

Peace,
Robert