Help with debating a Mormon

[Stephen168]

and the Catholic church, QUITE RIGHTLY, is just fine with the injection of methotrexate, …

This is incorrect on two counts:

1. The ‘Catholic Church’ has not ruled on this and probably never will
2. Most Catholic moralist reject the use of methotrexate because it seems too much like murder.
   I know the Mormon Church doesn’t have a problem with murdering unborn babies but the Catholic Church does.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

Judgemental perhaps.

Read the book I already recommended. No one is weaseling. There is a very well laid out method to judging what is moral and not in Catholicism. You are applying your own methods and judgments.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

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…etc. etc. etc.

Firstly, I suggest you read this website:
prolifephysicians.org/

Let us face the truth here: You are conflating two (or more) different ideas. The Mormon church allows for the deliberate, direct killing of an unborn fetus in certain, rare circumstances, and includes personal revelation as part of this process. The Catholic Church never allows for the deliberate, direct killing of an unborn fetus.

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.

Whether or not the use of a procedure is based on a pregnancy diagnosis is irrelevant. The Catholic Church requires that both lives, mother and fetus, be protected. In an ectopic pregnancy situation, what is “the procedure” that will 100% kill the baby? Here is a statement by a group of pro-life physicians:

"*However, if through careful follow-up it is determined that the ectopic pregnancy does not spontaneously resolve and the mother’s symptoms worsen, surgery may become necessary to save the mother’s life. The procedure to remove the ectopic pregnancy may not kill the unborn child at all, because the unborn child has likely already deceased by the time surgery becomes necessary. But even if not, the procedure is necessary to save the mother’s life, and the death of the unborn baby is unavoidable and unintentional.

A chemical abortion with a medicine called methotrexate is often recommended by physicians to patients with early tubal ectopic pregnancies, when the baby may still be alive, to decrease the chances of a surgical alternative being necessary later, but we have found this to be an unnecessary risk to human life…It is only ethical to remove the tubal pregnancy if spontaneous resolution does not occur after watchful waiting and if the physician is 100% certain that there are no twins. At this point, the embryo in the fallopian tube is likely to be dead and, even if not, the death is unavoidable and unintentional, and the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother."*

prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm

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

Is there like a common Mormon source for debating Catholics on their pro-life stance? I’ve seen this argument (about the “fiction”) before on another forum.

See above. There is no one treatment for ectopic pregnancies. Methotrexate can’t be used if there is hemorrhaging, nor can it be used if the fallopian tube is ruptured, since those are contraindications.

Where do you get your information on what the Catholic Church, “QUITE RIGHTLY” is fine with?

*“The majority of Catholic moralists reject MTX and salpingostomy on the basis that these two amount to no less than a direct abortion. In both cases, the embryo is directly attacked, so the death of the embryo is not the unintended evil effect, but rather the very means used to bring about the intended good effect. Yet, for an act to be morally licit, not only must the intended effect be good, but also the act itself must be good. For this reason, most moralists agree that MTX and salpingostomy do not withstand the application of the principle of double effect.” *

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

I could go on, but we’re going wayy off topic, but I’d love to discuss this further, since it is clear that you’re conflating two ideas on what is allowable as far as abortion goes, and whether a procedure that results in the death of the fetus is an abortion and is equivalent to the Mormon allowance of the direct killing of the fetus in certain situations. And speaking of hypocrisy, for us, the Mormon position is not really pro-life, but a type of pro-choice, since it does allow for the mother to choose, in rare situations, to abort the fetus.

 

[PJM]

Indeed, Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies about Him. What has that got to do with what HE revealed to the men HE called to be apostles and prophets?

As well, please remember that Paul was not among the group He is speaking to here. yet Paul was an apostle, a witness—by direct revelation.

2 Cor. 11: “5 I think that I am not in the least inferior to these superlative apostles.”

1 St. Cor. 15: 9 "For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. "

 

[Arandur]

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.

What is it called, then?
We use the qualifiers “direct” or “indirect” for abortion, for instance, because the difference is as severe as that between murder and accident. I hope you would agree that there are differences among types of killing–murder, self-defense, accident have been previously discussed here. We do not permit direct abortion (=murder). Your church DOES, apparently in all three of your instances, but certainly if the mother is “choosing” because the baby was conceived due to rape or incest.

My problem is that I hate weasel words.

What “weasel words” are being used?

I REALLY hate hypocrisy,

What, like claiming you are Pro-Life, claiming you believe the unborn child is an innocent with every right to life, and then permitting the child to be killed because it was conceived by rape or incest? That is terrible hypocrisy right there.

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.

What “different wording?” Words do mean things, so really you must be talking about the concepts behind the words. If the concepts behind the words are the same, but the words or different, then you might have a point. The problem for your case is that the concepts are very different. The Catholic moral position is in every way and every situation truly Pro-Life, while the LDS position is pro-choice under certain circumstances, and unlike the Catholic Church, the LDS apparently have no problem with direct, primary, intentional killing (murder) of unborn children to bring about a “greater good.”

See, the thing is, we Catholics don’t believe that God’s Revealed Truth can ever be changed or contradicted. Since God’s Public Revelation was completed in Christ, we have no escape from it, no chance to latch on to man-made hopes that new “revelation” can be provided to (perhaps conveniently?) change things. How nice for the LDS that God can change to their whims through new “revelation.” We lack such luxury, and so we have nothing to hide behind in cases of difficult or inconvenient morality, like abortion.

 

[zerinus]

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

According to LDS scripture, John and Peter knew; and very likely other Apostles (at least) knew too. First, from LDS scripture:

D&C 7:

1 And the Lord said unto me: John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you.
2 And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee.
3 And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people.
4 And for this cause the Lord said unto Peter: If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? For he desired of me that he might bring souls unto me, but thou desiredst that thou mightest speedily come unto me in my kingdom.
5 I say unto thee, Peter, this was a good desire; but my beloved has desired that he might do more, or a greater work yet among men than what he has before done.
6 Yea, he has undertaken a greater work; therefore I will make him as flaming fire and a ministering angel; he shall minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth.
7 And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James; and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come.
8 Verily I say unto you, ye shall both have according to your desires, for ye both joy in that which ye have desired.

And the Bible indicates that Paul knew too:

1 Corinthians 15:

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

“Sleep” means to die. So Paul knew that not all the Apostles would die; but all of them would eventually undergo a change cosistent with the resurrection. Paul’s statement is significant in other ways too. It suggests that John may not have been the only one to have been promised not to die. Others (not necessary of the Apostles) may have received that promise too—according to their faith.

 

[zerinus]

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 . . .

And what if LDS disagreed with that?

. . . because public revelation is - essentially - God’s revelation of Himself and His nature to the world.

Not really true, is it. Is the elaborate Law of Moses just “God’s revelation of Himself and His nature to the world”? How about the historical books of the Bible? How about the prophetical books? How about the book of Acts, or the epistles of Peter, John, and Paul? How do you explain the diversity of scriptural revelation in the past? If that diversity (and continuity) was necessary in the past, why should it have to end in the future? Are men less in need of divine guidance today than they were before?

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Do Catholics believe that “Divine Guidance” is only through the Bible?

 

[PJM]

=why me;5680094]Saint Paul never called himself Catholic. In fact, the bible never mentions the Catholic Church. And I think that the early Christians would not call themselves Catholic. Now maybe they called themselves the Church of Christ or The Church of Jesus Christ, but not the Catholic Church. They did refer themselves to be saints.

Tradition matters very little if that tradition is false. One must decide if a tradition is false or true.

And how could he, the word had yet to be “invented.” There was only One Chruch at the time, Christ Founded it. Today we know it as the CC.

The Only Church in existance for nearly 1,300 years was the Catholic Church. The Term Catholic was introduced around the year 150 AD. The fianl book had been written about 50 years prior to that.

Please at least a bit of common sense. It took time for the early Church to develope and gain a footing.

 

[AMDGtoo]

The Term Catholic was introduced around the year 150 AD.

Yes, Christ only founded one Church. However, the word “Catholic” first appears in a letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch in about 110 AD. (There were other terms for the Church Christ founded–“Christian”, “The Way”, “Catholic”.) St Ignatius’ letter indicates that by 110 AD the original Christian Church was already well known as the “Catholic Church”. So the Catholic Church really is the “original” founded by Jesus who is God. The LDS church was founded in 1830 by a mere man with a questionable reputation.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

And what if LDS disagreed with that?

LDS are free to disagree with what Catholics believe. But it is necessary to make clear what we believe to discuss the distinction between public and private revelation.
zerinius:

Not really true, is it. Is the elaborate Law of Moses just “God’s revelation of Himself and His nature to the world”? How about the historical books of the Bible? How about the prophetical books? How about the book of Acts, or the epistles of Peter, John, and Paul? How do you explain the diversity of scriptural revelation in the past? If that diversity (and continuity) was necessary in the past, why should it have to end in the future? Are men less in need of divine guidance today than they were before?

I explain the recorded books of the bible as the history of how God went about revealing Himself to the world. It is true that, at its heart, the OT and NT are written records of God revealing His nature to the world. That revelation culminates with the Incarnation and life of Jesus Christ - to which the Apostles bore witness. What’s left to reveal about God that wasn’t revealed in Him?

Peace,
Robert

 

[Javl]

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.

FYI:

There are NO LOST TRIBES of Israel. There NEVER were. Ask any religious Jew. The “Lost Tribes of Israel” was a favorite ploy of Herbet W. Armstrong and his “World Wide Church of God.” ( viz: Anglo-Israelism ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[PJM]

ThuriferAcolyte;5680155]Everything is a mater of interpretation, lol. For Catholics, the rock is Peter. For Mormons, the rock is revelation. For Protestants, the rock is the profession of faith.

And the truth? Drum roll please

Read the Bible even the KJ Bible says it loud and clear.

Its not a lack of understanding. Its a lack of Faith! A lack of actually knowing who and what God are.

Protestants teach about the “attributes of God” but I have never heard a sermon on the Divine Nature, which must include the elements of Justice and Fairness in order for God to be God.

If you had sufficient faith to actually know something about the Divine nature of God, you would find Discover the Wisdom to be able to take the Words of God as SPOKEN BY GOD, who too is Perfect, can’t make a mistake, can’t be unclear unless He notes that it is “story time”.

Mt. 16 is as simple as knowing that God is saying exactly what He means, and means exactly what He says. It is Faith that is lacking, truth in who and what God are.

How difficult is it to comprehend that there was ONLY One Church for nearly 1,300 years. and One Bible that came through this One Church for nearly 1,200 years. That friends is history not Theology. That is fact not fiction. READ IT YOURSELF outloud and ask yourself, what did I just say:thumbsup:

 

[zerinus]

LDS are free to disagree with what Catholics believe. But it is necessary to make clear what we believe to discuss the distinction between public and private revelation.

But as I recall that was not at the center of the OP’s question.

I explain the recorded books of the bible as the history of how God went about revealing Himself to the world. It is true that, at its heart, the OT and NT are written records of God revealing His nature to the world. That revelation culminates with the Incarnation and life of Jesus Christ - to which the Apostles bore witness. What’s left to reveal about God that wasn’t revealed in Him?

Then you either did not understand what I said, or completely ignored it. The Bible contains laws which are designed to tell people how to act to be saved. It contains prophecies that we expect to be fulfilled, which gives us hope. They contain sacred histories which are designed to make us wise in the knowledge of God’s dealings of with man. It contains warnings which we ignore at our peril. Their purpose is not just for God to tell us: “Look at me, here I am!”

 

[dianaiad]

What is it called, then?
We use the qualifiers “direct” or “indirect” for abortion, for instance, because the difference is as severe as that between murder and accident. I hope you would agree that there are differences among types of killing–murder, self-defense, accident have been previously discussed here. We do not permit direct abortion (=murder). Your church DOES, apparently in all three of your instances, but certainly if the mother is “choosing” because the baby was conceived due to rape or incest.

What “weasel words” are being used?

What, like claiming you are Pro-Life, claiming you believe the unborn child is an innocent with every right to life, and then permitting the child to be killed because it was conceived by rape or incest? That is terrible hypocrisy right there.

In all honesty, I am uncomfortable with the ‘rape/incest’ thing. I would not do it. However, the church says that in certain cases, after counseling, it might be permissible in some cases. If I were raped, I would not abort the child. If my daughter were raped, I would encourage her to keep the child…but no rapes or incidences of incest are identical. If my 10 year old daughter were raped, for instance, there is NO way I would oppose an abortion; pregnancy for a child that age is about as life threatening a situation as it is possible to get. It. Depends.

Yes, we are talking about an innocent life when we speak of a child conceived of rape or incest (and frankly, the only incest that could possibly ‘qualify’ here is also a rape) but no matter what happens, that life is the victim of the rapist, not his or her mother.

What “different wording?” Words do mean things, so really you must be talking about the concepts behind the words. If the concepts behind the words are the same, but the words or different, then you might have a point. The problem for your case is that the concepts are very different. The Catholic moral position is in every way and every situation truly Pro-Life, while the LDS position is pro-choice under certain circumstances, and unlike the Catholic Church, the LDS apparently have no problem with direct, primary, intentional killing (murder) of unborn children to bring about a “greater good.”

And there you have the problem. I say that NEITHER DO THE CATHOLICS. They just describe the same procedure at a tangent.

If a Mormon woman is in danger of dying unless she gets a specific medical procedure that will result in the termination of her pregnancy, then that’s what we will call it. A Catholic woman will get the same procedure, but because you call it by a different name, and say that it has a different purpose, it is therefore an entirely different thing?

I don’t think so.

By the way, abortions in the case of rape and incest don’t happen simply because of the motivation behind the rape. The female victim has to have an overriding problem: such counseling is ALWAYS first and foremost to help her keep it, not to talk her into an abortion. You realize that, right?

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, we are talking about an innocent life when we speak of a child conceived of rape or incest (and frankly, the only incest that could possibly ‘qualify’ here is also a rape) but no matter what happens, that life is the victim of the rapist, not his or her mother.

Yes, if a girl decides to have sex with her brother and gets pregnant, the baby is innocent and the Mormon Church has no problem with killing it. That is murder, the produce of Mormon revelation.

If a Mormon woman is in danger of dying unless she gets a specific medical procedure that will result in the termination of her pregnancy, then that’s what we will call it. A Catholic woman will get the same procedure, but because you call it by a different name, and say that it has a different purpose, it is therefore an entirely different thing?

If a Mormon and a Catholic have the exact same operation in the exact same situation, the act will either be murder or an accident depending on what operation they had. And both operations would be called the same thing.

Your Church authorizes the murder of children to try and stay with the current social trends instead of being moral. This is an immoral revelation. When your Church authorized the murder of babies due to the means of their conception, they lost all rational argument with the pro-abortion crowd. If one believes it is OK to murder a baby due to incest, why can’t any woman kill her baby? You have lost ALL moral ground.

This is just one reason I know the Mormon Church has no revelation from God.
Christ gave the Catholic Church all the revelation we need for salvation during his earthly ministry.

 

[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.

OK, let us forget “Why Me” for a moment who said Catholics who go for abortion ignore Church teaching. Simply show me documentary evidence where the Church approves abortion (by whatever name). If what you say is true, it will not be difficult to produce the documents so that we can see whether you understood them correctly.

placido

 

[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).

Thanks, but that has nothing to do with my question.

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.”

Wrong, firstly because even the King James Version no longer uses the phrase “tarry till I come”; secondly, if you go back to the text (John 21:21-23) you will find that Jesus in fact did not say what you allege.

placido

 

[placido]

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.

What you said above is the best explanation I have ever seen on why the Petrine authority was given to Linus instead of John.
If John was “perhaps the most humble of the apostles” who did not draw attention to himself, then taking over from Peter would have drawn attention to him, something (you said) he did not want.

placido

 

[placido]

According to LDS scripture, John and Peter knew; and very likely other Apostles (at least) knew too. First, from LDS scripture:

If John knew and Peter knew and other apostles knew that John would become a “translated being”, then giving the Petrine authority to Linus was the right thing to do because John (soon to become a “translated being”) can not be the head of the church, he has other responsibilities. That is what Parker told me.

placido