LDS view on abortion?

[Tmaque]

j2jensen:

In other words, if you want to know the truth of something for yourself, you must read it, ponder it, and then pray about it. And if you sincerely ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, with a sincere heart, real intent, having faith in Christ, your prayer will be answered. If you are really interested in understanding the teachings of our church, I’d encourage you to apply this principle, as an experiment if nothing else, and see what happens. Read the Book of Mormon, and as you do so, pray for insights. What do you think?

I have done this very thing many times in the last 10 years and have never received any sort of answer from God affirming the LDS Church. Was I insincere? Did I not have real intent for the truth? Did I not have faith in Christ? I have read the Book of Mormon through three times but I have no testimony of it despite my earnest prayers for God to guide me to the truth. Many sincere, holy, prayerful, faithful people have prayed for truth and specifically prayed for the truth of the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church and yet, are not LDS. I know many of them personally. How do you explain this?

The real truth is that there is no need to pray about it because if I don’t get the “right” answer then there’s someone wrong with me…right? The truth is you should pray only if you already believe. But then, if you already believe then why pray for an answer? The power of suggestion is very strong and the mind will usually confirm through feelings what you wish it to. The fact is I have prayed and continue to pray every single day of my life for God to guide me to truth, and he has led me to the Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. But, I still pray for his guidance, and I am continually open to the possibility that I could be wrong. If God opened my mind and heart and showed me the LDS Church was true I would become LDS in an instant. I am entirely sincere, have faith in Christ, and have the real intent for truth. If the words of Moroni Chapter 10 are truly God’s words then why am I not LDS? Does God not want some people to belong to the true church? This makes no sense. But, this is the only logical explanation if you believe the words in Moroni.

 

[tkdnick]

j2jensen:

If, “binding” means you need to do these things to be considered to be following the commandments, she’s right.

I’ll give an example and maybe you (and your lovely girlfriend) can expound…The belief that men become gods and rule their own planets (if they are truly faithful LDS)…I have friends who are adamant that this is the truth without question. I have talked to other LDS who say something to the effect of, “well, there’s eternal progression, but to say that we’ll become gods isn’t right because we don’t know. And we don’t know that we’ll be given a planet to rule over. That is just speculation. We only know that we’ll be exalted and progress forever.” How am I supposed to know what to believe about the LDS beliefs regarding this?

 

[BJ_Colbert]

blueadept:

The leaders of the Bishoporic (bishop, elders president, etc., there’s 4 in each ward(or stake)?) are suppose to have the updated guidelines in dealing with issues like abortion and contraceptions. The way my wife explained it is that there is stuff pertaining to temple duties that I could understand them not releasing to the general public. The bishop here was willing to show me the sections on abortion and contraception.

Needless to say, I have issues with a group that doesn’t have their doctrine published for all to see.

As the other LDS pointed out, and I was thinking while you were all discussing this, our doctrine is basically the Articles of Faith, which details numerically our exact beliefs. There are 13 of them and next to that is the 10 Commandments which we are supposed to follow, and other than that we are supposed to study our scriptures-Bible-Book of Morman-Doctrine and Covenants-and Pearl of Great Price on a daily basis. Our goals are to follow Christ as closely as we can, if we truely follow Him we will not break His commandments. Our doctrine, is our Articles of Faith and following the commandments of God, what more should anyone have.
Are we supposed to have a huge book of doctrine? Or can it be a simple statement of our beliefs? If it can be a simple statement of what we believe, then the 13 Articles of Faith, which are memorized by every child, would be our statement of doctrine.
What is Catholic Doctrine? Is it a large book? Or is it a simple statement of the beliefs of the members of the Catholic Church?
God made the 10 Commandments pretty simple, and I guess when the occasion arises like someone breaking one of the commandments then someone with authority, elaborates on the basic law and establishes ways to handle cases based on individual needs. Each lawbreaker is different and their knowledge of the law is different and therefore the severity of punishment would be different.

---

Tkdnick,
I knew you didn’t mean to sound rude, you are always a real gentleman, and I always appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. You know I would not put myself as God to judge people, it was a misunderstanding of my point. Sorry I wasn’t more clear. Most times I just start writing this stream of conscious and don’t go back to see what I wrote and if it says what I meant to say. I hope this one is clear, but probably won’t be to Catholics.
I hope I understand what Doctrine is, I am thinking it is a statement of beliefs. Is that wrong? If I am wrong then scratch everything I said above about the 13 Articles and 10 Commandments.

BJ

 

[BDawg]

Tmaque:

Wow! Talk about comparing apples and oranges! God, in commanding the Israelites to wipe out entire cities, was ensuring the successful construction of a religious and societal system that would one day bring forth the Christ. Every time the Israelites mingled with other peoples they became corrupted. The only way God could ensure the proper conditions for the Son to come into the world was to have strict rules against any type of association with outsiders. The slaughtering of the people in these cities had a very necessary purpose, however unfortunate for the inhabitants. It was necessary to kill these people in order to bring about their possible Saviour. It was the most merciful thing that God could do for them. That’s Catholic Christian theology. How can you have a problem with a theology you obviously don’t understand?

I see. So it is ok for God to give divine confirmation for people to commit genocide (including pregant women and children), but it is not ok for God to give divine confirmation for a woman who is subject to severe mental or physical trauma to have an abortion. Why? Because the Israelites were forbidden to have contact with outsiders. Boy, that clears everything up! Hey, can you tell me where I can find the “genocide for a higher purpose” section in “Humanae Vitae”?

All sarcasm aside, I find your answers to this problem extremely weak. Tell me why it is impossible for someone to receive divine confirmation that an abortion should occur in EXTREME circumstances, but it is completely acceptable for God to tell people to commit genocide, which would include the termination of unborn babies), just because the parents were wicked.

BDawg

 

[john_doran]

BDawg:

Well, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, isn’t it? I mean, I can argue that when an abortion is authorized in the LDS Church, the intent is not to terminate a fetus, but to save a would-be mother who is in extreme danger because of the pregnancy, or who would be subjected to extreme trauma because of it.

So the question should not be whether I believe the principle of double effect is erroneous, but why you guys are trying to pass judgement on others who apply the same principle slightly more broadly than you.

sure. but then it’s a question of the validity of the application of the principle. i have no idea how the LDS applies it, or even if that’s what it understands itself to be doing.

i can tell you that non-fatal “extreme trauma” to the mother does not, prima facie, seem like a sufficient reason to ground the double effect.

BDawg:

And it is still a word game. We call an abortion an abortion. Terminating a fetus is an abortion. When it happens naturally, it is called a “spontaneous abortion.” The regrettable fact is that sometimes, VERY rarely, an abortion is necessary. Calling it by a different name doesn’t change the nature of the beast.

depends. i would say that “abortion” means something like “intentionally terminating a fetus”, in the way that “murder” is defined as “intentional killing”.

but whatever - it’s irrelevant what you call the event; all that matters is if it’s morally justifiable or not.

 

[blueadept]

BJ,

Yes we do have books that gives an overview of church beliefs, “The Essential Catholic Handbook” or “Catholicism for Dummies” are both easy reads. “Catechism of the Catholic Church” covers our church doctrine very well and can be purchased anywhere. I asked the bishop if I could purchase the book he had somewhere and he said that I had to be a member (LDS) and a priesthood leader.

 

[BDawg]

blueadept:

BJ,

Yes we do have books that gives an overview of church beliefs, “The Essential Catholic Handbook” or “Catholicism for Dummies” are both easy reads. “Catechism of the Catholic Church” covers our church doctrine very well and can be purchased anywhere. I asked the bishop if I could purchase the book he had somewhere and he said that I had to be a member (LDS) and a priesthood leader.

Hi Blue,

The handbook he was talking about is not a book about all of our “official doctrines.” It is the “General Handbook of Instructions” that contains policies and instructions for people who hold various offices. Some of this information is of a sensitive nature. If you want to know most of our “official doctrines,” just read Gospel Principles.

The problem with people who are looking to find fault with us is that, in their minds, various speculations, minority positions, and doctrines that are not fully explained (in every case explained in the moste unflattering terms) are our central tenets. Why are they our central tenets? Because they are the easiest to find fault with!

Here is an example. On this thread, someone is asking why he can’t get a straight answer about the doctrine that people will be “gods of our own planets.” I’ll tell you why. It is definitely LDS doctrine that men can become “gods.” It’s right there in D&C 76, among other places. However, it is not doctrinal that we will become “gods of our own planets.” How should we know what the exact structure will be? Maybe we will be gods of innumerable planets. In the Book of Moses, it says that God has created “worlds without number,” so certainly God the Father is not the God of just one planet. Maybe we live in a “multiverse,” rather than a “universe,” as many physicists are now speculating. The possibilities go on and on. People who want to criticize us like to use this language because it brings God the Father in LDS Theology down to the level of some backwater god of a single planet, when this is clearly not the case. When some of your Mormon friends hear this, they undoubtedly say, “Close enough,” and don’t bother explaining the nuances. Maybe they don’t understand the nuances. Others are sensitive to this sort of negative portrayal, and try to use different language.

Just for the edification of all, I will now quote a saying attributed to Rabbi Akiba (d. A.D. 135), for all who are shocked at the thought that people can become “gods of their own planets.” The doctrine of deification was everywhere in the early Church, and now you will see just how “Jewish” the most extreme form of this doctrine was.

“The Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future call all of the pious by their names, and give them a cup of elixir of life in their hands so that they should live and endure forever. . . . And the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future reveal to all the pious in the World to Come the Ineffable Name with which new heavens and a new earth can be created, so that all of them should be able to create new worlds. . . . The Holy One, blessed be He, will give every pious three hundred and forty worlds in inheritance in the World to Come.” [Midrash Alpha Beta diR. Akiba, BhM 3:32, quoted in Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979), 251.]

BDawg

 

[BDawg]

john doran:

sure. but then it’s a question of the validity of the application of the principle. i have no idea how the LDS applies it, or even if that’s what it understands itself to be doing.

i can tell you that non-fatal “extreme trauma” to the mother does not, prima facie, seem like a sufficient reason to ground the double effect.

Doesn’t “seem” like a sufficient reason to whom? You? How does one decide? For instance, how did the Israelites decide that sticking a sword into a pregnant woman was ok, because the intention was not to kill an unborn baby?

By the way, when I mention this business of genocide in the Old Testament, it makes me very uncomfortable. I don’t like to think about it. However, some of the Catholics here have been pontificating about how awful the LDS policy on abortion is (even though we have a much lower actual abortion rate in the U.S.), and I merely want to point out that the arguments they bring against us fall flat for people who actually take the Bible seriously.

BDawg

 

[tkdnick]

BDawg:

Here is an example. On this thread, someone is asking why he can’t get a straight answer about the doctrine that people will be “gods of our own planets.” I’ll tell you why. It is definitely LDS doctrine that men can become “gods.” It’s right there in D&C 76, among other places. However, it is not doctrinal that we will become “gods of our own planets.” How should we know what the exact structure will be?

And therein lies the problem…that is what you say, but I have had LDS tell me that it is doctrinal that faithful LDS will become gods of their own planets. And I have also had LDS tell me that it doesn’t say anything about being gods, only that we will eternally progress.

 

[tkdnick]

BJ Colbert:

Tkdnick,
I knew you didn’t mean to sound rude, you are always a real gentleman, and I always appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. You know I would not put myself as God to judge people, it was a misunderstanding of my point. Sorry I wasn’t more clear. Most times I just start writing this stream of conscious and don’t go back to see what I wrote and if it says what I meant to say. I hope this one is clear, but probably won’t be to Catholics.
I hope I understand what Doctrine is, I am thinking it is a statement of beliefs. Is that wrong? If I am wrong then scratch everything I said above about the 13 Articles and 10 Commandments.

Hi BJ,
Thanks for the kind comments. I wish I could say that I was being a gentleman in my response, but the truth is that what was written made me really mad. I was truly offended. So I responded in a “less-than-nice” manner. That was my bad.

FOR EVERYONE:
Doctrine/Dogma (from the Catechism): The revealed teachings of Christ which are proclaimed by the fullest extent of the exercise of the authority of the Church’s Magisterium. The faithful are obliged to believe the truths or dogmas contained in divine Revelation and defined by the Magisterium (88).

Doctrine (from Websters): 1: something taught; teachings. 2: something taught as the principles or creed of a religion, political party, etc. 3: a rule, theory, or principle of law. 4: an official statement of a nation’s policy.

I would like to propose this “combined” definition for further discussions of doctrine: Something taught as the principles or creed of religion that the faithful are obliged to believe.

Hopefully that will help clear up for all of us this whole “doctrine” thing.

 

[tkdnick]

BDawg:

If you want to know most of our “official doctrines,” just read Gospel Principles.

So I can hold everything written in Gospel Principles as approved by common consent and as being official LDS doctrine?

 

[wademann]

You know what I heard? Someone told me red M&M’s give you cancer but, somebody else told me it was the blue one"s. That’s it, I no longer believe in M&M’s.

 

[blueadept]

Thanks for the reply BDawg,

Yes, I’ve read Gospel Principles for a year while I was attending church with my wife and you point out that there is sensitive issues that only the bishop’s book contains. When I was investigating the church, “Gospel Principles” gave a very simple understanding of your beliefs which most open-minded person can generally accept. All of your doctrine is easy to accept if you believe that your prophet and leaders will not leave you astray. As an outsider who later found out what the wording for your policies on abortion, contraception, and your belief the Lord will re-institute polygamy in the next millenium. My moral conscious cannot accept these views. Needless to say my wife isn’t estatic about my conclusions to this point.

I would just like to mention that I firmly believe members of the LDS church are the most family-oriented, pro-life, faith community first people that I’ve ever met and I have made a lot of friends at my wife’s ward. But, I have simply found a few stumbling blocks in accepting my wife’s faith.

 

[BDawg]

And therein lies the problem…that is what you say, but I have had LDS tell me that it is doctrinal that faithful LDS will become gods of their own planets. And I have also had LDS tell me that it doesn’t say anything about being gods, only that we will eternally progress.

“Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God.” D&C 76:58

“For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.” D&C 132:17

So I guess that some of the people you talked to are ignorant. Fair enough? Now, if you can show me anything in our scriptures about how people will be “gods of their own planet,” you can call me ignorant.

BDawg

 

[BDawg]

tkdnick:

So I can hold everything written in Gospel Principles as approved by common consent and as being official LDS doctrine?

I know of one or two instances where GP incorrectly stated something, and had to be corrected in a later edition. But these were minor issues. For the most part, your assumption would be correct, however.

Isn’t it about the same for the Catechism? I seem to remember there were some teachings about limbo, and whatnot, in the Baltimore Catechism that were removed in later editions because they weren’t considered “official doctrine.”

BDawg

 

[tkdnick]

“Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God.” D&C 76:58

“For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.” D&C 132:17

So I guess that some of the people you talked to are ignorant. Fair enough? Now, if you can show me anything in our scriptures about how people will be “gods of their own planet,” you can call me ignorant.

Thanks for the quotes. I doubt I could find anything in your scriptures about becoming a god of your own planet. And my aim certainly wouldn’t be to call you ignorant anyway.

Just to make sure I am clear…as an LDS you are obliged to believe if they are faithful they will become gods. However, you are not obliged to believe that you will become a god of your own planet.

 

[Chris-WA]

BDawg:

I see. So it is ok for God to give divine confirmation for people to commit genocide (including pregant women and children), but it is not ok for God to give divine confirmation for a woman who is subject to severe mental or physical trauma to have an abortion. Why? Because the Israelites were forbidden to have contact with outsiders. Boy, that clears everything up! Hey, can you tell me where I can find the “genocide for a higher purpose” section in “Humanae Vitae”?

All sarcasm aside, I find your answers to this problem extremely weak. Tell me why it is impossible for someone to receive divine confirmation that an abortion should occur in EXTREME circumstances, but it is completely acceptable for God to tell people to commit genocide, which would include the termination of unborn babies), just because the parents were wicked.

BDawg

Look, your argument is basically that God can command anyone to do anything because He is in fact, God. This is true, but the question is, knowing what we know of the scriptures and of salvation history, would God command/confirm someone to have an abortion? Your comparison of what you call Old Testament genocide and a woman having an abortion is absurd. By your logic, we could say that God could command us to do any evil, at which point we would have to ask ourselves if the “confirmation” we received actually came from God, or more likely, from Satan. Is that the kind of God you believe in? Think about that before you respond. By what you say, we would make God capable of any evil, and then we start praying to Him about it to see if it’s alright.

 

[tkdnick]

BDawg:

I know of one or two instances where GP incorrectly stated something, and had to be corrected in a later edition. But these were minor issues. For the most part, your assumption would be correct, however.

Isn’t it about the same for the Catechism? I seem to remember there were some teachings about limbo, and whatnot, in the Baltimore Catechism that were removed in later editions because they weren’t considered “official doctrine.”

Cool, so it’s safe to say that if it’s in GP it is believed by the LDS faithful?

You got me on the Catechism…I am not old enough to have any knowledge of the Baltimore Catechism. I have heard that the Baltimore Catechism was very simplistic and didn’t do a great job explaining things. I do know that the the current Catechism has been declared “a sure norm” for the faith by Pope JPII. I can’t imagine it being changed any time in the forseeable future.

 

[BDawg]

tkdnick:

Thanks for the quotes. I doubt I could find anything in your scriptures about becoming a god of your own planet. And my aim certainly wouldn’t be to call you ignorant anyway.

Just to make sure I am clear…as an LDS you are obliged to believe if they are faithful they will become gods. However, you are not obliged to believe that you will become a god of your own planet.

Yep.

BDawg

 

[BDawg]

tkdnick:

Cool, so it’s safe to say that if it’s in GP it is believed by the LDS faithful?

Yep.

BDawg